House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend hits on an important point. One of the problems in this Parliament is that someone who does not agree with the line of the Executive or the shadow Executive cannot get on to such Committees. That happens because Whips nominate the membership of Committees, but a side benefit of my Bill would be that that would end, because there would be no Whips.

Unlike in many other countries, the Executive live within Parliament, rather than outside it. They propose from within Parliament, and sit, live and breathe within it. Over the years, people have therefore sought election to Parliament not to become Members of Parliament, but to become Ministers. They want to be either a Minister in government, or a shadow Minister in opposition. In the vast majority of cases, people who are elected to the House of Commons want to be a Member of Parliament not for its own end, but as a method to become a Minister. That gives enormous control to Government and Opposition Whips. If someone proposes to exercise their judgment against what the Whips want, they will rapidly be given the threat that their career will be over and they will never become a Minister—I think that I have probably qualified for that advice.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that leads to a form of creeping patronage? Mechanisms such as negative briefings are also used, and I was subject to a hostile Culture, Media and Sport briefing that was sent around. That goes to the heart of a culture in the House that undermines the integrity of individual hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is not quite correct. The Question on the motion was put, but because nobody expressed dissent, it was carried by the collection of voices. Many of us who returned especially to vote on that were delighted that there was no opposition.

My argument about that day is that the Whips should not have attempted to influence support for the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, as the debate was Back-Bench business. The Whips should simply have butted out. The Bill would make it impossible for such pressure to be applied in the future because Members of Parliament could not be Whips. Instances of such behaviour abound and we all know several Members whose careers have been significantly affected by the actions of the Whips Office. It is, sadly, a simple fact of parliamentary life that even the size of the room a Member gets depends on how much they have pleased the Whips. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is still in a shoebox.

As for disinformation, let me give the House an example, particularly in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I know that Whips deliberately misinformed hon. Members about the facts relating to the new Backbench Business Committee by sending out an e-mail out that claimed the Committee always held its business on a Thursday and decided the topic under discussion only a few days before. That was sent out by the Whips as authoritative fact, although it was completely and utterly untrue. It was intended to rubbish the new Committee because that Committee put business before the House that the Whips did not want to see debated.

It is astonishing to think that in an age where employees have more rights than ever before and workplace bullying has, thankfully, become increasingly unacceptable, Members are still treated in such a manner. If I were to treat my staff in this way for even an instant I would, quite rightly, be taken to an employment tribunal, yet it is through these often underhand methods that Whips ensure that the Executive line is strictly obeyed, and that the public are therefore denied the independent-minded Members of Parliament and, indeed, the Parliament that they deserve.

The situation is worse in coalition Governments, as Whips often force Members to vote in totally the opposite way to what their party manifesto stated on issues that they stood on at the last election. Although Liberal Members signed a pledge before the last election not to increase tuition fees, they were forced by their Whips to do completely the opposite when they were in government. Equally, Conservative Members who stood on a platform opposing the alternative vote were forced by the Whips to vote for a Bill on a referendum for the alternative vote system.

Let me give a personal example of Whips’ tactics. In the last parliamentary term, on 30 March 2011, a Whip sent out an e-mail, which I will read out:

“I regret to have to inform colleagues that we are all required tonight after 7pm on a strict 3-line whip with respect to a Motion by the Leader of the House to which an amendment has been tabled by Mr Peter Bone and others so it is now votable. Unless you have previously been slipped by me, your presence is required.”

The e-mail was sent out to every Conservative Member of Parliament. Not only did it cause great embarrassment, but it was factually incorrect and misleading—another example of misinformation. The e-mail received an understandably negative response from my colleagues, including a Minister who had to return from an important meeting because of the Whip’s action. After I contacted many of my colleagues and explained the true situation, they were appalled that the Whips had ever sent out such an e-mail. What was so outrageous was that the Whip was trying to influence Members of Parliament about a matter relating to House of Commons business which was of no concern to the Executive and entirely the responsibility of Parliament. Of course, though, that is insignificant compared with some of the other episodes in which the Whips have involved themselves.

That is not to say that all Whips behave in such a manner, and nor is it to say—this is a response to an earlier intervention—that the Whips do not perform useful functions, but it is the Whips Office that performs those useful functions. We do not need Members of Parliament to be Whips. We can get civil servants, who are currently employed in the Whips Office anyway, to carry out the administrative necessities. There is nothing that the Whips do that could not be done by civil servants, if there was a business of the House committee. The only thing left for them to do would be the strong-arming tactics of trying to tell people how to vote.

[Dr Wollaston]

rose—

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

Oh, ladies first.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend. In these challenging financial times, has he estimated how much this would cost the taxpayer, and does he think that it would deliver value for money?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend hits on a good point that I am going to deal with a little later. Clearly, though, the system does not provide value for money at the moment.

Parliamentary Reform

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.

Let me say a little about some of the specific proposals that I would like us to consider, not in the expectation that all hon. Members will agree with them, but just to put some ideas out there about how things could be changed. One change could involve electronic voting. I know that there will be a sharp intake of breath as I say those words. I have looked back at previous times when we discussed the issue in the House, so I do not expect an easy ride on it, but this is a time when we could consider it again, not least because it has been estimated that £30,000 of salary could be saved every week because of the amount of time that MPs waste while waiting to cast votes. We are talking about an hour and a half or more extra because of the way we vote. To put it another way, if a vote takes about 15 minutes and if, in the previous Parliament, there were about 1,200 votes, that means that an MP with an 85% voting record would have spent 250 hours just queuing up to vote. Those are hours that taxpayers have paid for, and I argue that they could be better spent studying amendments, scrutinising Bills or helping constituents.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

We also waste a great deal of time—certainly I do—running from the chilly outer reaches of Norman Shaw North and back again. That causes disruption to meetings with colleagues and constituents.

[Caroline Lucas]

As a fellow inhabitant of Norman Shaw North, I share the hon. Lady’s pain. At least it gives us a bit of exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I join the many speakers who have congratulated the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate. Having read her paper, I thought that I would come here struggling to agree with any of it, but I stand here convinced by much of what has been said, and that has shaped what I am about to say.

I want to home in on two distinctions. There is a developing theme here about what we do as opposed to how we do it, and that is reflected in the other distinction, which is between public attitude to what we do and public interest in how we do it. Those two things can get confused, and sometimes the political and public reaction to circumstances further blurs the issue.

I shall dwell, to begin with, on what we do. What lies at the heart of this is something that other speakers have mentioned: credibility—our credibility, Parliament’s credibility and Members’ credibility in the eyes of the wider public, which goes back a lot further, I suggest, than The Daily Telegraph expenses scandal last year. Looking back—some would argue over generations—there has been a gradual decay in the wider public’s confidence and trust in the parliamentary system and, indeed, in parliamentarians. However, that cannot necessarily be pinned—as some people have suggested—on the style in which we do things in this House. I suggest that it is more often than not all about what we do, and about whether what we do is relevant to voters—rather than to MPs—and relevant in the 21st century rather than in any other context. Perhaps the political reaction, by all parties, to one or two of the dramas of the past few months—namely, expenses—simply serves to illustrate that.

As a mere candidate, I read about how the parties reacted to the expenses scandal and was depressed by the fact that we seem to get obsessed with the cost of politics rather than its value, with thinking that the cure to all this is simply to introduce a new system, to start talking about Lords reform or about new voting mechanisms. I am not absolutely sure whether that was a mistake, or simply an attempt to distract people from what was going on, but with such measures, for example voting reform—enthusiastically supported by some but not by others—AV referendums or, as in my case, the referendum on further powers for the Welsh Assembly, the public reaction is pretty lukewarm at best, whichever side of the fence people sit on. They are shaking their heads and thinking, “This is not what we were concerned about. We were concerned about something much more fundamental—relevance, rather than self-indulgent activity by politicians.”

If there was a refrain on the part of voters during the election campaign, I would suggest—although I might be alone in this—that it was far more often about good government than cheap government, and that lies at the heart of this distinction. Good government is relevant government—relevant to voters rather than to MPs. We have been, and continue to be, punished for what is occasionally portrayed as self-indulgent activity. We are punished in two ways: either by a really angry reaction, which is manifest in several ways on a day-to-day basis; or, worse still, by people saying, “A plague on all your houses. We are simply turning our backs on the parliamentary system and on politicians, because we don’t think you represent our interests any more.” That reduced confidence in our systems is a much more serious problem perhaps, than some of the issues about the way in which we do things.

I argue, therefore, that how we do things is less important than what we do, but that does not mean that that is not important at all. When I stood up, I mentioned to the hon. Lady—may I call you Caroline, perhaps, after today?—that I sympathise with the suggestion of amendment explanations. It is a great idea. When we put forward amendments from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, they came with a paragraph that explained to people on that very Committee what we were seeking to achieve. That was a great move.

The point about pre-legislative scrutiny is crucial. We had an argument with the Executive at the beginning of this Session because we had not had sufficient time to afford pre-legislative scrutiny to one or two of the constitutional reform Bills, and the Government’s response was, “We can’t give the 12-week minimum pre-legislative scrutiny all the time because we’d never get anything done.” I do not buy that—nor, I suspect, do many other people—because all that happens is that we do nothing for 12 weeks, and we have seen with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that what the Government gained in the first 12 weeks by not affording pre-legislative scrutiny has caught up with them now in the form of the blockage in the House of Lords. I therefore accept, although I did not think that I would, the points being made. Committee stage, which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) mentioned in an e-mail earlier today, provides a bit of certainty and additional scrutiny, and we should recommend it.

I have two further points, which, one might argue, are even less important than the ones I have made so far: language and tradition. In my distant outpost in west Wales, of all the complaints that I might have received about parliamentarians and Parliament in general, tradition and language have not been mentioned often, if at all. In fact, I think that we have to tread carefully when it comes to destroying, or dismantling, some of the theatre of this building and the system that we use. I disagree with the notion that standing in a Lobby for 15 minutes every so often is time entirely wasted or that tradition is always to be interpreted as a dirty word, and I urge a bit of caution. Of course modernisation is the direction of travel that we should be going in, but let us take it at a steady pace, because it does not lie at the heart of the problems that we seriously need to address.

I say all that after an informative visit to the Scottish Parliament with our Select Committee only last week. I also have a little experience—I would not put it any stronger than that—of how business is conducted in the Welsh Assembly. I attended, with other hon. Members, First Minister’s questions in the Scottish Parliament and, with no disrespect to our hosts, it was arguably a rather soulless affair. There was lots of button pressing and lots of individual desks and laptops with people situated behind them. There was no interaction, theatre or energy. Even though the contributions were powerful and relevant, there was not the degree of theatre that I think, up until this Wednesday at least, we enjoy here.

[Dr Wollaston]

Would my hon. Friend accept the word “pantomime” instead of “theatre”?

[Simon Hart]

On the basis that the First Minister was sitting at the front and everybody was behind him, I suppose that there was a connection with that word. However, I felt that this week’s Prime Minister’s questions was a bit like going to the Oval to watch the cricket, only to find that it had been rained off and having to sit under an umbrella waiting for something to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—who is, of course, much better known as Caroline Lucas—on her excellent debate. I do not wish to repeat the many points that she has made, and instead I will refer to a few things such as creeping patronage, new politics and the role of the payroll vote. I agree with the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). What is a Back Bencher for? We exist not only to represent our constituents, but to hold the Executive to account. It is disturbing that about 235 hon. Members out of 364 coalition MPs are on the payroll vote, and there are a floating number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries—around 45 because the number varies.

I want to share my experience. I was elected by an unusual process because I came to this job through an open primary. I have no doubt that I was selected because I have no track record in politics. I have 24 years’ experience in the health service, and I have experience in education and as a police surgeon treating female victims of domestic and sexual violence. That is why I am an MP, and I promised that I would come to Westminster to stand up for the NHS.

Shortly after I arrived—I am probably not allowed to say this—I was approached and asked whether I would like to become a PPS. I went to the Library and asked for a briefing on the job description, because there are no job descriptions in this place. I was told that I would have to leave the Health Committee, never speak on health matters and always vote with the Government.

How could I justify that to my constituents in Totnes? How could I look them in the eye if I chose my own professional advancement? It is a Faustian pact. I would have welcomed the opportunity to spend more time quietly behind the scenes, perhaps with Ministers, influencing policy, but in reality that does not happen. I had to make a decision, which is wrong. I have no objection to the principle of a PPS, because one can see how a Minister might lose touch with what is happening on the Back Benches. However, I profoundly object to the fact that people have to make a choice and always vote with the Government. I believe—I hope that hon. Members agree with this—that there is something profoundly toxic in that.

Now that I have committed career suicide, I may as well go in for a penny as in for a pound. One of the more bizarre experiences I had when I arrived as a new MP was the call from the Delegated Legislation Committee. I had a call about an exciting Committee that was discussing double taxation in Oman. I know nothing much about single taxation, let alone double taxation—my constituents can rest assured that I shall not be applying for the Treasury Committee or called to the Treasury. I sat through that Committee, and I sent a worried note to the Whip in charge, wondering whether I had been put on the right Committee. I received a note to say that my only duties were to turn up on time, say nothing and vote with the Government.

Hon. Members can be confident that nobody died as a result of my knowing nothing about double taxation in Oman. However, could the same be said for the Health and Social Care Bill? I would have liked to have been on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, because I genuinely feel that one of the reasons why I was elected to the House was to apply my experience in medicine and medical education to the scrutiny of that Bill. The thing that I have found most enjoyable and most useful in this place, apart from representing my constituents, has been serving on the Select Committee on Health, which provides an opportunity for a real cross-party, close examination of the issues, and I would like to think that that would be the same for Public Bill Committees.

When I suggested to the Whips that one reason why I wanted to be on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee was so that I could table a few amendments, I effectively—[Laughter.] I examined the list for the Bill Committee and saw that my name was missing. Many members of the Committee have a genuine interest in health matters, which I welcome, but I regret to say that several members have no experience in, and have never expressed any interest in, health or social care. The country should be concerned about that. I put it to the Procedure Committee that we not only examine the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and remove them from the payroll vote while retaining their only important role, but examine Public Bill Committees. Our legislation would be much stronger if the people examining Bills—

[Mr Carswell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution to the problem is to ensure that all sitting Members of Parliament, particularly those in the Whips Office, are subject to open primaries, if they want to be the party candidate at the next election?

[Dr Wollaston]

What a marvellous idea! Obviously, I say that open primaries are a good idea, and they have an important role in establishing a bit more credibility for the House. Yes, the process is expensive, and my selection was criticised, but I see no reason why we cannot combine open primaries, perhaps for several candidates and parties at the same time, and why that cannot be done through secure electronic voting or a series of public meetings. The process does not have to be vastly expensive, and it would certainly improve our accountability. Of course, I have to play the role that I set out on the tin. I stood as a Conservative, and that means that on the vast majority of occasions I will vote along Conservative lines, but with the important proviso that I have to represent a broader constituency. I have to take into much greater account the feelings of my constituents from across the board. What has been suggested would be a very valuable way forward. That is a little vote from me for open primaries, but as I have said, I must declare an interest.

Returning to Public Bill Committees, I do not think that the job description for a member of a Committee should be to turn up on time, say nothing and vote with the Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Summer Adjournment

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Many Members this afternoon have laid claim to the industrial revolution. Totnes cannot lay claim to that, but it undoubtedly has the finest beaches and countryside in the land, and I hope that many Members will visit us over the summer.

If any of our visitors get into deep water or find themselves drifting off to France, they will doubtless believe that they can rely on the coastguard to protect them. I want to draw to the House’s attention a serious incident in that regard. On 28 June, four teenagers went swimming shortly before 8 am, and they got into difficulties in a rip current. A call was made from Bigbury coastguard to Brixham coastguard requesting the attendance of the Hope Cove lifeboat. The reason for that request was that the Hope Cove rescue boat was just 3.1 miles away and could have covered the distance in 14 minutes, including muster time. The coastguard chose not to send it out, however, because the Hope Cove rescue boat has had unilaterally imposed upon it an arbitrary and very small distance in which to operate.

That decision was not taken on the grounds of cost. In fact, it costs far more to send the lifeboat from Salcombe, which is 11 miles away and takes 27 minutes to get there. Nor was the decision based on a sensible worry about the cost of operating the Hope Cove rescue boat, because a generous benefactor sent a cheque for the entire running costs to the coastguard, which was returned. The decision had no basis in common sense. Had it not been for a person passing in a kayak who pulled one of the teenagers unconscious from the water, that teenager would, sadly, have died rather than just spending a day in intensive care.

The local community has requested, through a solicitor, to see a transcript of the recording of the call from the Bigbury coastguard to the Brixham coastguard. After all, we are not talking about a passing member of the public making this recommendation; it was made by the Bigbury coastguard itself. That request has been refused, even though the information was requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would like to know what is the point of that Act if it is not to call public bodies to account, to cut through and say, “Where is the decision-making process and what was it based on?”. I am calling—and I hope the House will support me in doing so—for Her Majesty’s coastguard to release that information.

I know that many other Members wish to speak so I will be brief, but the other point here is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has kindly offered to visit and see the situation for himself. He has given an assurance that he will not close down the rescue boat without doing that. There is no substitute for seeing conditions in person on the ground. I hope that the Minister will give us a date for his visit. We are expecting at last the barbecue summer that was promised us last year. We are expecting many visitors to the South Hams and we would like them to be safe. In the interest of public safety, we call for the rescue boat at Hope Cove, which is so valued by the entire community, to be safeguarded and not to have the Maritime and Coastguard Agency wash its hands of its responsibility by seeking to devolve all responsibility for safety at sea to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), as what she said will help greatly.