Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this, and I agree that it is important that we have a debate. He could apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate, or he could come along with me to the Backbench Business Committee on Monday and make a bid for a debate in Back-Bench time.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

First, I thank the Leader of the House for his assistance in seeking answers from the Ministry of Defence on the issue of nuclear test veterans.

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to column 638W of Tuesday’s Hansard, where the Home Office confirmed that almost 5,000 children hold shotgun licences, including 26 10-year-olds, 72 11-year-olds and 134 12-year-olds? Will he ask the Home Secretary to contact the Association of the Chief Police Officers to find out why there are so many licences and whether the rules should be checked again, and then come to the House to make a statement?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and commend his energy in finding these important pieces of information. The Government are committed to a debate on our gun laws following the tragic shootings in Cumbria in July. That debate will be an opportunity to consider all aspects of gun legislation, including the age limits that he touched on.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the due process that needs to be gone through. I believe that we need a due process in relation to the Boundary Commission, because it might proceed incorrectly according to the rules that are laid down for it, it might proceed in a partisan manner or it might not consider all the factors that need to be considered. That is why we have heretofore always had a system of public inquiry, and not just written reports being sent in. That is essential for there to be utter confidence in the process that the commission goes through. He is absolutely right that there is also, sometimes, a process of judicial review. I suspect that if the Government push through the Bill in the partisan way that they are doing, without any provision for public inquiry, the likelihood of a judicial review being sought in many constituencies in the land will be very high indeed.

The hon. Gentleman might say that that is a good reason why the Minister needs even more power to draw constituency boundaries as he thinks fit. Unless the Government can be shifted from this view—whether that happens in this House or in the other House—we shall almost inexorably end up with no due process, other than the recourse that people might have to the courts.

The Minister will probably tell us that the Government need this power because apostrophes and commas are sometimes put in the wrong place and there are inadvertent errors. That is why the amendment, which was tabled by several members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, is perfect: it simply says that the Minister, if he or she wishes to make any modification, must return to the Boundary Commission and ask, “Are you okay with this amendment?” If Ministers were in a conciliatory, cross-party mood, they would accept the amendment.

I fully understand that the precise wording they propose is that of the current legislation. That is fine when due process can go on after the boundary commissions have done their work—for example, public inquiries, where the public can have their say on the boundary commissions’ proposals. Where that does not happen—that is the intention of the Bill, although it is something that we shall return to later—it is important that there is a bind on Ministers, so that they are not entirely free to dream up any kind of modification that they might want; otherwise, strictly speaking in law, I guess that Ministers would be perfectly at liberty, if they felt that the boundary commission had got something slightly wrong and representations were made to Ministers, to make such modifications as they thought fit.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is familiar with the situation in the United States, where there is no boundary commission and state legislators draw up in a partisan, political way each state’s congressional districts. Does he agree that we are starting down a slippery slope and that we will end up with a partisan political set of redistricting—to use the American phrase—if the boundary commission’s authority is not protected?

[Chris Bryant]

That will happen not just if we do not have the boundary commission’s public inquiry process, but if this element of the Bill remains without the amendment. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States of America, because there is a redrawing each time, there are many instances where the incumbents effectively draw boundaries to protect themselves. Therefore, two Hispanic communities that might be thought to vote Democrat could be linked, because boundaries must be contiguous, by a single side of a road, thus creating bizarrely shaped constituencies. That is why, as I am sure hon. Members know, one of the congressional districts in Massachusetts that was drawn up by Governor Elbridge Gerry in the 19th century was shaped like a salamander—hence the term “gerrymander”. In fact, it looked more like an eagle than a salamander.

This provision, as constructed in the Bill, will specifically allow Ministers to gerrymander. It is entirely partisan. It will allow Ministers—indeed, it encourages them—to be partisan. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), says from a sedentary position what I have already said. He says, “We aren’t changing anything.” He says, as I have said, that the provision is in the existing legislation—it is—but if he would just listen to the end of the paragraph, he would understand and learn that, in fact, the difference between the legislation that he is advancing and the existing legislation is that he will allow no due process. There will be no public inquiries. Consequently, I do not think that the electorate will have confidence in the way the commission draws up boundaries and, thereafter, in the way that Ministers are allowed by their legislation to make such modifications as they see fit.

The Minister may be able to satisfy my concerns by saying that there is legal provision to prevent a member of the Government from doing anything that the Boundary Commission disagrees with, but I do not think he will be able to, because I cannot see where the Bill or any Act makes such a provision. That is why we wholeheartedly support the amendment presented by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. We believe intrinsically that it is one of the most important amendments to the Bill, and I do not know whether she intends to press it to a Division, but if she does not we certainly shall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

I do not wish to speak for too long, because we need to get on to the Government’s plans for the immolation of the Duchy of Cornwall. However, I do want to speak in favour of amendments 364 and 259. I want to focus on the rationale for the move from 650 MPs to 600. Like many other Opposition Members, I am in favour of broader equality between the electorates in our constituencies, and as a result, I am potentially in favour of a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. However, as we have clearly seen, if anyone could have come up with a way not to do it, it would be the Bill before us.

We have heard from the Deputy Leader of the House that the intellectual rationale behind the move from 650 to 600 was that it was an arbitrary number, but seemed to have some magic. I am no scientific rationalist, but it seems to me that that might not be the most sophisticated way in which to develop public policy—particularly on something with such dramatic consequences. I suggest that if we are to move from 650 to 600, we need a greater purpose than that.

If we wanted to begin the process with some degree of intellectual consideration, we might begin to think about the role and function of Members of Parliament—what we want them to achieve, and their roles in the community and in the House. We might think about demographic changes, the move from market towns to cities, migration or citizenship. We might think intelligently about the future, and what the role of the Member of Parliament should be in it. As a result of such consideration, the number of Members of Parliament might go up or down. Having worked out that fundamental principle, we might begin to think of a point to which we wanted to head, over the course of Parliaments—but we might not have pulled all that together in a shoddily constituted Bill, rammed through this place with no pre-legislative scrutiny, especially as it deals with what I would have thought was a rather important matter of public policy for this House, and as we respect our democratic traditions, which are admired right around the world.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend’s knowledge is second to none in this House. Can he tell me, as someone who is not as knowledgeable, whether he can think of an example from the past when there has been a review of the number of constituencies that has been as rushed or ill-thought-out as the one that we now face?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. My lack of historical knowledge comes to the fore, because I can think of no other example. Perhaps the Rump Parliament would come to mind, or some other innovations during the 1650s. I think that we are seeing certain Cromwellian attributes appearing among those on the Government Benches. Like many others, I am new to this place, but I understand that we used to hear a great many lectures from Members who are now in government about the right to discuss public policy at length and not to have it rammed through.

The Conservative manifesto, about which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke so eloquently—unlike some of his colleagues, he actually still believes in what he stood for at the election—suggested reducing the number of Members of Parliament to 585, while the Liberal Democrat manifesto went for 500 seats. On the principle of compromise and the coalition agreement, one would have thought that they might bisect the two figures—that there might be a rationale for 542 or, if we are generous, 543, to allow the Isle of Wight to remain whole. But no, they have gone for the magical figure of 600, without any real rationale.

Some of the arguments this evening have been about making politics cheaper. Without making a cheap joke, I think that the coalition has made politics cheaper. It has cheapened public debate by reneging on pretty much all its other manifesto commitments over the past few months. We are told that this is potentially going to save £12 million—but we have not been given the costings for the packing of the House of Lords, which is proceeding as we speak. We do not know the full costs of the referendum. It is particularly apposite, on a day when we have heard about so many cuts in other parts of the budget, that we are allocating money to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

This is a cross-party discussion. We are all here in the Chamber having an open, cross-party discussion. There has not been very much time to consider the Bill, but there have been several months. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has examined it, and we have all received e-mails, letters, papers and so on from people around the country who are concerned one way or the other. There has been consultation—that is why we are here. The debate that we are holding at this very moment is consultation. It is right that we have that discussion, and that the House makes a decision about numbers.

I put it to the Committee simply that 600 is a perfectly reasonable number. It is hard to argue against it unless one is doing special pleading on behalf of one’s constituency or county. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central spoke eloquently about our country’s development, traditions and communities. Communities and traditions develop once boundaries are drawn. My constituency has a part in the north and a part in the south that have little in common with one another, although they are not far apart. However, they join together as a constituency and a district. If another part comes in or goes out, that becomes the community. Communities evolve, and nothing in the Bill will destroy the traditional counties of England.

[Thomas Docherty]

I thank the hon. Lady for being as gracious as ever in taking interventions. Obviously, she and her new-found Liberal Democrat friends are passionate believers in localism. How does not holding public inquiries and arbitrarily forming constituencies sit comfortably with her idea of localism?

[Mrs Laing]

I did not say that I was particularly concerned about localism. I am concerned about the equalisation of the size of constituencies. Perhaps some of my colleagues are concerned about localism, but I am far more concerned about democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I have been insulted many times in this Chamber, but I have never, ever been compared with IPSA before. I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is proper consultation. Opposition Members speak as if the Boundary Commission is not involved in the process, but it is, and it has three years to do its job. It is perfectly capable of doing that job. The resources are in place and there is no problem.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am fascinated by the hon. Lady’s new-found passion for quangos, which is perhaps a good description of the Boundary Commission, because it is unelected. However, does she accept that crucially, the Government are removing the public inquiry and the right of local people to give their input when the Boundary Commission has produced a report? That is not liberal or democratic, and it is not in the finest traditions of the Conservative party.

[Mrs Laing]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but with respect, he is wrong. Very few local people made representations to boundary commissions in the last review and the previous one; most representations were made by political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

I shall make some progress. I recognise that the coalition has proposed a slightly different figure, but it still represents a reduction and I am happy to support it.

The second argument that has been advanced relates to whether we should have a fixed number of seats. We have heard a great deal of enthusiasm for the current rules, although I am not sure how many Members have read them. As I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), they allow the crossing of county boundaries. However, Members may not be aware that the Boundary Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life implored the previous Government to change those rules because they are contradictory, confused and muddled. Therefore, some of the enthusiasm that we have heard for the current rules is misplaced, and it is not unreasonable for Parliament to take a view on what the size of this House should be.

I am not a lawyer, but I can say that the amendment standing in the names of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), among others, is defective. It seeks to amend the first paragraph of proposed new schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 in a way that would wholly contradict proposed new paragraph 2(3) of that schedule, which would define the United Kingdom electoral quota in a completely different way.

The third point to deal with is the assumption expressed by Labour Members that a reduction in the number of constituencies and, thus, larger constituency sizes will lead to seats that less reflect community identity. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how this measure will work, because although that assumption will be true in some cases, in others the measure will lead to constituencies that better reflect community boundaries. Under these proposals, instead of having three MPs covering my London borough of Croydon, we would have three and a half, so the new seats would be likely less to reflect community identity in Croydon. However, the next-door London borough of Bromley covers three and half constituencies and that would reduce to three, which would doubtless better reflect community identity.

[Thomas Docherty]

I understand that the approach will be to start at the south coast of England and work north, so there will be no understanding at all; even within London, that is how it will work.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is incorrect. I understand that this will be looked at on a regional basis; the work will be done in the nine regions of England and then in the other nations of the United Kingdom. The work will not be done all across the country—I think that that would be technically impossible to carry out.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the safety of those in buildings. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and see whether he can respond to the point that my hon. Friend has made.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Ministry of Defence when it plans to come to give a statement on the compensation payments for nuclear test veterans? We have now been waiting five months for this Government to get their proverbial finger out and make a decision.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I would have thought that that was exactly the sort of issue that could be raised as the Bill goes through the House. Wales will be in exactly the same position as the rest of the country, and I cannot see what is wrong with that.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the House that we need a swift and fair solution to the issue of compensation for the nuclear test ban veterans. Will he ensure that when the Secretary of State for Defence has decided the compensation package, he will make a full statement in the House so that hon. Members can make comments and question him?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about compensation. I cannot give a categorical guarantee of an oral statement, but I will do what I can to ensure that the House is fully informed and has an opportunity to hold Ministers to account for their decisions.

Summer Adjournment

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I hope that we can consider a couple of extra matters before the House adjourns for the summer recess. When the parties in government talk about public spending cuts, they would like us to believe that they are simply talking about what they claim are the legions of overpaid and underworked public sector bureaucrats who push paper around and introduce more and more regulation. However, the truth is rather different up in west Fife, where the public spending cuts will have a devastating impact on the defence and electricity generation industries.

Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced that the Harrier jump jet will not fly from the new super-carriers when they come into service. Hon. Members will recognise that, given that the joint strike fighter will not be available for some time after Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to enter into service, one can draw one of only two conclusions: either the MOD proposes that the Queen Elizabeth should become a glorified helicopter carrier for the first few years of its life; or, even more worryingly, the Department plans to delay the Queen Elizabeth’s entry into service following the comprehensive spending review. I will be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House asks the Secretary of State for Defence to write as a matter of urgency to Members on both sides of the House with an interest in defence to clarify the MOD’s position on the Harrier and joint strike fighter and, crucially, the date of entry for the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales.

Monday’s edition of The Times carried a rather disturbing story suggesting that, as part of the public sector cuts that we hear so much about, the MOD plans to take out of service immediately either the RAF Tornados or the Royal Navy Harriers. Leaving aside the obvious reasons why we need both the Tornados and the Harriers in service for the defence of the nation, as well as the amazing jobs that the aircraft crews have been doing in Afghanistan and elsewhere in recent years, that obviously gives rise to serious concerns for RAF bases throughout the country, including RAF Leuchars in Fife, as well as RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth elsewhere in Scotland. It is not unreasonable to assume that if seven squadrons of Tornados are taken out of service, we simply will not need such a number of RAF bases. I will therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House will press the Defence Secretary to clarify what the Government plan to do about our Tornado and Harrier squadrons.

Longannet power station plays an important part in my constituency. It has served homes and businesses in east and central Scotland with electricity for some 40 years, so it is approaching the end of its natural life. As the House will recall, it is on the shortlist of two for the carbon capture and storage competition, the result of which was expected in October. Many Members would have been worried by today’s statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, because he seemed to suggest that the competition would be pushed back to the end of the year.

Hon. Members will recall that when the House debated energy efficiency last month, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), did not have time to answer all the points raised. He promised to write to clarify those points, but it appears that he has lost his writing pad over the past five weeks, because Members have not received answers to their questions. Again, I will grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House will ask the Minister of State to write to me about three specific points, which I shall recap for the record.

First, will the Government still meet the October deadline for the CCS competition? Secondly, is the prize for the competition still that set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) when he was Secretary of State, or has it fallen victim to the Chancellor’s spending cuts? Thirdly, will the Minister of State meet me and other Scottish Members so that we can discuss possible changes to the transmission charges operated by the national grid and how we can make them more equitable to Scottish power stations?

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think that all hon. Members will share my hon. Friend’s view about the importance of the Post Office network maintaining its viability and the implications for its viability if the scenario that he outlines takes place. I shall certainly reinforce the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and I shall see that information is given to the House—if possible before we rise—on progress on the contract he mentions.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Thousands of Christmas Island nuclear testing veterans have waited many years for compensation. My understanding is that the Ministry of Defence has now accepted that there is a direct link between that testing in the 1950s and the cancers from which those people are now suffering. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House in September and update us regarding the compensation package?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. There will be questions to the appropriate Department on 13 September and I suggest that he seek to table a question for then, as that might be a suitable forum in which to raise the issue further.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand the anxiety that the hon. Lady expresses. On 15 July, there will be Communities and Local Government questions and she will have an opportunity to make her point to Ministers.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

This morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), slipped out that the merchant shipping regulations on ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo will be delayed until next year following lobbying by Lib Dem and Tory MPs. This announcement has been met with horror by organisations in Scotland such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Fife council and communities on both sides of the Forth. Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall next week or the week after so that Members have an opportunity properly to debate this matter rather than having it simply slipped out on a Thursday?

[Sir George Young]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. On 22 July, there will be Transport questions, but in the meantime I shall draw his anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and get a response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, after questions, I have a meeting with the Queen’s private secretary to progress discussions in that very area.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is 15 years since the publication of the Bannister report, which looked at the vital role played by student sport in the Commonwealth games, which Glasgow will host, the London Olympics and the future World cup. What plan does the Secretary of State have for a second Bannister report to develop student sport?

[Hugh Robertson]

I have not had the chance to do so since becoming Minister, but in the five years in which I shadowed this brief in opposition, I met a number of university sports groups, although none of them asked me for a new review. What they wanted was a higher profile for their sport and increased opportunities. With London 2012, we have a magnificent opportunity, when this country’s sport is in the eye of the world, to do precisely that.