Devolution (Implications for England)

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is envisaged in most of the proposals that have been made for English votes for English laws that the Speaker, or some other impartial authority, would have to certify what is English or English and Welsh legislation. Of course, there are other ways of doing that, for example through a panel of Chairs or some other impartial authority. I look forward to discussing these matters with you, Mr Speaker, as I do on so many matters, and with other Members of the House.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, what a delicious choice. I call Mr Wayne David.

[Wayne David]

Good choice, Mr Speaker.

Following the Leader of the House’s previous answer, has he had any consultations at all with you, Mr Speaker, on possible options for deciding what is English-only legislation?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has waited all this time only to find that his question was asked by the Member who spoke just before him. The answer is the same. You, Mr Speaker, do not play a role in determining the policies of the Government—you have enough to do in keeping order in the House. However, where there are implications for the job of Speaker, I and other Ministers will of course wish to consult the Speaker now that we have made our proposals.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

With the greatest respect, the best way for the hon. Gentleman’s party to resolve the West Lothian question is to win more seats in Scotland. That is the issue. Win more seats in Wales! He has failed to grasp the crisis in this country.

On some levels, we have to accept that the situation I described earlier is part and parcel of how Parliament has evolved and works, but on other levels we need to look at what can be done to accommodate the new, changing make-up of the country and I shall shortly come on to how we address this. Although we may acknowledge that there is an issue to resolve, that does not for one minute mean that we agree with the process that the Government have proposed for finding a resolution. Nor do we necessarily agree with some of the proposed solutions being floated. There can be no rushed, cobbled-together solutions and certainly no self-serving and partisan fixes.

When the Government were not scared of UKIP, they agreed with us. The coalition agreement published in May 2010 stated that they would

“establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’”.

The McKay commission report was published in March last year, when everyone knew there would be a referendum in Scotland in September 2014 and all the mainstream Westminster parties were developing their own plans to give greater devolution to Scotland. Did the Government respond to the McKay commission by setting up a Cabinet Committee led by the Leader of the House? Did they then make a veiled threat to have a vote in the House of Commons by a certain deadline? No. The response from the Government last year was:

“Given the significance of the recommendations for both England and the UK as a whole, it is right to take the time required for a thorough and rigorous assessment.”

We could not agree more. What we need to guard against is a situation that could lead to two tiers of MPs.

We also need to be honest about how few Bills that are debated in this House are truly for England only, or for England and Wales only. Some estimates suggest that in 2012-13 there was only one England-only Bill. The House of Commons Library is rightly reluctant to put an exact figure on it, given how complex a job that is. It is not as simple a categorisation as some might think because even when the clauses in a Bill are just relevant to England and Wales, there can sometimes still be financial ramifications for the rest of the UK. Votes on individual clauses in Bills decided by whether MPs were English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish would lead to an almighty mess in the way this place works—something akin to a legislative hokey-cokey.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right. There are enormous conceptual problems with the idea of English votes for English laws, but there is another huge problem: we cannot talk about the issue as though it is confined to this place; we have to talk about the other place, too.

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What is remarkable is the speed with which the Leader of the House has been willing to form a Sub-Committee and chair it to look at the issue of “English votes, English laws”, yet one of our Parliaments is unelected and fully appointed, and 85% of those in the other place are from London and the south-east. There is no sense of urgency in relation to that issue from the Leader of the House of Commons.

We do not want inadvertently to create a system that might contribute to the arguments of those who favour breaking up the UK. There is a good reason why the Scottish Nats are in favour of English votes for English laws. They want two classes of MPs because they want to break up the UK.

I give way to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who has been very patient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That matter is already covered by the Wales Bill. It will be a matter for the people of Wales, in a referendum, to decide whether they want such powers. My own view, frankly, is that it is debatable.

More than four years in Gwydyr House taught me that the most problematic aspect of devolution is the cross-border effect. This matter was referred to a little earlier by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). Take, for example, specialist hospital care. At present, there are disparate health systems in place in England and Wales, which mean that, effectively, Welsh patients are treated less favourably in many respects in the English hospitals where they need treatment. Waiting lists are longer and it is a source of concern to Welsh patients that although they pay their taxes at precisely the same rate as English patients, they wait much longer for treatment. That cannot be right. This is one of the matters that a new Government of Wales Act has to address.

[Wayne David]

A moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the reserved powers model. Can he explain why the Conservative Government have changed their position very recently on this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I will not, I am afraid.

That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had in mind when he made his commitment on the steps of Downing street.

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

I will not give way again because many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

If, as is argued, people voted against independence but in favour of change, they voted for less power for Scotland’s MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament over Scottish affairs. If Scotland’s MPs are to have less power over legislation affecting Scotland, why should they keep their existing power over legislation affecting the rest of the United Kingdom? There are two options. One is to relieve Scottish MPs of any power to legislate on matters in the rest of the United Kingdom for which they have no power to legislate in Scotland. The second is to reduce the number of Scottish MPs to reflect their reduced responsibilities as a result of that devolution settlement in their own constituencies.

On the basis of what the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was saying, if Scotland is 8% of the United Kingdom there should be only 52 Scottish MPs in this House. If each of them has less responsibility because they do not have responsibility for all those matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there should be fewer of them because they have less work to do.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions and it is of importance to Members and their constituents. As he rightly says, the Government brought forward the action plan on 30 March. We are continuing to look, together with the regulators, at how the system of penalties for those breaking the code can act as the necessary disincentive to this kind of behaviour. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they think it might be appropriate to update the House and how we might do so.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that thalidomide is still an issue, especially as the victims get older and face new problems. May we have a debate on how best to help these people and, linked to that, a debate on a national birth register?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will seek an answer for the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Government’s view on the national birth register. On support for those suffering from the consequences of thalidomide treatment, he will remember that when I was Health Secretary we made a very substantial settlement. In my view, that put the position where we would want it to be, and I do not know that there was more we needed to do at that time. Clearly, from the NHS point of view, those who are older who are living with the consequences of thalidomide treatment in the past often have increasing requirements, and the question is the extent to which the NHS can support those.

Votes at 16

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend on that point, which I will come to.

I recognise that introducing voting at 16 is a bold and radical proposal, but it is an opportunity to invigorate a new generation of politically active and engaged citizens, and that would create a more open and fair political system. Due to new technologies, young people are more informed than ever before, and more able to seek out information and to campaign on issues that affect them. Recently, my office received a letter from a young woman who wanted to volunteer with me. She wrote about her deep passion for women’s issues and feminism, and her views were profound and well informed. We should not expect any less from our young people.

In the information age, when anyone is able to find out about an issue at the touch of a button, it is not surprising that more young people than ever are expressing a desire to engage with the political system. There is, however, a flipside to that. While we must celebrate the fact that many young people are choosing to engage actively with politics, we must also be cautious, because there are problems in the system that need fixing. Those problems will not be fixed overnight, but voting at 16 might help to address them.

Opening up democracy to young people is an important way of confronting the democratic deficit faced in the UK. Electoral turnout in the UK has been on a downward trend since 1950, when 84% of the population turned out to vote; turnout was only 65% in the most recent general election. Membership of our political parties has fallen; the Conservative party, Mr Bone, has gone from being 3 million strong in 1950 to having only 100,000 members today. At the most recent elections, only 44% of those aged between 18 and 24 voted. Rather than turn our backs on the problem, we must confront it.

By offering votes to 16 and 17-year-olds at school and in colleges, and improving citizenship education, we can embrace the important civic duty of voting in our education system. Using citizenship education as a tool to support young people in developing their political understanding is key, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) indicated. When I asked young people in my constituency about citizenship education and what they had learned about politics as part of that, some of them in their final year of school replied that they had only three or four sessions in which they had talked about politics in the entirety of their secondary education. Is it any wonder that we are seeing a decline in voting, and that political apathy has become the norm?

People are too quick to use the system as an excuse for not moving ahead with democratic reform. I hear arguments such as, “Young people aren’t educated well enough about politics to be able to use their vote wisely.” Surely that is a call to give them a well balanced and politically neutral education, in a way that is similar to how we teach religious studies, rather than an argument for suppressing young people’s opportunities for involvement in democracy. To blame the system rather than change the system is a regressive and unhelpful stance.

As Members of Parliament, we should be leading the way by empowering young people, rather than turning them away from the door of democracy. We should recognise the importance of increasing the participation of young people in politics. Allowing 16 and 17-year-olds such empowerment in Scotland, where they are being afforded a vote in the independence referendum, has reignited the issue on a national level, and that is one of the reasons why today’s debate is so timely.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is difficult to construct the intellectual case for why young people in Scotland may vote on whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, but not on anything else?

[Sarah Champion]

Absolutely; there is flawed logic there. We see in Scotland the impact that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum is having on their political engagement. Young people are often featured on the news or in discussion programmes, debating their opinions on Scottish independence. It inspires me to see those young people discussing the issues and taking a stance. The validity of their position is not for me or anyone else to judge, but their engagement with the debate is brilliant to see, and it can teach us lessons about how an inclusive politics is an attractive and fair politics.

This argument applies more broadly. At the heart of the issue is the notion of civil liberties. The debate is not about whom a 16 or 17-year-old votes for, but about recognising their maturity and providing them with a vote, and about a society building them up to use that vote to the best of their ability. Ultimately, this should not be for anyone except 16 and 17-year-olds themselves to decide on. If they feel that they are mature enough to have a vote, we as politicians and as a society should trust our young people enough to allow them to exercise it. I have read that public opinion is against the votes at 16 campaign, but it is not public opinion that matters so much as the opinion of 16 and 17-year-olds. It is their opinion, rather than those of others, that we should listen to and act on. Young people are rightly calling for the right to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wayne David]

You have only just come in.

[Mark Field]

Apologies; I have just come in, but some of us have other constituency duties. Those who can rely on the Welsh Parliament obviously have far less to do as Members of this House. May I ask the hon. Lady whether inclusiveness applies—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me make this point clear. You do not have to be here at the beginning of the debate to intervene. That is a fact.

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. It would help the consistency of the debate if someone was here to hear the arguments. Logically, they might not ask about points that have already been made.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

That clearly was not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate. It is a debate we have had a number of times in the House, and I have had the pleasure of speaking on most of those occasions. The hon. Lady will probably find it disappointing that I will not support her campaign for extending the voting age to children—those of 16 years of age—and I would like to set out for the House why.

It is a great pleasure to see the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) in his place. I have occupied the same seat as him in debates on the issue in the past. The Government do not have a settled view on the matter, because the two coalition parties do not agree. I will save him any embarrassment by explaining my party’s view. The Conservative party’s view is that we should not extend the voting age below 18. The Liberal Democrats believe that we should, and I expect that the Minister will set out the Government’s view and expand a little on his party’s view.

[Wayne David]

If the Conservative party’s position is as the hon. Gentleman says, why, in January last year, did the Conservative party not vote against votes at 16?

[Mr Harper]

I am a humble Back Bencher, and I do not speak for the Conservative party’s voting position. There have been several votes on the matter in the House. For example, in 2005, during the previous Parliament, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) proposed a ten-minute rule Bill, which I spoke against and opposed, and the House voted clearly against it. A private Member’s Bill, which I think the hon. Lady mentioned, was introduced in 2008 by Julie Morgan, the then Member for Cardiff North who is now a Member of the Welsh Assembly. That private Member’s Bill did not get support in the House; it was opposed by Members on both sides of the House, for very sensible reasons.

My arguments for opposing the extension of the voting age to children—those below the age of majority—have nothing to do with the hon. Lady’s straw-man arguments about people’s competence, intelligence or ability to reach a rational decision. My point is simple. We have to have a voting age, and some people will be on one side of that cut-off point and some people will be on the other. I think there is general agreement about that. The real question is where we set the age. My view is that the right age is the age at which we decide that someone moves from being a child to being an adult. That is the right cut-off point at which someone should be able to vote and make a serious decision about who governs their country.

One argument put forward by the hon. Lady and others who favour votes at 16 is to allege that in a range of policy areas 16-year-olds have certain rights. Some of the things that the hon. Lady set out were accurate, but several were not. People tend to set out half the story but forget to fill in the missing pieces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) pointed out one of them. In England and Wales it is perfectly true to say that 16-year-olds can get married, but there is a significant qualification, namely that they have to have permission from their parents. We do not accept, therefore, that 16-year-olds are capable of making that important, life-changing decision; we say that they must have parental consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Bone, for the opportunity to speak. I rise to support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She made an excellent speech. It is a crucial fact that in many areas of their lives 16 and 17-year-olds are treated as adults. That is not the case in all areas, and we are not arguing for many other areas to be addressed. However, there should be an extension of their responsibility to include the ability to cast a vote. I say that because in my experience young people are far more mature, engaged and proactive than perhaps they were 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

It is very important to recognise that if we want a society that is based on the principle of involvement and participation, there is no more important a group to be involved and to participate than young people. I see empowering them, by giving them the vote at 16 and 17, as a crucial way of doing that.

It slightly worries me that some—though not all—the arguments against extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds are very similar to the arguments that were used in the past against extending the vote to other people in society. I think of the arguments about the Reform Act 1832, and the Reform Acts that followed. The establishment in this country is always reluctant to empower people by extending the ability to vote. It is sad that some of the same arguments are being used against extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.

My background has convinced me of the desirability of lowering the voting age. I worked for the Workers Educational Association and conducted a number of classes for young people. The involvement and depth of maturity displayed in the discussions we had in those adult education classes was quite remarkable. We discussed every issue under the sun, so it seemed illogical to then say, “Your views are very interesting, but nevertheless you have no ability whatever to influence outcomes on such issues in our society.”

Similarly, before being elected to this House I worked as the policy officer for the Wales Youth Agency, and was particularly involved with the voluntary youth sector. Today, I am the president of the Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services, known as CWVYS. The issue of how to empower young people was absolutely central to the work I was engaged in at the Wales Youth Agency. I am pleased to say that we established a youth forum in Wales, initially known as Young Voice, but now going by a more trendy name, Funky Dragon, which was thought up by young people themselves. That body has an impressive track record on engaging with a range of issues, particularly relating to the Welsh Assembly, and expressing its collective views clearly and powerfully.

As in many other constituencies, we have a very effective youth forum in Caerphilly that meets regularly. The maturity expressed by young people on a range of issues is remarkable. I am pleased to say that the local authority in Caerphilly, like others elsewhere, takes on board such effectively and coherently expressed views.

I would like to make a couple of points, the first being on the situation in Scotland. There will be a vital referendum in September in which 16 and 17-year-olds are being given the vote for the first time. I think that that has been welcomed in Scottish civic society, whichever way those young people vote. It will be difficult to put back into the box something that has been released—and something that I think has proven successful, in terms of having an effective debate in Scotland. What is good enough for the debate on the Scottish referendum is good enough for debates and votes on a raft of other issues in all parts of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham referred to the situation in Wales. Although it does not have the power to extend the voting age, the Welsh Assembly has expressed its opinion that the vote should be conferred on 16 and 17-year-olds. That is the way that things are going.

Finally, if we are honest with ourselves, when Members engage with young people, we all come away with the feeling that it is not the case that young people are not interested in politics; that is a myth. Young people are interested in a raft of issues that affect them, whether it be the environment, education, or employment. They are turned off by establishment politics; frankly, they are turned off by middle-aged men in grey suits—not blue ones—discussing issues as though they knew best. We must move away from that culture, and the most effective way to do that is to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds to ensure that their voice has a material impact on the development of our society.

It has already been mentioned that last year there was a good debate on the Floor of the House on lowering the voting age. I had the pleasure of summing up for Her Majesty’s Opposition. The vote at the end was in favour of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds by 119 votes to 46. Given that clear view expressed by the House, I would like to think that the Government will respond positively with what they intend to do to make progress on this issue. I have learned this morning that, despite the fact that it abstained on that vote in January last year, the Conservative party is opposed to extending democracy by lowering the voting age. I hope that that is not the view of the Government as a whole, and look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

We will find out. I will resist provoking the hon. Gentleman because we have already heard quite a lot from him so far in this debate. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David); both Members are experienced on this subject, as they are, respectively, the former Minister and former shadow Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform. I therefore feel that my knowledge of the matter is somewhat limited, particularly as I am carrying the flag on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who unfortunately cannot be present because he had a long-standing commitment to chairing a conference on electoral reform. He is particularly keen on that issue, but also on lowering the voting age, and I know that he has been travelling up and down the country meeting young people to discuss the issue. He, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—and the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), have led on this agenda and are together putting the issue at the heart of the Opposition’s constitutional reform programme.

We are facing a deficit in politics that goes beyond the issue of young people voting. It would be easy to retreat from the problem, especially in the midst of a significant economic crisis, but it is not enough to do nothing and hope that the tide changes. It is essential that we seek to explore new ways of achieving democratic renewal and political reform. General election turnout in the UK has been on a downward trend since the 1950s, when 84% of the population turned out to vote. At the last election, the proportion was just 65%. As we have heard, membership of political parties has fallen off a cliff, spectacularly so in the case of the Conservative party, which is now at one thirtieth of its peak membership, but all political parties have been affected.

We deplore the fact that a majority of young people do not vote at elections yet decide to do nothing about it. I thought that some Members who intervened earlier and oppose voting at 16 were using that fact as a reason to justify doing nothing, rather than as a reason to take the matter more seriously. Youth is not automatically linked to apathy, and the reasons behind low turnout are complicated. My experience is that young people today are often highly political but wary of formal party politics. Many do not feel that politicians listen to their concerns or discuss their aspirations.

Bite the Ballot is a very good organisation that promotes young people voting, and one of its representatives commented:

“I would say the majority of young people don’t trust politicians.”

It is probably true that a majority of all people do not trust politicians, but that feeling might be particularly significant among the young, who are perhaps not so world-weary, slightly more idealistic, and therefore more shocked by the way in which politicians sometimes behave. People will have heard the exculpatory comments of Chris Huhne during his media exercise yesterday; I think we must all say that sometimes we politicians do not do ourselves any favours at all.

Sitting back, doing nothing and hoping that our young people vote is not enough. Opening up our democratic system to younger people is important and is a way to solve this problem. Rather than turning our backs, we must seek to improve the current democratic malaise by empowering young people.

Only 44% of those aged 18 to 24 voted in the general election. A recent survey found that only a third of 16 to 24-year-olds say they have an interest in politics. Compare those figures with the 76% of those of pension age who voted. The gap has almost doubled since 1970, when there was an 18 percentage point gap between young people and those of pension age, to around 30 percentage points.

There was a good article in the Daily Mirror this morning—there are always lots of good articles in the Daily Mirror—about this issue, although I do not know whether the Minister read it. It stated:

“Almost 60% of young people say they will not vote in the 2015 General Election”

and that the percentage of those intending to vote in the European elections is only 30%, although perhaps the latter is not so surprising. Those are poor figures and they appear to be getting worse. The response to that should not be to write off young people’s voting, but to take the approach that my party has taken. At the Labour conference, the Leader of the Opposition set out how we will seek to change the situation.

It is right to say that introducing votes at 16 is a radical proposal that has the potential to energise a new generation of politically active and engaged citizens. However, votes at 16 need to go hand in hand with wider youth engagement and a renewed commitment to citizenship education. The education participation age is rising to 18. By offering the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds at school, at college and in workplaces, we can intertwine civic duty with our education system. Conferring a democratic responsibility and opportunity on people still in compulsory education offers practical benefits. For example, on polling days, schools and colleges could have polling stations for students, making it more likely that this group would take advantage of the opportunity. That would be intertwined with Labour’s policy to empower schools to work with electoral registration officers to ensure that students are registered to vote.

The next Labour Government will create schools that nourish real civic duty and democratic understanding, as well as ensuring, of course, that teachers are qualified and all schools are properly inspected, and taking up other unconventional ideas that the Government do not appear to support.

It is important to note that only about half of young people aged 18 to 24 are registered to vote. If people vote once, they are more likely to vote again. The Social Market Foundation published research that found that the closer to an election an individual’s 18th birthday is, the more likely they are to vote. That demonstrated that people who turn 18 in the year leading up to a general election are significantly more likely to vote than those who turn 18 in the year after the previous general election and have to wait five years. Those who vote when young continue to vote. Over time, voting could become a rite of passage in our education system, like taking exams, but this will require a strengthening of citizenship education.

Almost 50% of the population of my constituency was born outside the UK. This is anecdotal rather than statistical evidence, but in communities in my constituency, there is often much greater political awareness and willingness to vote, and that is passed down from parents to children, whether because they value the vote more or because they are taking more of an interest in a country that they have come to relatively recently. If the same interest was shown more widely, that would help; it is achievable. Often, marginal decisions affect whether people vote. For example, we all know that making it easier to vote by post or by other means massively increases turnout.

The Labour Government made great strides with their introduction of citizenship as a subject in secondary school. Citizenship education should sit at the core of our curriculum, giving young people an understanding and deeper knowledge of, and interest in, civic issues. Votes at 16 would place renewed emphasis on this area for our schools.

[Wayne David]

The Government are introducing individual electoral registration. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main emphases of the Government’s programme encouraging young people to vote should be schools’ participation in encouraging young people to register, so that they can vote at 18? It would be a small step forward to encourage registration for votes at 16.

[Mr Slaughter]

I worry about individual electoral registration, as a number of wards in my constituency have below 50% initial tie-up. In many ways, that will be a barrier to voting. That makes it all the more important that we ensure that the educational aspect and the simple ability to explain to people how the new system works go hand in hand. These problems are not limited to young people.

Votes at 16 can inspire young people to get involved in our democracy. Many young people are already involved in roles of democratic responsibility. Some 85% of secondary schools have school councils, around 20,000 young people are active in youth councils and there are 600 elected Members of Youth Parliament, each serving for 12 months and voted in by their peers. Most hon. Members will have witnessed Youth Parliament debates and met their local representatives, who are supported by groups like Bite the Ballot, the British Youth Council and the Patchwork Foundation, which do great work getting young people involved in politics.

I agree with Government Members that this is not a partisan political issue, although I worry about why so many Conservative Members are against the idea. So much damage has been done to young people under the current Government. They have abolished the education maintenance allowance and university fees are soaring—we must give a hat-tip to the Liberal Democrats for that, although perhaps we will find out that Constance Briscoe was responsible for that as well, in the long term. The Government scrapped the future jobs fund, too. It is hardly a surprise that the coalition parties are nervous about the idea, but over time that will not be an issue.

Finally, let me deal with the main subject of the speech made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean. With all due respect to him, he was trying to infantilise young people. It is not as simple as saying, “Yes, there is a single age at which young people are able to do everything.” That is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham was saying. The fact is that we do move age limits up and down, and they differ from those in other countries. For example, we decreased the age of criminal responsibility by four years, just as we equalised the age of consent at 16 for all young people. The point is that one has to make a judgment on the merits of the case. Yes, it has been right in some cases to protect young people by imposing an age limit—for purchasing tobacco products, say, because they are addictive, and because if people start smoking young, they tend to continue. However, we do not need to protect people from voting. If anything, we should encourage that engagement, and the later stages of school is exactly the time to do that.

At 16, people can go out to work, become a director of a company, join a trade union and participate fully in society. Many young people are adults at 16, and it is wrong to restrict them in respect of voting. That is why the next Labour Government will give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. However, that is not enough; they must be given a reason to vote, and the support to engage in the democratic process. Voting is a gateway to participation in society, not an end in itself. If we do not give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, we are excluding them from some of the rights and responsibilities that we otherwise increasingly load on them. Giving them the vote is the fair and right thing to do.

The Daily Mirror article that I mentioned ends with a rather depressing quote from a young person:

“Young people’s voices don’t get heard, so why should they vote? I don’t think politicians take enough time to listen to us, and it’s a shame because we are the future.”

That downward spiral should be reversed. If we give young people the vote and encourage them to use it, they will feel that we are taking their interests more seriously, and then I hope we will see a rise in participation and in the percentage turning out to vote.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Opposition share the astonishment of charities, lobbyists, campaigners and members of the public at the way in which the Bill has been handled. Until this morning, we had been led to understand that the Government were intent on reversing the progress that had been made in the other place. This morning, when the list of amendments was published, we thought that they had conceded on special advisers. In fact, they appeared to have got themselves into a position where they were disagreeing with themselves. After listening to the Deputy Leader of the House for 47 minutes of the two hours that we have been given to debate this important part of the Bill, I, like the Chair of the Select Committee, am none the wiser as to what the Government propose. From the interventions of Members on both sides of the House, it appears that the Minister himself is not entirely sure what he is proposing either.

It is important that we understand how we arrived at this state of extreme confusion. Clause 2—indeed part 1 of the Bill—was drawn so narrowly that none of the lobbying scandals that gave rise to the Bill would have been caught by it. The Bill was massacred in the other place, and rightly so. The decision to include special advisers was made by a decent margin, and prompted 30 Liberal Democrat peers to vote against their own Government. There have been three defeats in the other place on fundamental aspects of the Bill, and it is important that Ministers and the House ask why. This is a lesson in how not to introduce legislation. There was a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, and no expert witnesses were allowed to be called. After three years of silence on this issue, proposals landed out of the blue just two days before the summer recess. We had a two-paragraph response from the Government to a well-considered Select Committee report. We had the spectacle of a Government refusing the request from across civil society to pause the Bill for long enough to make what was branded “a dog’s breakfast” by the Chair of an influential Select Committee into a workable and effective piece of legislation. The speed is frankly ridiculous.

The Government were still suffering defeat in the other place yesterday evening. In its report written last night and published this morning, the Select Committee said:

“The timetable that the Government has imposed for this Bill indicates a contempt for Parliament and a lack of belief in…parliamentary scrutiny.”

Baroness Williams said that the gap between the Bill leaving the other place and arriving here was “frankly ludicrous”. Of the two hours that we have to debate this important part of the Bill, the Minister took 47 minutes, and we are none the wiser. Like hundreds of constituents who have e-mailed me over recent weeks, I have reached the conclusion that this is a Government who have very little commitment to democracy and are not willing to be challenged.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Why does my hon. Friend think that the Government are so determined to push this through at this ridiculous pace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I know how much pressure there is on time, so I will make two short points.

First, I pay tribute to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the members of that Committee for all the hard work that they have done under incredibly difficult circumstances. In spite of the odds, they have provided Members with good information for this debate.

Secondly, the Government must be in a parallel universe if they genuinely think that the reassurances that they have pretended to give today will provide any comfort to people in this institution and, more important, those outside this institution. It is deeply insulting to our intelligence to say, “Well, a Minister might be able to change the meaning of this clause some time in the future,” and think that we will all go home thinking that that is fine.

That matters not just because of the importance of the Bill, but because what is happening here today is being watched by people all around the country. People are very dismayed about what a shambles this process is. It undermines our credibility as an institution if we cannot organise ourselves better to do justice to the arguments that have been debated in public meetings up and down the country. I have had more contact and received more letters on this issue than on anything else, other than the reorganisation of the NHS. People care about it deeply. It shows how out of touch the Government are that they think that they can rush the Bill through and get plaudits from people outside for the few amendments that they have introduced at the last moment, which do not go anywhere near far enough.

No matter how many times the Government repeat that there has been consultation or that there is transparency, I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking-Glass”, when he says that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. That is what is happening here. The Government are in a parallel universe. They are deeply out of touch with ordinary people. If more Government Members had listened to the public, they would know that they cannot get away with this.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Lady share my suspicion that perhaps the main reason the Government are rushing this legislation through is that they want to curtail proper debate and scrutiny of their policies immediately before the election?

[Caroline Lucas]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we had more time, we could speculate further on the motivation for this very sinister Bill. I agree with the motivation that he ascribes to it.

Finally, the Government came to office saying that they would champion the big society, so it has been deeply disillusioning for everybody to see how they have muzzled it at every turn. I hope that people will remember that when they vote in the election in 18 months’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I have listened very carefully to what has been said to me. I think that campaigning organisations often object to constituency limits because they erroneously assume that when they are undertaking a national activity there will be disaggregation to individual constituency limits, because of, as it were, the coincidence of where that activity takes place. It will form part of a constituency activity in circumstances in which there is a significant effect in that constituency; otherwise, it will form part of a national activity. [Interruption.] The guidance will make clear that a constituency limit will apply when there is a significant effect in a specific geographical area or individual constituency, but that when the activity concerned forms part of a national activity, national limits will apply.

We need constituency limits. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is proposing that we should not have them, but when we sent the Bill to the House of Lords, a clear decision made by Members of the House of Commons expressed their belief that it was right to have them. Without them, the national limit could all be spent in individual constituencies: it could be targeted on a small number of constituencies in a way that would completely distort elections that are meant to be between political parties. That is the basis on which the Bill is structured.

[Wayne David]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. I need to make progress now.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would return the spending limits to a higher level than that for which the Bill provides—effectively, to the current level in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. It proposes a spending limit of £793,000 for England, £108,000 for Scotland and £60,000 for Wales. The limit for Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Bill, would continue to be £30,800.

During our debate on the last group of amendments, the hon. Gentleman spent half an hour lecturing us about the procedures of the House. He is the Chair of a Select Committee that, on Report, proposed amendment 102, which would have deleted clause 27 and left the spending limits as they were in PPERA. He argued for that, and the House rejected it by a majority of 51. Now he has presented a report to the House—from a Select Committee of the House—which completely ignores the House’s decision. The House has a view on this matter, but the Committee has ignored that view. The hon. Gentleman is simply re-presenting the same argument to the House, ignoring—on behalf of his Select Committee—the fact that the House has already rejected it. If the Select Committee does nothing else, it should take account of the view of the House before submitting a report to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposal amounts to a tacit acceptance that there are fundamental defects in what has been proposed? Would it not be far more sensible if they were honest and straight and recognise that and delayed the whole process?

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely, but I will not be tempted too far down that path, because I must address the Lords amendments that are before us today. My hon. Friend, who led for us on this part of the Bill along with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), makes a powerful point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to contribute to this debate. I have contributed to all the debates on the Bill so far. I am quite optimistic about the Bill’s purposes, but today I want to confine my remarks to Lords amendments 108, 26 and 27. The Government reject amendments 26 and 27 because they are keen to take the big money out of politics and to ensure that local charities and organisations can be involved in campaigning. One of the things that has crept into every stage of debate on the Bill is that it is a gagging Bill. It is frightening good people in communities throughout the country.

[Wayne David]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the big money out of politics, is he in favour of putting curbs on the expenditure of political parties, particularly the Conservative party?

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very political point and I want to confine my remarks to the amendments.

Earlier, we heard an exchange between the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House regarding Unison and small local charities. The reality is that we need to stop the trend of large third party organisations—in the United States, they are called super PACs, or political action committees—attacking a small number of 90 to 100 constituencies that determine who wins the general election and will form the next Government. That is something that all hon. Members should be in favour of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Francis]

At the outset, I should say that I speak this afternoon as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Many of these amendments relate to amendments suggested in the Committee’s report, and I wish to acknowledge that the Government have moved considerably in its direction, particularly in relation to raising the threshold for non-party organisations to register with the Electoral Commission; to raising the spending limits for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; to reducing the regulatory period for the 2015 general election; and to introducing a review of non-party campaigning rules after the 2015 general election. Once again, we wish to place on the record our thanks to the Government for making those changes.

Let me move on to deal with some of the specific amendments. Given the concerns about the potential “chilling effect” of the Bill, it will be important for any post-election review of the non-party campaigning rules to include a careful examination of the impact of part 2 on campaigners’ rights to freedom of expression and association. Does the Minister envisage that such a review will specifically examine the practical effects of the Bill’s provisions on campaigners’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association?

It is worth noting some of the comments made in the second Chamber about the Government’s proposed post-election review of non-party campaigning rules after the 2015 general election. In withdrawing his amendment to exclude charities from the rules, Lord Phillips of Sudbury said that the review of the workings of this legislation in the wake of the 2015 election would be vital. In the discussion on the Government’s amendment to establish the post-election review, Lord Harries also stressed that this review would be essential.

In welcoming the Government amendment, let me nevertheless express once again unease at the fact that so much reliance is being placed on post-legislative scrutiny, particularly when there is an election in the intervening period, and repeat the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the lack of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny prior to the Bill’s publication.

Before concluding, let me draw attention, as other Members from across the Chamber have done, to the views and contribution of constituents. One of my constituents, Sylvia John of Briton Ferry, is one of many who wrote to urge me to support the Lords amendments, which I shall do later. Her words were echoed by Children in Wales, one of the most respected charitable organisations in Wales, whose chief executive, Catriona Williams said that the Bill remains “deeply problematic”.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes specific reference to Wales, and it is important to bear in mind that this Bill will impact not just on general elections, but on elections in the devolved areas of the United Kingdom, too.

[Dr Francis]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and his Select Committee for the tremendous work carried out right up to today, and particularly last night, to deliver the final report. We have had the benefit of being able to read it today. I also commend the work of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, under the wise chairmanship of Lord Harries of Pentregarth.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend will know that the Government agree that the current funding system—the one we inherited—is unfair and irrational. We have already introduced important reforms to ensure more transparency and consistency in the way in which school budgets are set locally, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce shortly how we plan to continue the reforms by taking steps to address the current unfair distribution of funding between local areas.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As the House knows, there is an excellent rock band in the House, MP4, but if Scotland secedes from the Union, it will be MP3. Will the Leader of the House assure us that if that were to happen, proper auditions would be held, with him, to ensure that there is a new keyboard player for MP4?

[Mr Lansley]

It is a matter of regret that I was not able to attend the concert on Tuesday, but I hope it went well and I have listened to the CD.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who continues to be a tireless advocate, on behalf of his constituents, for the services that are being provided at Stafford hospital in very difficult circumstances. I appreciate that. The points that he raises can be made to Monitor, which will consider the report of the trust special administrator. After Monitor has done that, a report will go to the Secretary of State for Health for a final decision in the new year. None the less, I think that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be comforted to know that the paediatric assessment unit, which has paediatric doctors, will continue to be available at Stafford hospital under the proposals.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In the spirit of the festive season, may we have a debate on whether Ministers should be obliged to make new year’s resolutions? I encourage Ministers to resolve always to make statements to the House before doing so to the press, to introduce well-thought-out and coherent legislation, and to smile a little more often than the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

That was a bit of a “Bah, humbug!” moment at the end, unfortunately. In all those respects we do not need to make new year’s resolutions, since they are part of our common practice and custom.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was quoting. In those circumstances, the use of such a word is perfectly orderly, but I would not want colleagues to think that it is to be encouraged ordinarily, for it is not.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the Spanish Prime Minister’s comment that a separate Scotland would be outside the European Union as well as outside the United Kingdom, may we have a debate on the possibility of a Scotland that is in not-so-splendid isolation?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Members of this House may well seek a debate on Scotland’s future in the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for them to go to the Backbench Business Committee to seek such a debate. It is instructive that in the space of two days, one of the central points in the document that the Scottish Government supposed would be the answer to all the questions has turned out to be based on false assumptions.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make it mandatory for everybody. It is very nice to do it voluntarily, as we would have done had we been allowed, but we were not. [Interruption.] Instead of smirking in that rather irritating fashion, the hon. Gentleman should focus on the debate in hand.

I was making the point that MPs should not be treated as Lobby fodder. After two pilot schemes, everyone seems now to agree that 50-word explanations are a good thing, so the motion from the Procedure Committee to make possible explanatory statements to amendments to be discussed on the Floor of the House is very welcome. I wish it was possible all the time; it is a pity that we have to get special permission even to make it possible. On those two pilots, it was possible.

I also welcome statement in the Procedure Committee’s report that it wants the statements to

“become an accepted norm of the legislative process.”

If that is what the Committee wants, why not make the statements mandatory, rather than just talking about an aspiration or a wish? The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) rightly said that the Government did indeed issue explanatory statements on that occasion, and that the Opposition did not do so. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, one day, the Government will become the Opposition and find it less convenient to produce them in future. If we want it to become as natural to issue an explanatory statement as it is to sign an amendment, we have the opportunity tonight to make them mandatory.

A cross-party group of us, including senior colleagues, who are working on parliamentary reform have tabled amendment (a) because we would like the explanatory statements to be mandatory, to ensure that the Procedure Committee’s wish for the statements to become the norm becomes a reality. To clarify, in calling for the statements to be mandatory, we envisage guidelines to include dispensing for the need for them in relation to self-explanatory or consequential amendments. Actually, that is a good reason for not having circulated an explanatory statement on amendment (a), as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was tempting me to do: it is surely, even to him, self-explanatory.

Unless we have a mandatory scheme, as amendment (a) proposes, there is a danger that the statements would not become part of the culture of this place, and that they would be submitted only when it suited Members to do so. As we all know, the Executive do not behave within the spirit of the legislative system at all times, and we need a system that will ensure that, when they are substantially amending their own legislation—on Report, for example—they have to explain why.

The recent pilot taught us that the Whips pick and choose. The official Opposition did not bother to submit statements on the first Bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which was a great shame. However, they appeared to have a change of heart, and were prepared to submit them on the relatively uncontentious Small Charitable Donations Bill. I do not accept that they did not participate on the first Bill because of a lack of resources. Sometimes it is more convenient not to explain, and frankly that is not good enough. That is why we need the statements to be mandatory.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I will try not to smirk. Does she not accept the valid point that the Opposition party and, particularly, Back Benchers do not have sufficient resources to submit explanatory statements as well as putting in the time and effort required to table the amendments themselves, especially on an extremely detailed and complex Bill?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, I do not accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman has thought enough about an amendment to table it, he must have thought about what he is trying to achieve with it. If he cannot summarise that in 50 words, why is he tabling the amendment in the first place? He could also call on the Public Bill Office to help him with the statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I want to ask the hon. Lady a simple question. Has she heard of probing amendments? If she has, she will know full well that their purpose is to elicit information and commitments from the Government, and not necessarily to declare a position.

[Caroline Lucas]

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point of the explanatory statements. They would simply make the aim of an amendment clear. If that aim is to seek information from the Government, that could be made perfectly clear.

I should like to move on to costs and resources. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Procedure Committee did not recommend a mandatory approach partly because it thought that that could take up time and resources, and that it could therefore restrict the ability of the Opposition and Back-Bench Members to table amendments. It feared that that could be damaging to the House’s ability to scrutinise legislation. I believe that there is a strong case to be made that the opposite is true, and that mandatory statements would save time and improve scrutiny.

The evidence from the Public Bill Office is clear on the question of resource implications. It stated that, where assistance was given with the drafting of explanatory statements,

“this took little time (no more than five minutes per amendment), and usually saved time elsewhere by establishing a verifiable shared understanding of what amendments were intended to achieve.”

So the idea that this would create a burden for the Opposition and Back Benchers is not supported by the Public Bill Office, which has made it clear that the statements typically save time.

The Public Bill Office also stated:

“It is not that difficult to draft a brief explanatory statement, and a Member seeking to table an amendment might want to think again about doing so if they were unable to explain briefly what it would achieve.”

This brings us to the nub of the issue. Do we want Back Benchers to participate or not? Do we want our constituents and our local press to be able to follow what is going on? Do we want this to be possible at all times or only some of the time, and who gets to be the judge of when people should or should not necessarily get to receive these explanations? If we want scrutiny, surely we have to make sure that those who might scrutinise are properly assisted to do so; otherwise, one might ask what is the point of the amendments at all.

Still on resources, the Clerk of the House produced a helpful memorandum pointing out that there would be no extra costs to the PBO, but there could be some printing costs. However, once self-explanatory and consequential amendments are discounted, the printing costs would clearly be very low. In the context of the entire printing costs of this place, the likely cost for this is tiny—less than 0.00005% of a £7 million annual spend on the printing of procedural publications.

For that minimal cost, we would get something valuable—information, and information being given to those who should have it as they vote on legislation that affects us all. When the bell goes, we should all know why. Brief explanations would not only allow Members to check what they are voting on when the bell goes, but allow us to see in advance what Members seeking to amend legislation are attempting to do. This would enhance scrutiny and might even increase participation in the Chamber, as Members could easily see in advance what an amendment was for.

In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will agree that this is more than procedural housekeeping. I think our constituents would be shocked if they knew that their MPs often did not know what they were voting on. When I run down the escalator from Portcullis House at the same time as many other colleagues, I often hear people saying “What are we voting on; what are we voting on?” I am not whipped, so I have to find that out myself, but many colleagues do not necessarily have that information, and I think that they should. This is not a criticism of colleagues. I have no doubt that MPs do not like trying to find out what the vote is on as they run down the escalators. The point is that this information is not being properly provided. It is good that the Procedure Committee is calling for a scheme to make explanations possible, so let us make sure that everyone uses it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I agree that it is better to have clarity, so that not just Members in this House but others looking at our proceedings can understand what we are debating.

There are other benefits to be had. I have always had this romantic view that we can improve the procedures of this House and do things in a more effective, focused and timely way. That would help everybody who has come to a debate on amendments and found that the purpose of the proposer of an amendment was quite different from what they had imagined when they first read it. That applies not only to Back Benchers, but to the Government. Very often Ministers have learned screeds of paper telling them what the civil servants who support them in the Bill believe the Opposition Member was intending by their amendment, only then to find that that was absolutely a wrong guess.

[Wayne David]

Inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has made an astute point, because it is wrong to believe that all amendments have an objective truth about them. Amendments, particularly those from the Opposition, often have different interpretations attached to them. He mentioned the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which is a good example of when our interpretation of what we were putting forward was objectively different from that of the civil servants. The essential clarification often is provided through debate, not by declamatory written statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a genuine parliamentarian. However, as I have said, this is about putting a greater onus on the Chair of a Bill Committee or the Chair in the Chamber. I do not think that we want to add to those burdens. We have some wonderful Chairs who chair proceedings with a light touch. I fear that there would be complaints from the Government, the Opposition, the minority parties and Back Benchers saying, “Why has that one been allowed in, when an explanatory statement was not scheduled in time?” We have seen too often that, because the Government have tended to introduce Bills at the last minute—I am thinking of the gagging Bill in September—it would be difficult for my hon. Friends to table amendments, then produce explanatory statements.

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they intend all their amendments to have explanatory statements whenever practicable—I take their word on that. I had a slight exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who said with some justification, to be fair, that when he was a Minister explanatory statements were produced for all his revisions. I suspect that his civil servants had a hand in the drafting of those statements, but that is not a luxury that the Opposition or, indeed, Back Benchers enjoy. If the Government wish to expand the resources available—

[Wayne David]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be a strong case for mandatory explanatory statements if the Opposition had exactly the same resources at their disposal as the Government?

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a fair point. I do not think that I am giving away anything when I say that that was one of the discussions that the Procedure Committee had with the Front-Bench team and the House service. Regrettably, however, in these austere times, that is not on the table. If it were, I would wholeheartedly support the amendment, with the caveat that Back Benchers should be given greater resource.

It is something of an insult to parliamentary colleagues to maintain the myth that Members of Parliament are confused or vote the wrong way. I am conscious that Liberal Democrats may see that as a good excuse at the next general election to explain why they voted for a series of measures—“I am very sorry. I didn’t realise what I was voting for”—but I am not aware of a single case where a Liberal Democrat MP will argue that they voted to increase tuition fees or break their other promises because they were confused about what the motion or amendment meant. Perhaps the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will correct me. The idea that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is promoting that Members are confused about what they are voting for is utter nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I take the point. There have been many occasions in the short time I have been in the House when I have had to seek advice on votes I was being asked to cast. I have asked many Back Benchers on both sides of the House and the Whips but have still been unable to understand them or get any kind of clarity. I have had to abstain in Divisions because I simply did not know what the amendments I was being asked to vote for were about.

[Wayne David]

Is the hon. Gentleman confident that he understands every explanatory statement he reads?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I think that we would stand a much better chance of understanding what we were voting for if the amendments had explanatory statements.

I reject the argument that this would place an undue burden on Back Benchers. I accept up to a point that an extra burden would be placed on Opposition parties because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, for Members tabling 100, 200 or 300 amendments that amounts to quite a lot of minutes, but I believe that they should be given the administrative support they need to achieve that. However, that does not apply for Back Benchers, because they rarely table more than a small handful of amendments, unless they have set out to become parliamentary pests. They will have spent a lot of time understanding how to table them, so the extra five, 10, 15 or perhaps 30 minutes required to explain them is not much to ask. If a Back Bencher is not willing to invest those 30 minutes in the explanatory notes, perhaps they ought not to be wasting our time with the amendments in the first place.

This is a very small measure—a very small price to pay—that would undoubtedly, unavoidably and unarguably improve the legislative process in this place. I believe that people are appalled by some of the things that have happened here over the past few years, not least the expenses scandal and the more recent issue relating to fuel, which could be described as a scandal. The far bigger scandal is the fact that the one thing we are paid to do, we do not, on the whole, do anything like as well as we should, because we often simply do not know what we are doing. That is a scandal that can be rectified so easily with this small measure proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister on LBC, but he might have found clarification on that point. Perhaps Mrs Bone had an opportunity to listen to that interview and will be able to report back to him. The coalition Government have made it clear that we are committed to being the greenest Government ever, and we will not do that at the expense of the environment or of jobs in the emerging industries. At the same time, however, we are aware of the pressures that people face due to their energy bills. That is why we have legislated, for instance, to ensure that people are offered the lowest tariff, and it is why we have measures in place to address the winter peak in fuel costs, with £135 available to 2 million people.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As the Deputy Leader of the House has demonstrated, creative inventiveness has its place in parliamentary debate, but there is a time and place for everything, and it can be taken too far. In light of that, will it be possible to have a debate on the errors—inadvertent, of course—the misrepresentations, inadvertent, and the all-too-frequent inaccuracies, inadvertent, of the Prime Minister in his attempts to answer PMQs?

[Tom Brake]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is clearly not such an opportunity beyond the Prime Minister’s weekly attendance at the Dispatch Box, when he puts across the Government’s position on matters of all natures forcefully and effectively. Of course, the Prime Minister is a more regular attendee at the House to make oral statements than his predecessor.