Elections and Returning Officers

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this matter to the House’s attention yet again, and to see that more than one or two colleagues are here. There is some interest in the matter. That is not a great surprise; if there is one thing that we can be sure Members of Parliament know at least a little about, it is elections and the conduct of elections.

There was much publicity after the general election in May this year, when we saw dreadful scenes that looked as though they came from some third-world country whose democracy was not very well developed. People queued to vote in the general election but were unable to do so after 10 o’clock due to rules made there and then—or, rather, interpreted on the spot—by returning officers.

My interest in the matter did not begin on the night of the general election. For the record, the electoral registration officer in my constituency, who is the acting returning officer, ran an extremely good and efficient election. It also had the right result. I talked to him about the process throughout the build-up to the election, because I was interested in such matters, and I saw how things were conducted in Epping Forest. It was an example of how an election ought to be run.

Although the vast majority of returning officers and electoral registration officers do their jobs impeccably and are never open to criticism, others are unfortunately not quite up to the mark. We discovered before the general election that returning officers are responsible to almost no one. A debate took place in this Chamber on 3 February 2010 in which such matters were examined in relation to election counts. At that point, there was a lot of fuss in the media about whether the result of the general election would become clear the day after or not until later. As it happens—hindsight is a wonderful thing—the true result of that particular general election did not become clear for several days. However, that cannot be blamed on the conduct of returning officers; it was a direct result of the decision of the electorate, which is another matter, and one that we are not here to debate.

The question that arose before the general election was whether the votes ought to be counted at 10 o’clock, immediately on the close of polls, or—as many returning officers decided—on the following day. Some of us got rather exercised about the decisions to wait and said that it was unacceptable behaviour on the part of returning officers. We brought the matter to this Chamber, where it was well debated. However, I was extremely surprised on doing serious research into the role and duties of returning officers to discover that their power and authority extends from a 19th-century statute and has been little modified in more than 100 years.

Parliament dealt with the difficulty in relation to whether returning officers should count votes at 10 o’clock somewhat unusually, by amending primary legislation. I tabled an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. As an Opposition amendment, it looked as though it would be a talking point only, but fortunately, the then Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), decided that the matter needed to be dealt with there and then. He put his name to my amendment, which then became part of the Bill. By a last-minute amendment to primary legislation, returning officers, unless they could demonstrate extenuating circumstances for doing otherwise, were required to start counting votes immediately on the close of poll. That gave us the right results for the last general election, but surely it cannot be right that the law on such a matter should be made ad hoc, in primary legislation, just a few weeks before a general election.

My purpose in asking for this debate was to allow the issues to be aired once again and to begin a general discussion now, I hope, to help the Minister, who I know is intent on improving matters in that area of the law. I also hope that we can begin a discussion that considers what the duties of returning officers are and who undertakes the duty of electoral registration officer and then acting returning officer.

Returning officers, as I am sure hon. Members are aware, are usually not paid officials but the high sheriff of a county, for example: another leftover from 19th-century legislation that has never been properly updated. The person with the official duty and responsibility of returning officer is the titular head of the returning officer’s organisation but takes no actual part whatever in the running of elections, whether day to day, annually or every four or five years. That work is done by the acting returning officer. When one goes back into statute to examine where the acting returning officer’s power derives from, one finds that it is a grey area. Those matters must be updated. In most cases, although the returning officer is, perhaps, the high sheriff or lord lieutenant, the acting returning officer is usually the electoral registration officer, often a high-ranking official in a local authority.

After the debacle during the general election in May, when a significant number of voters were left standing outside polling stations, denied their right to vote due to administrative upheaval and a lack of administrative control and planning, we discovered that acting returning officers are paid a considerable fee for their work in organising a general election. I make no complaint about the structure of that system because, of course, the duties associated with organising a general election only occur once every four or five years. Happily, the general election is now likely to be on a certain date every five years. That will perhaps aid the ability to plan because we will have far more certainty about the date of an election. Indeed, we should all be happy about that.

If someone undertakes to do a job every four or five years, of course, it should not be a permanent position—the job should be paid, and the duties allocated and required only for that time. However, on further examination of the situation, we discovered that very large sums were being paid to returning officers. That has been well documented so I will not read out the sums, because it does not help the debate to put a particular person on the spot, give a particular name and say how much he or she was paid to do a job.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But that is what the hon. Lady’s Government have just done in relation to everyone earning more than £80,000. I do not know why she is being so coy about the matter.

[Mrs Laing]

I accept the shadow Minister’s comment. I understand what he is saying, but he is making a different point on a different matter. I have a list of returning officers who allegedly did not do their jobs very well and yet were paid sums in excess of £12,000 or £15,000 to do that particular job for a few weeks. I am not the kind of politician who embarrasses individual members of society by announcing their names to be recorded in Hansard. We will leave that sort of thing to the tabloid press. The point is that there is no chain of accountability. That is where the problem lies, and that is where the problem lay when we examined how returning officers could be required or even just encouraged to start the election count upon the close of poll. That is also what we discovered when inquiries where carried out correctly by the Electoral Commission into how administration was taken forward for the election in May this year.

It is appalling that senior people in local authorities who have a position of responsibility and normally command salaries well in excess of £100,000—usually far more than that, as far as I can see from the statistics—have not properly planned for a general election and have got things so badly wrong that people were deprived of their vote. In the instances that occurred in May, it is fortunate that there were no cases in which the number of electors who allegedly were unable to vote because of returning officers’ maladministration was greater than the majority in that particular seat. Therefore, there was no reason for an appeal to the courts on the election result. In one way, that is fortunate because it would have meant uncertainty about the results of the election. In another way, however, it is unfortunate, because the matter has not been properly examined, which is another reason for my initiating this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and yet again to gather together this group of hon. Members who take an interest in electoral matters. No doubt we shall gather again this afternoon for the next round of discussions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). There are many things I do not understand about the Government, one of which is why she is not a Minister. She is extremely efficient, capable and competent, and she always makes her argument very well. Yesterday she got a little cross with me. I do not take any offence at that, although a lot of people do.

The basic message from the debate, which I hope returning officers will understand, is that many of us who are involved in politics as elected politicians worry that we are taking democracy somewhat for granted. We all worry about the fact that turnout has fallen, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) mentioned. Turnout rose slightly at the last general election, but it is still lower than it was in the 1980s and earlier. Now is not the time to rehearse those arguments, but in Wales turnout was consistently above 75% or 80%. Wales often had the highest levels of turnout, but lately they have been some of the lowest. That is a worry to us all.

It is all too easy for local authorities, which often make the decisions about funding for the democratic process, to take democracy for granted. A local authority might have to choose between keeping a swimming pool open, which will cost £100,000 a year, or doing a full canvass of every house to ensure that everybody who is entitled to vote is on the register, and that everybody who is not entitled to vote is not on it. Elected politicians at local level sometimes choose to protect the swimming pool rather than the democratic process.

I suspect that over the past few years, the whole anti-politics movement—to give it a name—has added to that problem. Too many people felt that all politicians of whatever political party were in it just for themselves, and that there was no point in voting because, in terms used by many comedians, “If voting made any difference, they’d abolish it.” The issue of Members’ expenses also fed into that, and that cynicism has weighed heavily on the political system over the past few years. That has fed into the presumption that money spent on the electoral register or on electoral processes was not money well spent. That is a mistake.

I am sure that we can all remember watching the first time that people voted in South Africa. There were queues not only down the street but round the block for days. People were camping out and waiting to vote. Watching people vote in countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan, where they might have been running terrible risks to do so, fills a lot of us with admiration. In the Balkans, boycotts of elections have sometimes been organised by one ethnic grouping, and it has been great to see turnouts that were significantly higher than many had anticipated. That is why the scenes that we saw in May were sad. It is fortunate—and only fortunate—that there was no constituency in which the number of people who we know were not able to vote was higher than the majority of the candidate who won. Therefore, we can be confident that that issue may not have affected the result.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) makes an extremely good point: we have no way of knowing how many people went to the polling station, saw a long queue and thought that they would come back later. Perhaps they came back later but still saw a queue and gave up.

[Mr Leech]

There is also the fact that there were local elections on the same day. I guess that in some constituencies, the result of the local election in a particular area was very close. It may be that some people were elected to local councils who would not have been elected if everyone had had the chance to vote.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer him on it. I will speak about combined polls a little later.

The Opposition tried to provide an answer to the issue of 10 o’clock voting with an amendment that was discussed last Monday. Unfortunately, not enough hon. Members felt able to vote for it. The Minister said that the problem with our amendment was that it introduced the concept of a queue into British legislation, and that that might be difficult to define. If the British Parliament cannot define a queue, I do not know which Parliament in the world would be able to do so. Many other places in the world have a system in which, for example, a person’s finger is dabbed with indelible ink the moment that they present themselves, and that is the moment at which they are entitled to receive a vote. I am sure that many other ways could be devised. I hope that the Minister will look specifically at a way of ensuring consistency across the country.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North made the point tellingly: in some constituencies, the returning officer decided to be generous and to stretch the regulations in one direction, but in other constituencies they decided to be extremely strict about how they operated the system. That inconsistency around the country does not inspire confidence in voters. In subsequent elections, people might think that if it is 9.30 pm or 9.45 pm there is no point going to vote because there are always queues at the polling stations.

I do not want to be nasty to the Minister this morning—

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

Keep it for this afternoon.

[Chris Bryant]

I cannot keep it for this afternoon because I do not think that the Minister will be responding to the debate then. However, I thought that he was a little complacent about that element last Monday afternoon. He said that the issue was not an enormous problem and that there was not an enormous number of instances in which it had happened. The figure of 1,200 was suggested, but I suspect that many more people were affected. I suspect that in Hackney North and Stoke Newington alone more than 1,500 people ended up not being able to vote because of the situation. I hope that the Minister will return to the issue with some means of providing consistency around the country.

The inconsistency around the country applies not only to what happens at 10 o’clock but to a whole series of different issues. In part, that is precisely because of the reason adduced by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: although the responsibilities and powers are laid down in statute, a wide amount of freedom is given to the returning officers and there is little accountability. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington that it is ludicrous that such a job is thought of as additional to the job of electoral registration officer, and that somehow people have to be additionally recompensed in order to perform their function when there is a general election. I think that it should be part of the standard job description and that no additional fees should be payable. It should be run of the mill and part of doing the job. Frankly, if someone does not do the job well, they should not remain in it. It should not be a question of getting extra payments.

[Mrs Laing]

It is worth going over that point again. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: not only is it not part of the job description of a local authority employee, but there is also a lack of accountability. The fee for doing the job comes from central funds, but there is no line of accountability to that. As we have seen, some people were paid perhaps £15,000 for administering matters this year. They got it wrong and were not required to pay a penny back.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady makes her point extremely well. I hope that the Minister will think about whether we need to look at the structure of how returning officers—in most cases, broadly speaking, an honorific title—and those beneath them are appointed.

In my constituency in 2001, the returning officer appointed himself because he wanted to announce the election result. Unfortunately, he could not speak Welsh. He decided that he had to make the announcement in Welsh first, despite the fact that remarkably few people in the Rhondda speak Welsh, and very few people in the hall spoke it. He certainly did not speak Welsh, so what he announced was virtually incomprehensible. The BBC immediately switched off and went somewhere else. We would be better off with the electoral registration officer, who is the person who knows the law best, being the returning officer. I am sorry if that means that we will be sacking all the high sheriffs and lord lieutenants of the land. I mean no disservice to them but it is a professional job that must be done on a professional basis.

Another point raised was about when the count should take place. I think that people like the drama of election night. It is fascinating that people are watching the BBC’s 1970 and 1974 election programmes, which are now being re-shown. It is quite exciting thinking “I can’t remember who won Plymouth, Devonport” or wherever. I had an Australian friend who was my lodger. This was a few years ago. He was fascinated by Australian politics and refused to watch any news for a week until his mother had sent him the five DVDs with the election television programme from Australia. It took even longer than it might have because the count takes a long time in Australia.

My point is that the drama of election night is very important and, as we saw in our election, all the more important because sometimes it can determine the feeling, when there is to be a hung Parliament, about how Governments may or may not be formed. That is why there should be consistency across the land. If there are combined elections, the general election votes should be counted first, and the count should not start at 4.19 in the morning and finish at 8 o’clock in the morning. That explains why the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North looked just a little weary by the time his election result came out. We should be moving to greater consistency in that regard.

That leaves us with the problem in relation to combining polls. If we are to go to a fixed-term Parliament when we already have fixed-term council elections and fixed-term Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland and for the Parliament in Scotland, we either decide that they will all coincide always, so that that is a fixed part of the programme as it is in the United States of America, where there are elections every two years, or we decide that we will not combine polls at all, because that is better. I think that it is a bit odd that we have elections on the first Thursday in May, because April is a pretty rubbish month to go campaigning. Chaucer got it right when he talked about April with its showers. Perhaps we should think about another month. I say that as someone who was first elected in June rather than May.

Obviously, it is more important that we hear from the Minister than that we hear further expatiations from me. I just hope that the issues of consistency around the country can be addressed, as well as the finance and the accountability of returning officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington raised. In Manchester, there were polling stations that covered too great a geographical area, or far too many electors were expected to vote in them. It is good to hear that Manchester city council has taken steps to address that. It is one of the issues set out in the guidance from the Electoral Commission. It lays out broadly how many electors should be going to a particular polling station, precisely so that if there is a high turnout, that number of electors can be processed smoothly. It is good to hear that in places where we know that there were issues, they are being dealt with. I do not know overall across the country whether there has been a reduction in the number of polling stations.

I suspect that one problem was that given that turnout was lower at the last few general elections and at other elections, as the hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted, some acting returning officers made assumptions that turnout would continue at a low level and were caught unawares when, perhaps because people were more engaged in the election, they took part in it in greater numbers.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure that the Minister is absolutely right, and I think that another assumption the officers made was that many more people would vote by post. That has undoubtedly happened: in my constituency we have lost, I think, eight polling stations since I was first elected in 2001, for all sorts of reasons that are pretty much insurmountable. Virtually everyone in those old polling districts now votes by post, notwithstanding the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart).

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I suspect that in some areas people have made assumptions about postal voting. Because of the problems that we have had with such voting at previous elections, quite a lot of my constituents who had decided to vote by post have now gone back to voting in person, partly because they like doing that but also because they feel that it is more secure. Acting returning officers need to take that into account.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am most grateful to you, Ms Primarolo, for trying to ensure that we stick to the amendment. I am a bit flattered in that my amendment is being debated on its own. The best thing for me to do now is to sit down so that I can listen to what the Minister has to say in response to my question: why is the form of AV set out in the Bill preferable to the other form of AV already available in this country, which has been experienced in London and in other cities?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but I shall not support his amendment. I disagree with it first and foremost because no provision was made in any party’s manifesto for this version of the alternative vote. When the Labour party said it wanted a referendum on the alternative vote system, we certainly meant a full alternative vote system in which people could continue to express their preference, as long as there was a preference still to be expressed.

Originally, the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto had nothing to do with the alternative vote, but if they had proposed a form of the alternative vote it would have been, as we saw in their negotiations with the Conservative and Labour parties after the general election and as was commonly understood, that under AV the voter was allowed to express a preference all through the system. The hon. Member for Christchurch might object that AV was not in his party’s manifesto in any shape or form. That is why I have a slight suspicion that his amendment is intended more as a wrecking amendment, although to be generous I shall suggest it is a probing amendment. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—in rather elegant turquoise, if I may say so—said that AV gives some people two or even three votes. That is not the case. People have one vote, but are allowed to keep on expressing it as a preference while the process continues.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is some scope for confusion among the electorate? If there were six candidates on the ballot paper, people might feel that they must continue voting until they have exhausted those six options. A British National party candidate, for example, would probably be nobody’s choice, but electors might feel confused and believe that it was necessary for them to vote for such a candidate as their sixth preference. The British National party candidate might then get their sixth vote.

[Chris Bryant]

No, not at all. If the hon. Gentleman read the clauses and schedules carefully, he would see that they make it absolutely clear what information must be provided to the voter—whether voting by post or in person. The Bill provides not just for an advisory referendum but an enacting one, so it will happen if there is a yes vote. The provisions make it clear that voters can continue to express their preference for as long as they wish—or, indeed, they can stop expressing it if they wish to. They can simply say, “My first preference is exhibit A” and subsequently make no further preferences. In the Labour leadership contest, which used the alternative vote—the votes of all Labour MPs were published—quite a few Labour Members voted just for their first preference and chose not to exercise their second, third or fourth preference at all. Some chose to go right down the list—whether it was so that they could say that they had voted for all five candidates, who knows?

There is only one vote, but this brings us to a key question raised by the Minister yesterday: under the system intended to be used, will the winning candidate always have received 50% plus one of the votes?

[Graham Stringer]

On this technical point, does it not depend on how many second preferences are made or, under the full alternative vote system, on how many other additional preferences are made? It is not necessary to get past 50%.

[Chris Bryant]

I gave way rather too soon, as that was precisely the point I was about to make. If people decide not to cast a second or third preference, it is perfectly possible that the winner will not have achieved 50% plus one of the total number of votes originally cast. The winner will have acquired 50% plus one of the votes of those still expressing a preference at that stage, whereas under the hon. Member for Christchurch’s proposal more often the individual elected would not have got even close to 50% plus one of the total number of votes cast. That is why I disagree with the system he proposes.

I fully understand the point made about the term “alternative”. I am one of those irritating people who regularly objects when the word “less” is used when “fewer” is meant. I am annoyed when Marks and Spencer uses it—a pretty depressing state of affairs. I have noticed, however, that although I keep on saying this and correcting people, it wins me no friends—it just irritates people; it has not changed anybody’s practice. It is absolutely true that in Latin—most of us do not speak it much of the day, although the Mayor of London might—alternative means one or the other out of two. Sometimes in places such as Wales there are just two candidates—Labour and Plaid Cymru—but for the most part the number of candidates is considerably higher. There have not been many unopposed elections for many years, either.

If we end up with an alternative vote system, whereby people can express their preferences on a full list, the number of candidates standing will probably increase. There will probably be candidates standing for parties that do not expect to win, but they may be able to persuade their voters by saying, “Well, it is all right to give me your first preference, but when you want to plump for the person you would most like to win, as opposed to the person most likely to win, you can do so”. I understand that this is not the view of all Opposition Members or indeed of the majority of Government Members, but to my mind that would have a positive effect on British politics, enabling more people to engage in the political system.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

My hon. Friend is making his usual fluent speech with great confidence, but how can he say that this will provide a better system? I do not want to go too wide of the amendment, but how can it possibly be right that seven votes are required to end up with a majority of 50%? If there are seven candidates, people will vote seven times. How is that a fair result in a democracy?

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I hope that in replying, the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into a general discussion about AV.

[Chris Bryant]

I would like to ask you, Ms Primarolo, whether you view this as constituting a stand part debate as well.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I do not consider this to be a stand part debate because the amendment is very narrow. Members should be aware of that: if they push the margins too widely, it will lead to sacrificing debate later.

[Chris Bryant]

Fine. I just wanted to give notice that we would like a stand part debate when the debate on this amendment has concluded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) is wrong. In theory, it might seem possible to cast seven preferences if there were seven candidates; however, a preference would be expressed only six times, as at the end it is a choice between the sixth and seventh candidates. It is unlikely that that would happen very often in practice.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s speech so far, although I have not heard all the debate so far. Is not one advantage of the amendment the fact that if the voting were constrained to those possibilities, it would remove the possibility that major party candidates would try to appeal to extreme parties that might be well down the voting list?

[Chris Bryant]

I am tempted to make a partisan comment about the hon. Gentleman’s own political party appealing to extremist views, but I have decided not to.

I do not think that that opinion can be genuinely held. Undoubtedly all politicians presenting themselves for election try to secure the largest number of votes. What I think that AV will do—and here I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister—is put an end to safe seats. I say that as one who represents a seat that many people would probably consider to be historically safe.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the position in Australia, which operates a form of the alternative vote? I understand that a large number of seats are won on the first count, and are safe seats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

A significant difference is that in Australia voting is compulsory. Exactly the same argument could be used about Chile, but it also has more political parties taking part in elections, and consequently ends up with a rather broader way of doing politics.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

This intervention relates directly to the amendment, Ms Primarolo. I am grateful to Lord Campbell-Savours for pointing out to me that the alternative vote as described in “the Chope amendment” is Labour policy as recommended by the report of the Plant commission. It was described as the supplementary vote, and was devised by Lord Campbell-Savours and Professor Dunleavy. In fact, Labour policy entirely conformed with the amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

Lord Plant is a very eminent and splendid man who has contributed much to the Labour party and to the movement, but I do not think that the policy that we advocated before the 1997 general election necessarily binds us in this evening’s vote. [Interruption.] I note that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is worried about people standing by commitments that they made in 1996. His party cannot even stand by commitments that it made earlier this year, so I am not sure that he is one to talk.

My simple point is that I think it likely that if Britain ends up with an alternative vote system, not as recommended in the amendment but as recommended in the Bill, we will end up with fewer safe seats in the sense in which many people understand it. It may well be that the historical reality of safe seats is changing anyway because many more voters now adopt a pick-and-mix approach.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has received another note from Lord Campbell-Savours, but of course I will give way to him.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Committee that when he talks of being in favour of a change in the voting system and of getting rid of safe seats, he is expressing a personal opinion, and not the opinion of the Labour party?

[Chris Bryant]

I said at the outset that I knew that my personal support for the alternative vote was not necessarily shared by all those sitting behind me. I am glad that my hon. Friend—my knighted hon. Friend—has given himself an opportunity to put on record his scepticism about the policy being advocated. I am only sorry that he does not agree with me, but I know that he agrees with me about many other matters.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be wrong to conclude—and I am sure that he is not so doing—that the vast majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party want any change in the electoral system? Many of us believe that, with all its flaws and blemishes, the existing system is the best.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the views of the parliamentary Labour party, vast or otherwise, are not specifically relevant to the amendment. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) by informing him that he can move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Syms]

I have always supported first past the post, but if I were to argue for any alternative I would go for the German system, which could effectively be used in Scotland or Wales. I think that it is a better, more logical system, which retains the link between Member and constituency. However, that is not what is proposed in amendment 62.

I think that the amendment is sensible because it goes to the root of AV, which is the weighting of votes. Endless weighting of votes makes a system that is meant to be fairer much more unfair, because those who have a first choice are cancelled out. It might be fairer if someone’s second preference were counted as half a vote, or someone’s third preference as a third of a vote, or someone’s fourth preference as a fifth of a vote; but treating the preferences equally produces lowest-common-denominator politics. It means that the least offensive people can win, and that those with the most positive and passionate politics can lose.

[Chris Bryant]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the use of AV, full stop, and will argue for a “no” vote in the referendum. I should have thought, therefore, that it would make more sense for him to ensure, according to a sort of Maoist principle, that the question on the ballot paper is the one that he can most easily attack.

[Mr Syms]

I am not sure that the average voter will be much impressed by having a choice between one to seven or just a supplementary vote. I think they will be utterly confused in the coming referendum, and who wins and who loses may well be in the lap of the gods.

The weighting of votes is the weakest element of AV. I am committed to the coalition agreement and I will vote for the Bill and support the Minister, but I will also participate in the debate and I think that, regardless of whether the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is a probing amendment, it is a useful contribution to the discussion of the relative merits of the AV system, which does not have many merits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that is exactly why we chose the optional preferential system—so that voters could vote once if they wanted to, or for as many candidates as were available. We thought that that choice was better left to the voter.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way once more, to the Labour Front Bencher, and then I will make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is absolutely right. In the present system, in multi-member wards in local government elections, if there are three seats to be filled, voters can put three crosses, if they want. Quite often, they do not use all three. That may be because they do not know that they are able to use all three, or it may be that they choose not to use all three—who knows? It is not for us to guess, but allowing voters a degree of freedom is a good idea.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I am conscious, Mr Gale, that the Chair will permit a stand part debate, so I will conclude my remarks on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. As I say, I fear to point out to him that it is technically defective—it does not do what he intends it to do—so I request that he withdraw it and allow us to debate the clause as it is; we can then see whether the House is content to let the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Ms Primarolo has said that there will be a stand part debate, but she and I are agreed—and I have followed the debate very carefully—that the clause is very narrow in its remit. It sets out how votes are to given, how votes are to be counted and what information is to be given at each stage and no more. I trust that the stand part debate will address those issues and no others.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The most important element of the clause is the fact that it turns an advisory referendum into an implementing referendum. In one sense, it is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. Indeed, if there is a yes vote, it will directly change the voting system and several elements of it. I have a series of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

First, subsection (1) of the clause, on page 5 and on the subject of how votes are to be cast, states:

“A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with…the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote)…if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite”

and so on. In relation to the discussion we have just had, I wonder whether if somebody marked the ballot paper with a cross against their first preference, which would clearly be an indication that that was the only way that they were choosing to vote, that would not be counted as a valid vote.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps the Minister will be able to respond when he replies to the debate, because I have a few other questions in this vein. It would be my feeling that that should be the case, although I am not sure whether in law it is necessary for us to put it on the face of the Bill. I could not see it anywhere else in the schedule that pertains to this measure and consequently I presume that at some point we might need to put it into the Bill through some form of amendment. Obviously, it is important that we get this right now, because once the Bill has gone through, it will be far more complicated after the referendum—if it is successful and there is a yes vote—for us to go back to it.

Secondly, on page 5 it also says that if one candidate has more votes than the others put together, that is the determining factor, rather than achieving 50% plus one of the total votes cast. Will the Minister clarify why we are using that process? I presume it is because at each subsequent stage one would not be able to guarantee that anybody was going to achieve more than the 50% plus one of the total number of votes cast, including those that were spoilt and all the rest of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I wish to make a very brief contribution on a specific technical matter regarding the counting of the votes under the alternative vote system. That procedure is outlined in subsection (2), under which the candidate with the fewest votes at any stage is eliminated and his or her next preferences are redistributed. I am not clear from my reading of the Bill what the situation would be if two or more candidates were tied in last place with an equal number of votes. Would both candidates be eliminated and their votes redistributed or would some form of lot be held to determine which dropped out and had their votes eliminated first?

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure the Minister will say this in a moment, but provision is made for that in schedule 6, which states that a lot will be drawn.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has a greater detailed knowledge of the Bill than me. My question is therefore answered and I shall resume my seat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I hesitate to jump forward, Mr Gale, because we are going to debate schedule 6, which is linked to this clause. Schedule 6 clearly sets out what to do if the voter does not use numerical marking. It works in the same way as current legislation, which asks the voter to make a cross but provides that if they make some other mark on the ballot paper that shows a clear preference, the returning officer can count it. The example that we had yesterday, which I have seen, was that if someone puts a smiley face, but only one smiley face, which shows a clear intention, it can be counted.

[Chris Bryant]

The difficulty is with the way in which the Bill has been constructed to have some elements of the provisions in the schedule and some in the clause. What will happen if someone puts a cross against a name and puts a 1 against another name?

[Mr Harper]

We cannot put in a piece of legislation every single possible scenario; that is not done in existing legislation. We have set out what we want voters to do and we have made provision for some common issues. Ultimately, as with today’s elections, the returning officer has discretion to judge whether the voter’s intentions are clearly expressed. If they are, the returning officer can take them into account, but if they are not, he cannot. That is how existing legislation works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but he will forgive me if I do not want to get into what happened in Scotland a few years ago.

The final question that the hon. Member for Rhondda asked was why the Bill does not refer to a candidate getting 50% plus one of the votes. The drafting is designed to work not just in the first round but, as he suggested, in subsequent rounds. As came out in the debate on the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), although someone who wins under the alternative vote system has to have 50% of the votes that are still in the count, they do not necessarily have to have 50% plus one of the votes cast in the election, because if all voters do not express a preference, someone can get elected on a smaller share of the original vote.

It is important that I run briefly through the details of the clause, because, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has pointed out, if there is a yes vote next year, a Minister will have to lay an order before the House and the system we are debating will be the electoral system that is used in this country to elect Members to the House of Commons. It is therefore worth the Committee spending a little time considering what the rules would be.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me ask a brief question. If there were a by-election for a parliamentary seat next year, after a yes vote, which system would pertain?

[Mr Harper]

The first thing for me to do is draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the part of the Bill that talks about the order-making power. If there were a by-election, it would not be practical for different Members of the House to be elected by different electoral systems. The new system would come in at the general election so that every Member of the House was elected by the same electoral system. It would be invidious to do otherwise.

The clause sets out the key amendments to the parliamentary election rules, which are the conduct rules for parliamentary elections. It inserts two new rules—37A and 45A—which concern how votes are cast by voters, how votes are counted and how the winning candidate is elected. Further amendments are set out in schedule 6, which will be considered later. Of the range of voting systems, each has its advantages and disadvantages. As I have said, the Government are going to put before voters either the first-past-the-post system or this version of the alternative vote. In developing the provisions in the Bill, we have taken into account legislation and practices used elsewhere in the UK where preferences are used, as well as the experience of voting systems in other countries, such as Australia, where AV—albeit not the same version as we have proposed—is used in elections to the House of Representatives and in a number of state legislative assemblies. We have developed provisions that we think are best suited to the House of Commons, drawing on UK and international experience.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that Members are clear in their mind about which form of AV the Government are proposing that we ask voters about. It strikes me that there is a job of work to be done during the campaign, because although Members are probably relative anoraks when it comes to understanding electoral systems—after all, that is how we get here, and we all have electoral systems very close to our heart—there was a fair bit of confusion this afternoon about how amendment 62 would work, and how the AV system will work as set out in clause 7, so whatever side of the debate we shall be on in the electoral campaign, I think we all have our work cut out. I would therefore ask that clause 7 stand part of the Bill, so that we can move closer to the day when it gets Royal Assent and we can engage in that referendum campaign.

[Chris Bryant]

I think we have discovered another problem in the clause, have we not, in relation to what the Minister just said. He said that the Minister would not be bringing AV forward so that it affected any by-elections next year. However, clause 7 is the implementing element of the Bill and it hangs on clause 6, which says that the Minister must put all of this into operation by virtue of an order; and he is now saying that it is not stated anywhere in the Bill that that would happen at the next general election, rather than immediately. Let us say that there is a yes vote in May 2011 and there is a by-election at the end of May or in June or July, which is perfectly possible—or for that matter several by-elections—the Minister’s decision as to whether or not to bring in the order would almost certainly end up being challenged in the courts, because it is nowhere explicit in the Bill. So I am afraid that I do not find his answers sufficient. For that matter, I know he is relying on the word consequential in rule 45B(4), which states that the amendments have to be consequential. However, I know from our own time in government that the word consequential can be something of a weasel word, and some people try to slip larger things in than perhaps they should. I agreed with him when he used to condemn such matters.

[Mr Harper]

To return to my previous point, the hon. Gentleman should read clause 6 more closely. It states:

“The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 7, Schedule 6 and Part 1 of Schedule 7 (‘the alternative vote provisions’) if—

(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer ‘Yes’ than in favour of the answer ‘No’, and

(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act…has been submitted to Her Majesty”.

In other words, this system will come into force, if there is a yes vote in the referendum, once the order has been brought in implementing the new electoral boundaries. If by-elections were to be held, they would be for constituencies with the old boundaries, not with the new ones, so I think I was accurate in the way I set out the position.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not think the Minister was, because he is relying on what happens in the rest of the Bill. Anyway, we are not convinced by the Minister’s presentation of his case on the clause, so we will be pressing the clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

These Government amendments—following our debate yesterday—genuinely fall into the technical category. Their purpose is to set out the procedure in the parliamentary election rules for determining which candidate is to be elected when only two candidates stand at an election under the alternative vote system and they receive the same number of first-preference votes. The amendments would provide for the returning officer to decide by lot which of the two candidates was to be elected.

Under the current first-past-the-post system, a tie between candidates is resolved by the returning officer drawing lots. Under the alternative vote system, the situation might arise whereby during the count either two or more candidates at a particular counting stage had the same number of votes or at the final counting round the two remaining candidates had the same number of votes. The provisions in paragraph 7 insert new rules 49 and 49A into the parliamentary election rules to deal with those circumstances. If the tie were at the first counting stage, on first-preference votes, lots would still have to be used to decide the outcome. If the tie occurred at a later counting stage, under the alternative vote system the use of preferences would allow the returning officer to refer to previous stages and use those preferences to make the decision.

The drafting of new rules 49 and 49A does not specifically cover the unlikely situation in which there are only two candidates at the outset who receive the same number of votes, but we thought it sensible to ensure that that possibility was clearly addressed to avoid any doubt. The Government have therefore tabled the amendments to ensure that rule 49A deals with the possibility of that situation and provides for the winner to be elected by drawing lots. I hope that Members are content with that.

We touched on this issue during our debate about clause 7, but it is worth saying that clause 7 deals with the two key aspects of the election under the alternative vote system—how votes are cast by voters and how they are counted. Schedule 6 sets out further amendments to the parliamentary election rules and other aspects of electoral law that would be required to hold a UK parliamentary election under the alternative vote. The changes reflect the fact that the election would be held under a preferential voting system. They touch on the ballot paper and guidance for voters; how we conduct recounts; how we decide whether the ballot papers are rejected; how we deal with candidates with the same number of votes—I have just set out our amendment on that; how the result is declared; a candidate’s deposit; and a number of other changes.

I am content for any member of the Committee to ask me questions on those measures, but I do not see anyone rising to their feet immediately. I urge Members to accept the Government’s amendments and to agree to the schedule.

[Chris Bryant]

In light of your earlier comments, Mr Gale, I hope that it is okay for me to stray into a debate about whether the schedule be agreed to.

The schedule makes a number of other very important amendments to the law that pertains to the election, and they, along with the other measures that we discussed in clause 7, will come into force when the Minister tables the order that follows a yes vote in the referendum. Some of the provisions are pretty straightforward. For instance, the notice that is normally exhibited on the ballot paper under the existing system says, “Vote for one candidate only”. Obviously, that would be thoroughly misleading if we were to adopt the alternative vote system, because it would point out precisely what the voters had not to do.

One relatively interesting point is that the guidance will make it clear:

“Do not use the same number more than once.’”

I presume that if a voter did use the same number more than once, that would invalidate a vote. I presume that if somebody voted 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, that would invalidate the vote at the point that one reached the second preference, because one would not be able to determine the second preference, even if there had been some other strange means of adding to it.

[Thomas Docherty]

This is obviously a very technical and complex debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly why, in the next version of this Bill, the Government have to give way on the issue of the same date for the Welsh and Scottish elections in 2015? The potential for confusion is far too great.

[Chris Bryant]

As I have said previously, one difficulty that we as a Committee have in debating the Bill is that we do not know the precise amendments that the Government are going to table on the combination of polls in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We do not yet know what the law—as the Government expect it to be in relation to those three territorial departments—will be, because the statutory instruments have not been tabled. That makes it difficult for us to imagine exactly what a polling station is going to look like when somebody goes in. However, the measures in the schedule do not affect the conduct of the referendum next May, but rather the conduct of an election at a subsequent date once there has been a successful yes vote in a referendum and the measure has been introduced.

[Thomas Docherty]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being clear enough. I was referring to the 2015 elections, where we will have the additional member system in Scotland, as well as first-past-the-post and the AV system, if the Government do not give way. Would it not have been better to have one single Bill for fixed terms and for these provisions instead of this mish-mash of two Bills?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a good point, although I have not yet given up on the idea that the Government’s Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will end up with a five-year rather than a four-year parliamentary term, which would be more advisable and acceptable, I suspect, to this House and the other place. If there were to be a combination of simultaneous parliamentary elections in Scotland for this House and for the Scottish Parliament, and in Wales for this House and for the Assembly, operating under different electoral systems, both of which involved writing “1, 2, 3, 4, 5”, there would be capacity for confusion, and polling stations could be a rather complex area for voters to enter. Unfortunately, we are not able to have that provision in this Bill because the Government have decided to bring forward not a great reform Act but little tiddly bits of reform as they can be spatchcocked into Bills to appease both sides of the coalition.

Under paragraph 5, the system for recounts will be changed to allow for a recount to happen at any stage in the voting process. That is obviously a sensible measure. If, say, five candidates were standing and the person in fifth place is there by only two or three votes, they will want to have a recount to make sure that they really are the person who should be eliminated at that stage. I remember that when I stood in 1997 in High Wycombe—not traditionally a safe Labour seat; in fact, the Conservatives had a majority of 18,000—there was a recount in the ballot, and on a night when many Conservative seats fell, my friends thought, “Blimey, it looks as if Bryant has won High Wycombe.” In fact, I had not come anywhere near to winning; it was all about whether somebody else—the Green candidate, I think—had lost his deposit.

Under the schedule—it is also animadverted to in the clause that we have just debated—there is to be a public announcement at each stage of the process, so at each point where there is an elimination the returning officer gets everybody together to agree, “Yes, this is the person who is being eliminated, these are the votes that have been cast, these are the second preferences as they have been cast, this is the number of non-allocated ballots,” and so on. I am concerned about that, because there has been a growing tendency for the presumption of secrecy during the counting process to be completely ignored, with many broadcasters and journalists asking candidates on the night, in the middle of the count, to reveal what is happening in the process. That is a disturbing trend, particularly in relation to postal ballots. At some counts, the returning officer has decided not to validate the postal ballots separately but to put them in with all the others so that nobody can start doing what every political party does—the sampling process—and then say, “It was the postal ballots that won this election,” or otherwise. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that, particularly as it might apply in the process as it develops.

If we have public announcements at every stage, are we not letting the secrecy of the ballot run away with us? It has sometimes been difficult to get all the agents and candidates together for announcements, and it might take some considerable time to arrive at an election result if one had to go through the whole process at each stage. I understand, however, that according to the schedule there can also be a recount at the end of the process, as long as the final result has not yet been announced. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will enlighten me.

I am glad to see this provision:

“A ballot paper on which a number is marked elsewhere than in a proper place shall not be deemed to be void for that reason alone.”

That mirrors provisions elsewhere in legislation. However, I wonder what improper place might be given as a reason why a vote might be declared void. In addition, the provision:

“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which…is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but…is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an arabic numeral), shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number (written as an arabic numeral) has been marked instead”,

is an important element of what we are guaranteeing. In the transition from the existing system to the new system, assuming that there is a yes vote, if a voter still has not quite understood the system, or, for that matter, is a conscientious objector to the new system and therefore wants to vote only with their first preference and chooses to do so with an X, a tick, or as the Minister frequently says—I am not sure if that is because he votes in this way—with a smiley face, then we should allow them to do so.

We are fully supportive of the Minister’s amendments, which seem to make sense in the way that he has described. I hope that he will be able to answer the questions that I have asked in the course of my comments. Otherwise, I see no reason why the schedule should not stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be mostly concerned about publicity in relation to the declaration of results. Rule 45B in clause 7 requires the returning officer to “make publicly available” specified information, so that information will be public not only to those at the count—the agents and so forth—but to the media and everybody else. He refers to an increasing trend for people to set out the partial results of elections before the result is declared. He will know that that is an offence. I shall not name the person, but there was a parliamentary candidate—a Member of this House—who did that on Twitter and was suitably chastised. However, I do not think it is a widespread situation that people are publicly making declarations or suggestions about the results of general elections. If they were to do so, that would be an offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that that is right. I know about the instance that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Because of the practice of sampling, which happens when returning officers verify the postal votes separately, I have frequently heard people say—indeed, I have heard it in this House—that a seat was won or lost solely by virtue of the postal votes. I would have thought that that was an offence.

[Mr Harper]

I am not going to get into what may or may not be an offence. The hon. Gentleman may well be right. I thought that he was citing the situation whereby people have referred to results before the result was declared, which is clearly more significant. Because of the nature of the alternative vote, one cannot just wait until the final result but must say what is going on at each stage. The Bill makes it clear that that will be publicly declared so that everybody knows what is going on.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the recount rules in the schedule, which make it clear that at any stage

“a candidate or candidate’s election agent…may request the returning officer to have the votes re-counted”.

In the same way as under our current rules, that would be not a demand but a request that could be made. It would ultimately be up to the returning officer to grant it, unless they thought it unreasonable. Of course, the returning officer themselves could choose to have a recount if they thought there were problems with how the count had progressed.

I think those were the only issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, unless I missed any. I therefore hope that the amendments will be accepted.

Amendment 198 agreed to.

Amendments made: 199, page 147, line 19, at end insert—

‘(b) in the case of an election with only two candidates who receive an equal number of votes.’.

Amendment 200, page 147, line 20, at beginning insert ‘Where paragraph (1)(a) applies,’.

Amendment 201, page 147, line 26, leave out from ‘Where’ to second ‘the’ and insert

‘paragraph (1)(a) above applies but the tie is not resolved under paragraph (2) above, or where paragraph (1)(b) above applies,’.

Amendment 202, page 147, line 28, leave out ‘remaining’ and insert ‘two’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8

Reports of the Boundary Commissions

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 127, page 6, leave out line 35 and insert—

‘(a) within twelve months of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 coming into force in accordance with section 16(2) thereof’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 341, page 6, line 35, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2018’.

Amendment 342, page 6, line 36, leave out ‘fifth’ and insert ‘tenth’.

Amendment 38, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

‘(3A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

“(2AA) The boundary review due to be completed by the date set out in subsection (2)(a) above shall not begin until both Houses of Parliament have approved a report from the Electoral Commission certifying that in its opinion sufficient measures have been taken to provide for the registration of eligible voters.”.’.

Amendment 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) This rule is subject to an independent assessment of the Boundary Commission as to the potential electorate within any area where the Commission, having consulted—

(a) the Electoral Commission,

(b) the Registration Officer of the local authority or authorities in that area,

(c) such other organisations and individuals whom the Boundary Commission may choose to consult,

determine that the difference between the registered electorate and the assessed numbers eligible to be registered is so significant as to give rise to concern about the number of people to be served within such constituencies as would otherwise be created by rule 2(1) above.’.

Amendment 125, page 10, line 2, leave out from ‘persons’ to end of line 6 and insert

‘who are estimated by the Office of National Statistics to be eligible to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections, whether or not they are so registered to vote.’.

Amendment 135, in clause 16, page 13, line 5, at end insert

‘with the exception of Part 2, which will not come into force until—

(a) after the referendum on the determination of powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006; and

(b) the Electoral Commission has reported to the House of Commons, that over 95% of eligible voters in each local authority area are estimated to be on the electoral register.’.

[Chris Bryant]

I presume that once we have been through the amendments, we might then have a clause stand part debate, but maybe you will wish to return to that matter later, Mr Gale, having seen how the debate proceeds.

As the Committee will know, we are now moving into part 2 of the Bill, and into what I believe to be its directly partisan elements. Clause 8 provides for a complete change in how the boundary commissions will proceed, and particularly in the speed with which they will produce their reports. The Government say in subsection (3):

“A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically…before 1st October 2013, and…before 1st October of every fifth year after that.”

The last part of that presumes that another Bill that is currently going through the House, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, will not only be carried but remain precisely as it stands. It assumes that we will have five-year Parliaments.

I have pointed out before to the Deputy Prime Minister that the average length of a British Parliament in peacetime since 1832 has been three years and eight months. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been some five-year Parliaments, not least the previous one and the final Parliament of John Major’s Government, for the most part the British political system has tended to move more or less in a three and a half to four and a half-year cycle. It would make far more sense for us to proceed on the basis of a four-year Parliament than a five-year Parliament, especially since I find remarkably few instances of the latter around the world.

The existing process for boundary reviews is that they proceed on a seven-year basis. That is partly because after the Triennial Act 1641 originally provided for three-year Parliaments, there was later a move to seven-year Parliaments. As a result of the Parliament Act 1911, Parliaments were changed to five years, but without a change in the seven-yearly boundary reviews.

The assumption has always been that the boundary commissions in each nation of the UK are independent. That has not changed, except that an overriding provision is to be arrived at before each national commission considers the matter. The Government intend that there should be boundary commission reports on the whole country by 1 October 2013 and subsequently every five years. Our amendment would leave out the words “before 1st October 2013” and insert

“within twelve months of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010”—

this Bill—

“coming into force in accordance with section 16(2) thereof”,

which of course provides for the entry into force of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that the boundaries be redrawn, whether in three years or seven? Does he agree that it is almost absurd and bizarre that Labour can secure 70% of the MPs from Scotland with 42% of the vote? Surely that is wrong and must be challenged.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously I would love Labour to secure every single seat in Scotland, but I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me to talk about proportional systems, which are not the material of part 2. As he knows, I believe that there is a case for reform and for redrawing boundaries, but how do we decide how that should be done? More importantly in the context of clause 8, we have to consider what time should be allocated for a boundary commission to be able to carry out a review in a genuinely independent way that meets political needs. I understand that he may believe that the boundaries in Scotland are currently drawn up so as to benefit Labour over the Scottish National party, but I am not sure whether that is true.

[Pete Wishart]

That is exactly what I contend. It takes many fewer electors in Scotland to elect a Labour MP than one of any other party. The reason why I believe a boundary review is necessary is that there is something wrong with the fact that 42% of the voters in Scotland can elect 70% of its MPs. Surely that cannot be right. As a fair man, surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that it is wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman knows that in majoritarian systems, there is a disproportionate benefit for parties that get beyond 40% of the vote. That is a simple fact, so in a sense, his argument is partly in favour of a change to the electoral system, which I am sure he supports, although I suspect he supports a fully proportional system rather than the one subject to the referendum. However, it is not true to suggest—as we read in some of the propaganda—that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Liberal MP. [Interruption.] I am not denying that that has happened, but it does not happen because of the drawing of the boundaries. It sometimes takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP because of the tendency of likely Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters to live in certain areas.

[Gavin Barwell]

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report by the British Academy entitled, “Drawing a New Constituency Map for the United Kingdom”? It finds that a number of factors give rise to the apparent bias in the electoral system, but that constituency boundaries were worth 18 seats to the Labour party at the last general election. He is right to say that there are a number of factors, including the distribution of the vote, but Labour seats are smaller on average than Conservative seats. That independent analysis found that that was worth 18 seats to Labour at the last general election. Has he seen that report and would he like to comment on it?

[Chris Bryant]

I have seen the report and I agree with some elements of it. I agree with the bits that agree with me and disagree with the bits that disagree with me and that are unhelpful to my argument. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the bits of the report that is not helpful to my argument, so I was not going to refer to it.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Contrary to the evidence offered by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might be aware that some extensive work by the university of Liverpool that was reported on “Newsnight” in the third week of August showed that the proposed mathematical formula and the arbitrary reduction from 650 to 600 seats would result in a 13% loss for the Liberal Democrats, a 10% loss for the Labour party, but only a 4% loss for the Conservatives.

[Chris Bryant]

I happened to see that programme, and it helps my argument, so I am quite happy to refer to it.

[Gavin Barwell]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

He is back again.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s honest answer to my question, and I do not mean to be unhelpful to his argument, but if he accepts that analysis—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not accept it.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman must do a little better in explaining why he does not accept that analysis. If, as the independent British Academy report suggests, the current boundary system favours the Labour party, albeit in a minor way, does he accept that it is unreasonable to allow that unfairness to continue, and does he agree that it should be addressed before the next general election?

[Chris Bryant]

There are a lot of misconceptions in relation to the supposed benefits or otherwise of the system to the Labour party. For instance, I heard frequently during the general election—this is before Cleggmania rose and fell—that the system was unfair because the Conservatives would need to be 10 points ahead to gain a majority. That is not precisely the hon. Gentleman’s point, which I will come to in a moment, but many people forget that the difference between winning an election and winning a majority is significant in our system. However the boundaries are drawn, the moment a party gets over the 40% mark in a majoritarian system such as ours, it tends to do rather better than its share of the vote would suggest.

[Mr MacNeil]

The reason why parties or people do well in a majoritarian system when they get more than 40% of the vote is that the first-past-the-post-system was really designed for two players. A third or fourth player complicates first past the post and renders it idiotic, but for chaos theory.

[Chris Bryant]

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s pronunciation of the word “renders”, but other than that, I am not sure I agree with his point. It is true that in elections in the previous century, the Conservative and Labour parties secured something like 95% or 96% of the vote and that in the last election, we secured considerably less than that. That is one reason why we ended up with a hung Parliament. However, I do not see how that bears on my point, which is that in a majoritarian system, once a party gets more than 40% of the vote—many think that this is the great benefit of that system—it tends to find it rather easy to get not just a majority, but a fairly hefty one.

[Graham Stringer]

We can try to work out how many votes it takes to elect a Scottish National party MP or a Labour MP, but the distribution of seats, turnout and the number of candidates standing are bigger factors than boundaries. My hon. Friend and I would have no objection to a quick boundary review if it were seen to be fair, and if there were a right of appeal against Boundary Commission decisions.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I have laboriously tried to make, and far more succinctly. He is right that a wide range of factors pertain to the different number of votes it takes to elect Labour and Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats are not in contention in a large number of seats in the country but none the less gain 15% or 20% of the vote nationally. They accumulate a lot of votes around the country, but do not necessarily secure seats in the House of Commons. That is one function of the majoritarian system. I do not think that the number of votes necessary for election indicates fairness or unfairness in relation to drawing the boundaries. Short of gerrymandering the boundaries so that the pockets of Lib Dem voters around the country ended up in the same constituencies, we would be unable to overcome that element of unfairness.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a third time. I completely agree with his argument on the number of voters that it takes to elect MPs from certain parties. However, for the benefit of hon. Members who have not seen it, the British Academy report shows that the average electorate in Labour seats is significantly lower than the average electorate in Conservative seats. Even after we strip out factors such as turnout and the advantageous concentration of the Labour vote in certain parts of the country, a partisan advantage is still derived from the way in which the boundaries are drawn. In the average Labour seat, there are just over 69,000 electors, but in the average Conservative seat, there are just over 73,000. That is unfair. Should it not be corrected before the next election?

[Chris Bryant]

I have said several times already in the course of these debates that there should be a greater drive towards equalisation. However, as we will debate under clause 9, I do not want the drawing of our constituencies to be merely mathematical. Other things must be taken into consideration.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

One factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that the United Kingdom is made of four distinct countries, with four distinct constitutional settlements. Therefore, to proceed on a purely mathematical basis is completely incorrect. We must take into account the constitutional settlements in place in the respective countries, a point of which I know my hon. Friend is very well aware.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend has been making extremely sensible remarks on such issues ever since he and I were at university together, and he makes an important point now.

I say this to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has intervened three times: changing the boundaries in the way that he suggests will not of itself make the dramatic difference that he thinks it will make. My argument on clause 8 is that there is a real danger that the boundary commissions will be unable to redraw every single constituency in the land with proper diligence and sheer impartiality using a mathematical equation. Of course, they can bear other things in mind, but not if a proposed constituency strays outside the mathematical equation.

[Mrs Laing]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the representatives of the boundary commissions for each part of the UK gave evidence to the Select Committee on that point, saying that what they will be required to do by the Bill can be done properly, reasonably and in a measured and correct way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I know that they have said that, and of course they would say that, wouldn’t they? If they are required by Parliament to do that, they will undoubtedly do their best to achieve it. However, to be able to do so for 600 or 650 constituencies—whatever number we end up with—will be difficult in a completely changed system without dramatically increased resources. The only way it can be achieved in that time is to get rid of the due process—the public inquiries. Getting rid of those inquiries is likely to destabilise people’s understanding of their parliamentary constituency, and that is a retrograde step. Without due process, it is difficult to proceed in the way that is being suggested.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Surely the important factor is not what the boundary commissions think, but what the public will make of this process. Is not the real danger that the rushed approach and the huge changes that will be made to constituency boundaries will mean that the public will come to see the boundary commissions as partisan and unfair, as opposed to independent and objective?

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. The Electoral Reform Society has produced two versions of what might happen in Wales with a reduced number of seats. The suggestion for the Rhondda, the parliamentary constituency in which I take most interest—as hon. Members will not be surprised to learn—is that the Rhondda Fach should be split, with the north end being put in one constituency and the south in another. It also suggests that one of the wards should be split in half. That would be bizarre.

Any of us could swiftly split the country up in that way, probably in less than a week, but that does not necessarily mean that the result would be the right constitutional settlement for this country or an appropriate approach to take. Members of Parliament should have roots in their local communities—not personally, but their office should have roots in the local community—and the number of voters in each constituency should be broadly equal around the country. However, constituencies also need to match the political structure in the local area, and that is an important factor. Balancing all those factors cannot be done swiftly.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman may be overestimating the complexity of this task. Gloucestershire has six MPs and almost exactly the right population for six MPs under the new system, so very little adjustment will be needed there. That could also be true in large parts of the country, and he may be extrapolating too much from the Rhondda valley.

[Chris Bryant]

That smacked a little of “I’m all right, Jack” to me. The problem is not only what happens in Gloucestershire and the boundary commissions cannot bear in mind only what happens there. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) are united on the proposal that Gloucestershire should retain six seats. The point is that neighbouring counties may not have sufficient numbers and may have to nick population from somewhere else. When we come to the divvying up of boundaries, that is one of the issues to which I wish to refer, and I have some examples. However, just as we should not look at the whole country on the basis of what will happen in the Rhondda, nor should we look at it in relation to what happens in Cheltenham.

[Luciana Berger]

Unlike in Gloucestershire, we have just over 30,000 households in Liverpool that are not on the register, which means that the number of MPs will probably be reduced from five to four, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) received a parliamentary answer that confirmed that it was conceivable that a constituency in Liverpool could be split by the River Mersey.

[Chris Bryant]

That is the sort of thing that makes sheer nonsense of the situation. Indeed, I believe that someone in Cornwall is on hunger strike because of their objection to the proposals. My hon. Friend mentioned a constituency being split by a river: for those in the Rhondda, having half the Rhondda Fach allied with the Rhondda Fawr, and the other half with the Cynon Valley is almost as difficult a concept to grasp.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The speed with which this will have to be done and the fact that the public inquiries will be dispensed with are key points. In the last two boundary commission reviews in Northern Ireland, both public inquiries led to changes in the recommendations, and that gave the public confidence in the boundaries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is foolish to sweep that aside?

[Chris Bryant]

I presumed that the hon. Lady would speak with some authority, as she is a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and knows her stuff. She is right: if there is no due process, with a proper opportunity for people to provide oral evidence to a public inquiry, the public cannot be carried along with the changes to the boundaries. That is why it will be difficult to perform this function to the timetable that the Government suggest.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are doing a jigsaw with 600 pieces instead of 650 pieces, every piece will be different, so it is naïve to think that significant changes will not be necessary across the whole country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That is certainly true. Should the boundary commissions start from the south of England and work their way upwards with their mathematical equations? When the process starts, how often should the boundary commissions allow themselves to use the 95% rule and how often they should force themselves to use the 105% rule? In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the good point that the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has always been constituted on the basis of its four constituent parts. The consideration has always been first that there should be X parliamentary seats for, say, Wales, and then those seats have been distributed within that area. That is a more constitutionally wise way to proceed.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that in Wales we are looking at county council boundaries, which is causing all sorts of chaos. Some of my wards have registration levels of 70% to 75%, but in others registration levels are 95%. So the decisions will not be made on the true population levels of the seats.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right. There are many reasons why electoral registration is so low in certain communities, and in some cases people do not want to register because they do not want to pay council tax—a residue from the original attempt to introduce the poll tax—and others might not want it to be known that they are living in a particular house. In some urban areas, with a highly mobile population, many people are not registered because the process of registering is so difficult. We make it virtually impossible for someone to register at any one time, and that is one of the problems that we need to overcome.

[Graham Stringer]

Several interventions ago my hon. Friend was destroying the complacency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). He made the case that county boundaries will not necessarily be taken into account in working out constituency seats. Does that not show something that has not really come out in this debate and the public discussion, which is that it is most unlikely, if these proposals go ahead, that any hon. Member will ever again represent the same constituency from one election to another?

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gale)]

Order. The Front-Bench spokesman asked whether there would be a stand part debate. As is generally known, I take a fairly relaxed view about these things, but we can have a stand part debate only once, and it seems to me that we are having it now.

[Chris Bryant]

Although you said it with a wry smile, Mr Gale, you make an eminently sane point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) also makes a good point, which is that we are to do this every five years. In other words, between each election, every Member’s boundaries could be redrawn. That does not provide any political stability to constituents. It is already difficult enough for most members of the public to know who their MP is. It is one of the embarrassing things about the British political system that very few people know who their MP is.

I hate to refer again to the Rhondda, but it is probably easier for people there to know not the name of their MP—I am not asserting that—but that their MP is the MP for Rhondda, because they know that they live in the Rhondda. Most people do not know the name of their constituency, so when the MP for Middle Wallop comes on television, they do not know whether they live in Middle Wallop, Upper Wallop or Nether Wallop. That matters because it is about ensuring that MPs are not deracinated from the politics around them.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The point is that all Members of the House elected to take part in the law-making process of our Parliament should come here with equal weight and represent an equal number of people, regardless of whether they are in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales, and regardless of whether they are from a mountain, a hillside, a valley or an inner city. It is the principle of democracy that matters.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely and utterly disagree with the hon. Lady. Of course one ought to strive towards equality in representation, but that is simply not the British way of creating the House of Commons. Historically, we said, “Okay, the shires need to be represented”, and consequentially the knights of the shires were brought into the first Parliament in the 13th century—incidentally, the only reason we know the names of any of those who first attended is that they presented their expenses chits and had them paid. Then we decided that the towns and villages needed representation, because the principle was that representation was based on communities—it was communities that were represented here. It was not just about the mathematical calculating machine system for deciding constituencies. There are countries that have used that system. The United States of America uses it for its House of Representatives. In fact, that is what led to the concept of gerrymandering—it was, I think, a Governor of Massachusetts, Mr Gerry, who was the first person to create a constituency designed to get him re-elected, and it was in the shape of a salamander.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

May I return to the earlier point about urban under-registration, because it is an important point in seats such as mine? However, that is an operational matter for the electoral registration officer and the Electoral Commission; it is not an excuse for perpetuating a bias in the electoral system in favour of small urban seats. It is an important matter, but let us not confuse two things.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is right in a sense, although I expect that the under-registration in his constituency is nowhere near as high as it is in, for example, Hackney North and Stoke Newington or Hackney South and Shoreditch, which have much more mobile populations, in part because the people there do not own their own homes and because of the ethnic mix. Clear evidence has also been provided showing that people from black and ethnic minority groups and poor people are far less likely to register. We need to bear that in mind. I shall refer to that again when we discuss how many MPs there should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

The problem that the hon. Gentleman is trying to explain occurs under the current rules. There are plenty of constituencies in this Parliament that cross local authority boundaries. We already have and deal with the problem to which he alludes.

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry, but I missed the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman made the point that, if we go for greater electoral equality, we will have seats that cross local authority boundaries, but there are already significant numbers of Members representing seats that cross local authority boundaries. Lots of London seats cross London borough boundaries. [Interruption.] No, the London borough of Croydon is not crossed, but the neighbouring borough of Bromley has a seat that crosses into Lewisham, and that applies to the seats of lots of hon. Members. It is perfectly straightforward.

[Gavin Barwell]

Yes, there are seats at the moment that cross regional boundaries. The seat of Brigg and Goole is in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure who is giving way to whom now. The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and it sounds like he is happy with crossing those boundaries—[Interruption.] And clearly the Minister is relaxed about it as well. However, I am less relaxed about it. There is already a problem with it, but there is no need to exacerbate it.

Political boundaries are one thing—in the end they are in our minds, they are a political construct—but geographical and cultural boundaries are not just boundaries that we have imposed; they have been given to us by others.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) about adopting an approach of mathematical purity and equality, he will be aware of my amendment 70 on taking into account concerns about voter registration levels across the country. This is not merely a technical matter for registration officers. As I suggest, it should be a matter for the discretion of the Boundary Commission when it takes into account the relative weight of a population in an area, bearing in mind the indicative registration levels that should apply in that area, whether it be urban or rural.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The pattern of under-registration is different in different parts of the country. The consistent bits are that poorer people and those who live in rented accommodation are less likely to register, black and ethnic minorities are less likely to register and the young are less likely to register. That is a problem.

I confess to the Committee, however, that Labour Members cannot preach overly on this issue because we failed to take some of the steps that could have been taken to change the electoral registration system. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) says rather unfairly, with a scowl on his face, that we failed to take any measures. We took some measures, but we should have adopted the situation in Chile, where it is mandatory to register. I wish that we were moving towards that, but unfortunately the Minister completely disagrees.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to follow on from the point about under-registration. The response to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whose constituency I know quite well, is that, on average, there are more registered voters in Conservative seats than in Labour seats. The differences referred to are more than explained by that demographic bias. Many Labour seats contain as many people of voting age as Conservative seats. For example, Bradford West has an 18-plus population of 77,848, but the registered electorate is just 62,000. Bermondsey and Old Southwark is a starker example. There, the 18-plus population is more than 101,000, but only 76,000 people are registered. Does my hon. Friend accept that this is systematic bias against poorer people in Labour seats? If we compare the number of seats with the size of the 18-plus population, we see that there is no bias. This is about gerrymandering, not fairness.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend, now the Member for Swansea West, is right, in the sense that the level of registration makes a dramatic difference to the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), which were not sufficiently addressed by the British Academy report. It perhaps takes someone who is used to knocking on doors and discovering that the electoral register has large gaps in it to make that kind of analysis. My anxiety is that many local authorities do not engage in proper canvassing, and consequently seem to take a rather lackadaisical attitude towards getting people on to the register. Local authorities should be saying, “We know you exist, because you’re being paid benefits. The least that we can do is put you on the electoral register and not make it almost impossible for you to register.”

[Luciana Berger]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the forthcoming census, which comes only a few months after the arbitrary cut-off date in March and will cost £500 million, with 38,000 canvassers knocking on doors across the UK, could provide a fantastic opportunity to boost registration in constituencies such as mine, where more than 5,000 households are not on the register?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no reason why the census should not be able to engage in that activity. If people are going door to door, they could be doing more than one task. In addition, there will be profound embarrassment if, according to the census, the number of people eligible to register in Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham, or wherever else, turns out to be considerably higher than the number of people who are registered, and yet constituencies have still been allocated solely on the basis of those who are registered.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I find this conversation difficult, because we have electoral registration officers whose job it is to get people on to the electoral register. That is their day job. In South Derbyshire, registration stands at some 98.5%, which is absolutely excellent and shows that it can be done. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that the job is too difficult to do. It is not too difficult to do.

[Chris Bryant]

In a sense, the hon. Lady makes my point for me. Registration in her constituency may be at 98%, but in many constituencies in the land it is closer to 80%. That is precisely the problem, because—to meet the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made—those are the places where there will be an inequity of representation if we proceed solely on the basis of what is proposed in the Bill.

[Mark Tami]

I totally agree with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). However, that is the point: the job can be done, but too many local authorities are interested only in doing a tick-box exercise, as if to say, “We sent the forms, we sent them again, we’ve sent someone round, and no one has replied,” despite the fact that everyone knows that a number of people are living in the property concerned. However, as far as the local authority is concerned, it has done what it wants to do, but it is not prepared to put in the extra work to get those people on to the register.

[Chris Bryant]

That is true. Most local authorities are having to make fairly substantial cuts at the moment, and my anxiety is that they will find their electoral registration budgets all too easy to cut, because people will think, “Well, you know, what’s the real benefit of that?” From my perspective, if we are to achieve equity—which, broadly speaking, means achieving the equalisation of seats, but not absolute equalisation, to allow for where the Boundary Commission has an overriding concern, whether about a geographical community or the splitting of wards, which I hope all hon. Members would think was more complicated—then we need to change what the Bill currently provides for.

The Government propose a timetable of less than three years, which is artificially quick, even under the Bill’s own terms. I do not see why the timetable has to be three years. According to clause 8(3), future reviews will be held on a five-yearly basis, but the initial, dramatic redrawing of boundaries is being tracked even faster than this apparent ideal. Why? Is the reason that the Government are trying to minimise the risks of the results being made out of date by interim changes in the population? There are significant parts of the country where population changes are moving swiftly. Is that why the Government wish to move so fast? I suspect that that cannot be the reason, or else they would be proposing that three years should always be the period for boundary reviews.

I suspect that the truth is far less respectable. As the Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted in the House in July, the real reason for this rushed process is political convenience. He said that

“we need to start with the work of the boundary review as soon as possible in order that it can be concluded in the timetable that we have set out. That is why the boundary review will be based on the electoral register that will be published at the beginning of December this year.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 37.]

That is a circular argument.

[Greg Hands]

Is the hon. Gentleman defending the status quo? Under the current system, we typically have boundary reviews every three Parliaments, with the population data that are fed in typically being about 10 years out of date. The new boundaries that were introduced in May were based on electoral registers from 2000, and they may still be in force in 2024 if we have three five-year Parliaments. Is he seriously defending the status quo, under which our data can be up to 24 years out of date?

[Chris Bryant]

I think that I am correct in saying that that system was set up by the previous Conservative Government, and no, I am not defending the status quo. I am not defending it in relation to the overall structure of the system that we ought to have, nor am I defending it in relation to the precise allocation of seats, and so on. As I have said several times in this debate, I would prefer to move towards closer equalisation. However, I want the boundary commissions to bear in mind other factors, which should include the political realities of the Union, along with ward and other political boundaries. Boundary commissions should also be able to bear in mind geographical features, such as rivers, islands and, in my case, valleys, as well as physical access, because it is pretty difficult to tie two places together that have no access between them.

The timetable for the boundary review is not driven by practical concerns about what would be suitable, but by crude and, I believe, partisan calculations that are the antithesis of the supposedly high constitutional principles that the Deputy Prime Minister invoked in his first speech in office. How quickly those noble ideals seem to have been cast aside. Back then he promised the

“biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes.”

[Mr Love]

Is not the most iniquitous thing about this Bill that there has been no attempt to seek cross-party consensus, which has always happened in the past?

[Chris Bryant]

Not only that, but there has been absolutely no pre-legislative scrutiny. In particular—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. So far as I can see, we have debated most of clause 8 and a chunk of clause 9, and we are now moving on to clause 10. The hon. Gentleman has yet to move the first of a series of amendments to clause 8, many of which other hon. Members wish to speak to. I would be grateful if we returned to the amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

Many thanks, Mr Gale.

I was trying to argue that the Government want to move with precipitate haste towards producing a Boundary Commission report on 1 October 2013, and that that date has been arrived at for the specific purpose of trying to hold together the coalition, in order to drive all of this forward towards the measures relating to five-year Parliaments in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.

An Electoral Commission study published earlier this year found that under-registration was concentrated among specific social groups. That is why I believe that it would be inappropriate to move at the pace on which the Government are insisting, and why the amendments would be more appropriate. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has tabled amendment 341, which proposes to leave out the date “2013” from the clause and insert “2018”. That would be a more appropriate timetable, and if he were to press that amendment to a vote, we would want to support him. Mr Gale, I am grateful for the leniency that you have shown in this debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has put the case much more articulately and better than I could have, so I shall delete the next part of my speech, take it for granted and move on. This is not a redistribution; it is a Blitzkrieg—an unfair Blitzkrieg that is designed to work in the electoral interests of the Conservative party.

Interestingly, the amendments show that the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition is beginning to wake up to that fact. I understand that the hon. Member for Leeds North West intends to put his amendment to the vote. Perhaps he will nod to confirm that, because it will slow down the whole process and stop the Blitzkrieg.

[Chris Bryant]

The position is actually slightly worse than it was portrayed by our friend from the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). In addition, the Minister will be able to lay the Order in Council on the basis of the Boundary Commission’s report “with or without modifications”. [Interruption.] I can hear the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), saying that that is the present legislation, but the present legislation allows for proper public inquiries, and he is getting rid of public inquiries.

[Austin Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The present system of redistribution was devised by the Conservatives. Now, finding themselves in electoral danger, they want to scrap it to protect themselves and remain in power in this tenuous coalition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

It is not; on the contrary, in fact. The last Government, with the support of the then Conservative Opposition, introduced individual voter registration and this Government have speeded up the process.

I am not going to take up much of the Committee’s time as we have heard many speeches on these subjects tonight and I have had the good fortune of being able to make many interventions in other Members’ contributions. In counting the number of people who are represented by each Member of Parliament we should count on the basis of democracy and the workings of democracy, not on the basis of social work. [Interruption.] Well, we all have several roles as Members of Parliament, and one of our roles is the pastoral one of looking after the people who live in our constituencies regardless of whether they are registered to vote, of their nationality, and of where they live. We are all decent Members of Parliament, and if someone comes to us with a problem, it will be dealt with—or it certainly would be in my constituency surgeries. I am sure that that is the case for almost everybody here. I see assent from Labour Members. However, we must separate those two roles, and that is integral to the point that we are discussing.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) may have thousands of people in his constituency who are not voters—who are either not eligible or not registered to vote. He therefore possibly has more casework, but that can be dealt with by giving him greater resources to deal with it. The issue should not be dealt with by distorting the democratic process and the way in which the Chamber works.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady knows that I respect her views in many regards, but I would find it phenomenally difficult to differentiate the two elements of our role—on the one hand, the representative function of a Member of Parliament in representing all the voters in their constituency, and, on the other hand, their casework. Many, if not all, of the issues that I have taken up in this House have come to me from my casework—apart, perhaps, from the issue of the Bill that we are discussing tonight. I urge her not to stray too far down the route of trying to separate out the two concepts.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I am sure the whole Committee is delighted that we have now reached part 2 of the Bill, which is based on the very simple concept that votes across the country should have equal value, wherever someone is. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can provide a simple example of why that is important. His constituency, according to the records, has 51,706 electors. My constituency of Somerton and Frome has 81,566 electors. I have 30,000 more electors than him. Why should my electors’ votes have less value than those of his electors? That is the question he needs to answer.

[Chris Bryant]

I have already made it absolutely clear in the debate that I believe that there should be greater equalisation of the constituencies. The Deputy Leader of the House says that there is one sole principle, so why, by his own analysis, is he creating two rotten boroughs in Scotland?

[Mr Heath]

If the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that votes should be equalised, he disguised it well in his very long contribution. We had a wide debate on this group of amendments. At one point it looked like a clause stand part debate, and at another like a Bill stand part debate, given the amount of material we considered. Most Members were relatively continent, but then we had the hon. Gentleman. When I suggested that we have an extra hour for this debate this evening because of the earlier statement, I did not appreciate that it would be taken up almost entirely by him.

On previous groups of amendments, it seemed that the hon. Gentleman had not properly read the Bill, but on this group of amendments, it seemed that he had not read his own proposals. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately trying to avoid speaking to his amendments. Members listening to the debate might have assumed that his proposal was to slow down the process set out in the Bill. They might have thought that in amendment 127, to which he never referred, he was proposing to extend the period for the Boundary Commission to do its job, but no, that was not his proposition. If anyone cares to look at the amendment paper, they will see that amendment 127 suggests that far from the Boundary Commission doing its job in three years, as proposed in the Bill, it should do it in one year, which is entirely contrary to everything that he said in his contribution. He persuaded the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is not in the Chamber, that he had a sensible suggestion, but he did not persuade me.

If hon. Members listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda, they might have assumed that it would be difficult for boundary commissions to do their job within the resources and time available, but they might not realise that each boundary commission gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and rebutted that suggestion in terms, saying that they had the resources and the capability, and that there was no problem whatever.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The Government have tabled a number of amendments relating to the referendum that are necessary to allow for the smooth running of the poll on 5 May. A number of the amendments—261 to 263, 270, 279, 280, 307, 309 to 322, 325 and 326—provide that all returning officers appointed for the local district council or borough elections in England, for Assembly elections in Wales, or for the parliamentary election in Scotland, are automatically designated as counting officers for the referendum. The provisions also appoint the chief counting officer for Northern Ireland as the counting officer in the referendum. That displaces for the referendum the standard position under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides that the chief counting officer would need to appoint the individuals.

The key advantage of the approach that we are taking is that the returning officer and the counting officer will always be the same person, and that will provide returning officers with certainty that they will be the counting officers for the referendum. It will also ensure that the counting officers in the referendum have the necessary experience. The approach that we have taken to the appointment of counting officers is generally consistent with the practice for other statutory elections where legislation automatically deems, or provides for, the appointment of certain postholders in local authorities as returning officers for different elections—for example, local authority returning officers automatically become returning officers for the purposes of European parliamentary elections.

Government amendment 326 makes changes to the definition of the voting area for Scotland and Wales. The change ensures that in Scotland and Wales the referendum will be run on the same respective boundaries as the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections. No changes are required in respect of the current provisions in the Bill for England, which already allow for the referendum to be run on the same boundaries as the local government elections, which are scheduled to take place on 5 May.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Government amendment 261 refers, in paragraph 1A(2), to the counting officer for the City of London voting area being

“the person who, by virtue of that section—

section 35 of the Representation of the People Act 1983—

“is the returning officer for elections of councillors of the London borough of Westminster.”

How many people does the Minister think could, by virtue of this, vote in the City of London in the referendum?

[Mr Harper]

I am not entirely certain how the number of voters who can vote there has anything to do with the appointing of the counting officer. I am not certain that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Chris Bryant]

It relates to the point that we will doubtless discuss later in relation to who is entitled to vote. As I understand it, paragraph 1A(2) refers only to peers, who would be able to vote in the referendum by virtue of their City of London voting right, as opposed to their residential voting right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The costs specifically required to run the referendum are picked up by the Consolidated Fund and do not fall in any way on the local devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some of their costs for running their own election—the cost of hiring polling stations, for example, and the cost of paying for staff—is split between the local Administrations and central Government from the Consolidated Fund, so the devolved Administrations make a saving, compared with running those elections on a stand-alone basis. I do not understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.

[Chris Bryant]

That rather prejudges another set of amendments. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet tabled the 100 pages of amendments that he told some of us last week he would table today for debate next week. It prejudges also the statutory instruments which, as I understand it, the territorial officers will have to table and will be subject to votes in this place and in another place. The cost that may be required to issue, for example, two polling cards rather than one will be materially affected by those decisions. Is not the Minister getting his amendments in the wrong order?

[Mr Harper]

Not at all. We will table the combination amendments today, and, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I wrote to him, to the Opposition Front-Bench team and to every Member who either spoke on Second Reading or who, at that point last week, had tabled an amendment—in other words, to those who were most interested. I wrote also to the leaders of parties in the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments to keep them informed about what we planned to do.

The assumption referred to is the one on which we have been working, and holding the referendum on the same day as the elections produces a saving throughout the United Kingdom of about £30 million, which will be shared between the Consolidated Fund and those devolved and local administrations.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but the Minister is completely wrong. He may have already decided how Parliament, in this place and at the other end of the building, will dispose of the Bill, but I have not seen any of the amendments to which he refers. We are, of course, deeply grateful for his writing to us all, but we have not seen the amendments. He even admits in his own letter that the amendments that he will table today are incorrect, because they will be attendant on other orders that will have to be laid in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that, on this matter, the Minister is running ahead of himself.

[Mr Harper]

Mr Hoyle, I am sure that you do not want me to start debating new clauses and new schedules today which we will debate next Monday; I am sure that if I did so, you would put me straight. I have set out the basis on which we have said, since my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement to the House, we will proceed, namely by combining the referendum with local and devolved elections, which will produce a significant saving. If Parliament were to choose to do something different, we would clearly look at that. I am setting out the Government’s proposals, which we have included in the Bill and will lay before the House for debate in Committee. I really think that the hon. Gentleman is making a meal of it.

[Chris Bryant]

But the Minister has not even made any provision in law. He has not presented to the House the provision in law for the combination of polls in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I simply do not understand how we can debate whether the counting officers should be the same for the two polls when we have not been presented with the legislation that the Government promised would come along somewhere down the line. The Minister is treating the Committee with some disrespect.

[Mr Harper]

If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make debating points where there simply is none. He knows the proposals that we have set out, and appointing the counting officers has nothing to do, in essence, with the combination amendments, which we can debate next week. They will be tabled today, as I said in my letter. Members will therefore have a week to scrutinise them, and we can deal with that point next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman asks separate questions. The chief counting officer will decide about the level of performance of the counting officers and regional counting officers. The Electoral Commission has been working closely with the Government and with our officials, and it is confident that the referendum next year can be carried out in combination with the elections. We aim to continue to work with it to ensure that that remains the case through to 5 May next year.

[Chris Bryant]

I still do not quite understand what counts as counting officers not having performed their functions properly. What order of magnitude of not performing their functions properly would lead to their not being paid but would not disqualify the votes from that area?

[Mr Harper]

The level of payment would be a matter for the chief counting officer to determine; we would not expect Ministers or the Government to get involved in that process. The chief counting officer will be able to make the decision on payment in judging the performance of the counting officer, who will be working under her direction. That would not affect whether the votes counted in the same way as they did in a parliamentary election, even if there were the confusion that occurred this year at the close of polls, which did not affect the votes cast in those elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

But if—let us say for the sake of argument—no polling cards were issued for the referendum in an area where there were other forms of election, or, indeed, no other forms of election, would that be a reason for not paying the counting officer? If the vote were tight, would it be a reason for invalidating the result in that area?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into doing the chief counting officer’s job for her and into trespassing into election courts. It is not my role to do that, and the chief counting officer will make those determinations in the usual way. The Government consider that the amendment represents the best option for ensuring that regional counting officers and counting officers are accountable for their actions. Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments and those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), I hope that that helps address some of the concerns that members of the public and, indeed, Members of Parliament expressed about the accountability of returning officers, following what happened at some polling stations, albeit limited numbers of them, on 6 May.

The amendments do not apply to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland—the counting officer for the referendum—because he is a statutory office holder, who is already directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his conduct.

[Mr Harper]

I am sure that their lordships do not require help from me or the chief counting officer to deliberate on the Bill. I would not dream of that. I am sure that the Electoral Commission will set out in due course the approach that it plans to take. It has already done that on some issues to do with the referendum, and I am sure that that will be helpful to Members.

Let me speak briefly about amendment 353, in the name of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others. It would mean that, in addition to votes in the referendum in England being counted on local authority lines, as we propose, they would also need to be certified on parliamentary constituency lines. Given that 32 metropolitan boroughs, 52 unitary authorities and 192 second-tier districts in England have elections next year that involve around 31 million electors—79% of the total local government electors in England—the proposal would present significant additional administrative requirements for local areas and result in considerable extra effort and cost. Counting and issuing the results of the referendum on local authority lines, as we propose, makes administrative sense.

In Northern Ireland, counting and issuing the results will take place on Northern Ireland Assembly boundaries; in Scotland, on Scottish Parliament boundaries; and in Wales, on Welsh Assembly boundaries. That will be done because all devolved Administrations have elections to their respective bodies on 5 May. We think that that also makes administrative sense.

The Government see no benefit in requiring the counting officer to certify the results of the referendum in each parliamentary constituency. Any possible benefit would be outweighed by the extra demand on resources that the proposal would make. I would also be wary of inserting an extra layer of counting into the process, as I am sure that everyone wants a clean, clear result, which is calculated and communicated as quickly as possible.

For all those reasons, I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendments, and Opposition Members not to press theirs to a Division.

[Chris Bryant]

Broadly speaking, I do not disagree with the main thrust of the amendments that the Parliamentary Secretary has moved. However, I point out that we are debating 26 amendments in this group alone. The Parliamentary Secretary has already referred to the fact that he has written to hon. Members to say that he will table 100 pages of amendments today. I do not think that he has made them available to the Committee yet. They are necessary only because they provide for combining polls. Indeed, the majority of the amendments that we are currently discussing are necessary only because the Government had not spotted early enough that they needed to provide legislatively for the combination of polls in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and separately and differently in each because the law governing each of the three devolved nations is different, and in England, the elections relating to local authorities must have separate rules, too.

The Parliamentary Secretary has already admitted in the letter that he sent to many of us that the amendments that he has tabled today depend on existing law in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of those territorial Offices intends to change the law for the combination of polls in the next few weeks—it was supposed to happen in mid-October, but none of the statutory instruments has been tabled yet. I see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in his place—[Interruption.] I am sorry: the Minister for Northern Ireland is in his place. Perhaps he should be Secretary of State, as he is a very charming chap. Now that he is having a little conversation with me, perhaps he will enlighten us as to when the statutory instruments for Northern Ireland will be available. It appears that he cannot do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If I may finish my argument, I will then give way to the Minister.

In Wales, the results will be by Assembly constituency, which is the same as by parliamentary constituency. In Scotland, we will have them by Scottish parliamentary constituency, which is different.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

In a moment, although I have promised to give way to the Minister. I am not sure which way age and beauty apply in this case, but I will give way to the Minister first, after I have finished my argument.

In England, we will have results by various electoral areas. For the sake of clarity in understanding the legitimacy of the vote, especially as this is not just an advisory but an implementing referendum—as laid out in the Bill—it would be better if we had equality across the United Kingdom, with the results announced in the same way in every constituency.

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote the Electoral Commission, he should quote it in full. It wanted to consider in more detail the implications of his amendment for the management of the count process and, in particular, the time required to conduct the count. It did say that it saw no insurmountable practical barriers to making the information available “in due course”, but it did not have information about the impact on the count process and the declaration of the result. Missing out the words “in due course” gave a misleading impression of the Electoral Commission’s views.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful intervention, because he made half the point I made myself.

I do not know what the total number of results will be, but let us say there will be 40 for Wales, and those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and so on. If, in a large number of those constituencies, there is a very narrow result, it will have a material effect on how people view the eventual result, particularly in relation to the differential turnout that might be achieved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—by virtue of the fact that there are other elections at the same time—compared with the turnout in England.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion seems extraordinary. I had understood that the Labour party’s position was to support the move towards an AV system, yet it seems that it wants to create all sorts of divisions and to undermine the legitimacy of any result. Surely, the whole point of the referendum is that it is a referendum for the electoral system for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The only result that matters is the result for one constituency—the constituency of the entire United Kingdom. Trying to undermine the result by suggesting that, “Oh, in Gloucestershire, they did not vote for it” or, “Oh, in one part of Scotland, they did not vote for it”, seems to be a very strange thing to want to do.

[Chris Bryant]

In which case, the hon. Gentleman should be voting against the Government’s proposals, because their proposal is to conduct the referendum by constituency in Wales, by a different set of constituencies in Scotland and by different areas in England. Of course, those will all be added up. I am trying not to undermine, but to strengthen the result of the vote. Also, I should say to him that he has got the Labour party’s manifesto slightly wrong. Our commitment was to have a referendum on the alternative vote. We want the United Kingdom to be able to make a decision on that.

[Nick Boles]

I misspoke. I meant that the person who tabled amendment 353—the hon. Gentleman’s party leader—has stated that he is in favour of a move to the alternative vote. Is that not the case?

[Chris Bryant]

I have said that I will vote for the alternative vote, and I will vote for it. I personally support it and believe that it is the best way of electing candidates. It is how I was elected as a candidate for the Labour party in Rhondda, so it would be illogical for me to vote differently. However—

[Nick Boles]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Could the hon. Gentleman just keep calm for a moment? I recognise that many other people in my party take a different view on that. However, all I am trying to secure is a clear process that is effected equally across the whole of the United Kingdom. I think, therefore, that it would make more sense for the results to be provided by parliamentary constituency, because, as he himself said, we are talking about parliamentary elections.

[Nick Boles]

I apologise for taxing the hon. Gentleman on this point, but I think he is muddling up a separate issue with the practical arrangements for counting the votes. The Government are proposing—eminently sensibly, it seems to me—that we use whichever constituencies are counting votes for other elections. So in the case of the Assemblies in the devolved institutions—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was generous in allowing such a long intervention, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on far too long. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chooses not to answer, I will understand.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I was going to make an attempt at an answer, but I do not know whether it will appease the hon. Gentleman.

I am not trying to undermine the result of the referendum. I would like every single person in Britain to vote in it. I would prefer a system that would lead to even turnout within the bounds of normal elections, rather than a system in which there were important general elections in some places—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—but only local elections in 83%, I think, of England. It would provide for a nicer outcome if we could provide results by parliamentary constituency boundaries.

[Thomas Docherty]

It might help the Committee to know that, certainly for Scotland, returning officers will allow recounting only at constituency level. They will not support a Scottish-wide recount because, they argue, it would be far too complicated. I think that that undermines the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. My anxiety is that the route down which we are travelling will mean that ordinary constituents—voters around the land—will end up being treated differently according to which part of the country they live in. If the whole Bill goes through, they will effectively have less of an understanding of who represents them, because at different tiers there will be no clear structure going from the local authority, whether unitary or not, to the Assembly Member in Wales or the Scottish Parliament, or the UK Parliament. That is why the basic building block of the referendum, as it concerns the whole of the United Kingdom, should be the parliamentary constituency. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) obviously disagrees.

As for the Government’s other amendments, I am still not satisfied by the Minister’s answers about whether the job has been done properly or not. He says that he would not want to do the job of the chief counting officer, but in fact the Bill makes—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House says that it would be improper, but the Bill makes vast numbers of provisions relating to the counting officer, as does other legislation. As the Minister has introduced this new concept of not paying for a job that has not been done properly, I do not understand why it is not possible to delineate what not doing the job properly means.

For instance, if it had been decided that all the ballot papers for the referendum should be a different colour from the ballot papers for other elections on the day, would not doing the job properly mean that the ballot papers had not been provided in the right colour? Would not doing the job properly mean that some polling stations had too many barriers to disabled access? Would it mean that some of the polling stations did not have the official stamp? There is a whole series of issues in relation to the combination of polls that are laid out in the legislation in Scotland and Wales. I presume that the Minister wants to replicate those in the many amendments that he will come forward with, yet he says that he cannot make it clear this afternoon what not paying for a job that has not been done properly would mean.

[Nick Boles]

Is this not a classic example of over-micro-management of professionals? We have a chief counting officer who knows her job. Would the hon. Gentleman not be willing to let her decide whether the law was being adhered to, rather than telling her how to do it?

[Chris Bryant]

In which case, again, the hon. Gentleman ought to be striking out large parts of the Bill, because the Bill determines in large measure precisely what the job of the chief counting officer is. Indeed, other legislation similarly does so, because we have to have clarity about certain things. For instance, should it be possible in Wales and Scotland for there to be just one polling card for the referendum and the Assembly or parliamentary elections, or should it be a requirement that there be two? If we left the issue to people’s discretion and everybody decided to go for one, many people might say, “No, sorry, that undermines the referendum,” because we would not be making it clear that, in addition to the Assembly elections, which would get a lot of media attention in Wales, there was a referendum on the same day. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s Government will introduce amendments on the matter. His quarrel is therefore not with me; it is with the Minister, which I am sure will upset him enormously.

I am keen to provide as much clarity as possible at this stage, quite simply because I believe that the Government are proceeding in the wrong order. First and foremost, we should have the legislation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to make it clear whether there will be three sets of elections in Northern Ireland—again, we still do not know, despite the fact that it is not many months ago—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am being corrected by the Northern Ireland Minister. Would he like to—[Interruption.] No, he remains in his place. In relation to Wales and Scotland, the legislation has not been changed, but that is what should happen first, and then we should move forward with the amendments that have been adumbrated today.

I will be keen to press our amendment 353 to a Division. Even if hon. Members may support the Government, I very much hope that they will also support the amendment standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friends.

[Mr Harper]

There are one or two points of fact that are worth putting straight. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) was spot-on about the counting arrangements. As for the result of the referendum, the important thing is the overall number for the United Kingdom. On the counting arrangements, we listened to the electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission during the summer, and they made it clear that it made absolute sense to count on the same basis, given the other elections taking place. I do not see that that makes any difference whatever to the overall result of the election.

On the point about Northern Ireland, a written statement was laid before the House last week by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), to make it clear that the local elections in Northern Ireland will indeed take place on 5 May next year. It is correct that the parliamentary instruments have not yet been laid, but it has been made clear that, subject to the will of Parliament, the elections will take place on that day.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful; I had not noticed the written ministerial statement last week. Will the Minister clarify whether it is necessary to have legislation in order to be able to combine the polls in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Harper]

The combination amendment will provide for the combination of all the elections taking place next year.

Returning to the point about the instruments that will be laid, the amendments are clearly based on existing law. It would be bizarre to table amendments to this Bill in respect of legislation that has not yet been laid before Parliament. The amendments to this Bill are based on the law as it stands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the territorial offices will lay orders, and if they change the legislation, we will make the appropriate changes and lay them before the Committee or the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I fully understand that: amendments cannot be tabled if they depend on legislation that does not yet exist. It would be better to put the legislation in place first and then table the amendments to it. I seek the Minister’s assurance on one issue. It would be inappropriate if the amendments that follow after the territorial statutory instruments were not tabled in this House—in other words, if we were not to see them on Report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make that assurance to the Committee.

[Mr Harper]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am very keen that on matters to do with elections this House should get to pronounce before the Bill goes to the other place. I believe that that is important; we will seek to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Fortunately, I am not responsible for the drafting of amendment 353; it is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends, so they should answer questions about the amendment. For my part, I urge them to withdraw it. If they press it to a vote, I urge the Committee to vote against it. On this occasion—it does not happen on many occasions—I am at one with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Chris Bryant]

For the sake of clarity, we are not saying that the count needs to be done by those constituencies; we are merely saying that the vote needs to be provided by parliamentary constituencies so that we can have full clarity across the whole of the land on the same basis. The wording is taken directly from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

[Mr Harper]

Fortunately, neither I nor my hon. Friends were responsible for that legislation. It was introduced by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when they were in government. I am thus not going to defend the wording. I think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is probably spot on in what he said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments. I am particularly pleased that it includes a number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who will speak to them in this debate.

The amendments relate to the referendum process, but in the long term they ought to apply much more widely to electoral arrangements in general. After all, the ability and right to vote is the central element of citizenship. The extension of that right and of the franchise—the inclusion of people in the electorate—has been central to the UK’s development into a mature democracy over many years. However, if the individual voter is unable to exercise their right to vote because physical obstacles are placed in his or her way, or if he or she cannot make sense of the ballot paper, the right to vote is meaningless. That is what the amendments address. If an individual cannot understand the choices before them, they are denied their democratic right. At the centre of these proposals is the importance of the democratic rights of those affected.

I pay tribute to the work of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which has done a terrific job over the years to help Government Departments to understand what it means to look after the interests of the blind or partially sighted, or those who have even slight difficulties with seeing, perhaps with the onset of old age. The organisation has done that work consistently over many years. Today’s debate goes further than that, because it has been stimulated not only by the RNIB’s comments and concerns, but those of Scope and Mencap. A range of citizens with a range of disabilities and obstacles in their way could be helped if the Committee accepts the amendments, and I urge all Members to support them.

To illustrate where things can be improved, RNIB did a number of presentations—a number of Members on both sides of the Committee attended them, including the Deputy Leader of the House. It highlighted the implications, for instance, of the obstructions to understanding television. Members were invited into Aunt Megan’s living room, which was set out in the Strangers Dining Room, to see what following a television programme is like for people who do not have full vision. Actually, the dining room was changed into a more attractive place in many ways—the fact that Megan is the name of one of my granddaughters is absolutely irrelevant. Nevertheless, that imaginative demonstration got across to us how the inability to see things can affect people. Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that in order to lend weight to the argument for these amendments, the RNIB’s next exercise should be to lay out in the Strangers Dining Room a polling booth, complete with frosted glass and the other things it has sometimes provided in order to enable us to understand the problems. If it were to do so, all Members could see the issues that arise when the ballot paper is not absolutely clear, and I am sure that that would lead to Members of all parties being not just supportive of the amendments, but enthusiastic for them.

Ballot papers are often more complex than necessary, usually because the i’s are being dotted and the t’s are being crossed and all sorts of possible challenges are being eliminated. Of course, that has a consequence for those who need to be able to see very precisely what they are doing. As I have said, these amendments refer to the referendum process, although I think they should apply more generally. However, the design of the referendum ballot forms will be different from that of the familiar election forms, which is why these amendments are so important on this occasion.

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend is making some very good points, and I hope I will be able to explain why I agree with him both on this topic and with some other amendments that address similar topics.

There is an issue to do with ensuring that the information carried on polling cards is presented in a way that makes sense to, and is user-friendly for, all disabled voters. I am concerned that that will be more difficult when we have a combination of polls, because it will be necessary either to provide two polling cards, which may lead to considerable confusion for some people with disabilities, or for the writing on the polling card to be made so small that it is far more difficult for people to use. Does my right hon. Friend share that concern?

[Alun Michael]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is precisely the sort of issue that I believe should be covered by instructions, as we must also ensure that the simplicity of the form does not provide an unintentional additional obstacle. He is therefore right to raise that concern, and his point underlines the importance of my amendments. These amendments would allow direction to be given to deal with that concern by, for instance, ensuring that there is a simple form that enables people to understand what they are being advised to do in the polling booth.

I have tried to think of any reason Ministers and their advisers might have for not accepting the amendments. I hope I do not need to anticipate that, as I hope the Minister will respond by saying that the amendments are so clear and straightforward, and the case for them has been so well argued by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, that he is totally convinced and accepts them all. Having listened to his response to the debate on the previous group of amendments however, it seems that he might say the amendments should not be necessary because our expectations—in his case from Government, in our case from Parliament—are clear in the phrasing of the Bill. For instance, paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 states:

“The Chief Counting Officer, Regional Counting Officers and counting officers must do whatever things are necessary for conducting the referendum in the manner provided by this Part.”

I do not think that is good enough, however. I have had enough experience of ministerial office to have seen how such very clear intentions written into a piece of legislation can be strangled by those who implement the law in the subsequent rules and interpretations unless we are very clear about our expectations, and I believe that our disabled and partially sighted citizens deserve us to be absolutely clear and unequivocal in respect of these amendments.

Paragraph 7 of the schedule states:

“The Electoral Commission must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness about the referendum and how to vote in it.”

Well, yes, but that is not always the way things are delivered and the Electoral Commission is not very good at using its powers to ensure consistency in electoral arrangements. So these amendments are necessary, as we must ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall first set out what the Electoral Commission has said, some of which the hon. Lady has quoted, about how it intends to proceed. The chief counting officer can give directions to counting officers. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have made the point that in previous elections the Electoral Commission has not done an adequate job. Interestingly, Scope’s Polls Apart report, which I had the opportunity of speaking to at the launch event earlier this year, said that the guidance that the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators produced on facilitating voting by disabled people was good but was not well implemented. The Electoral Commission does not have the power in elections to mandate the way in which returning officers behave but the chief counting officer will be able to issue directions to regional counting officers and counting officers. It is therefore worth considering the approach that the Electoral Commission plans to take.

The Commission believes it is important that the voting process is accessible to all electors. It says that it takes seriously its duty as a public body under equality legislation—including under the Disability Discrimination Acts and the Equality Act 2010, relevant parts of which will come into force next year—to ensure, among other things, that the information it provides is accessible and available in alternative formats. It has made it clear that the information it plans to send to every household will include information about voting systems, what will happen in the event of a yes or no outcome and how to take part in the referendum, including how to register and how to vote. That booklet will be available in a range of formats, including Braille, audio and large print.

The chief counting officer has said that she will issue guidance and directions to regional counting officers and counting officers regarding their duties in respect of accessibility and disabled voters under relevant equality and electoral legislation. She has also said that the Commission will continue to work with the excellent organisations that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady mentioned, such as Mencap, the RNIB, Scope and other representative and advocacy organisations, to ensure that the referendum is managed and delivered in an appropriate way so that all electors have the chance to participate. That is a great reassurance because, unlike in elections, the chief counting officer for the referendum will be able to direct regional counting officers and counting officers on how to carry all that out.

My officials have discussed aspects of the Bill with Scope and they are very happy to do so with other organisations. In my previous life as the shadow Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I worked very closely with many organisations representing disabled people so I know what an excellent job they do. I also know from my experience as a constituency MP how much disabled people want to participate in elections not just by postal vote but, as the hon. Lady correctly said, by taking part in person. People with physical disabilities and people with learning disabilities are keen to express their views and we want to make sure that they can do so.

Having welcomed the amendments in principle, I am not convinced that they are the best way of achieving the aims behind them. The commission already has powers to do what the amendments propose in many cases and I do not think that turning those powers into obligations—this comes back to the point on which the right hon. Gentleman was pressing me about converting “may” into “must”—would add much to the Commission’s options. Indeed, it might be damaging to take away its discretion to decide when it is necessary to issue directions or guidance. I do not think that would be helpful. By setting out what the commission has said on this, I have shown that it takes these issues very seriously. There are already important legal obligations on the commission, as a public body, under disability discrimination legislation and the Equality Act and I am not sure that the extra obligations that the amendments would place on the commission would add clarity. If anything, they would be in danger of making the legal position more complex.

Let me address another issue that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have both touched on about this poll in particular and elections in general. There may be changes that we can make to electoral law in general—the Government keep that under review—but I do not think that legislating specifically for one poll, even if there were things on which I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, would be a sensible way of going about it.

On electoral registration, the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that there is an issue to do with the number of people who are eligible to vote and are not on the electoral register. As he knows, during our September sittings I made a statement in the House about bringing forward individual registration, to deal not just with people who are on the register but should not be, but with the completeness of the electoral register. The Government think that completeness is as important as accuracy, and I have written to every local authority to urge their participation in data-matching pilots to try to identify voters who are not registered to vote and to look at how local authorities can best target their resources to get them on the electoral register.

The right hon. Gentleman made a tiny partisan point, when he said that he and his hon. Friends had been calling for change for many years. That may be the case and I have no doubt that the previous Government meant well, but in terms of outcomes they did not make a huge amount of progress in getting people on the electoral register. I hope he will support this Government in our efforts to do better.

To improve disabled people’s access to the democratic process, it is important that the Government continue to work with the organisations that the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and others have mentioned. We shall keep the matter under review, but I do not think the amendments are the best way to improve access for the disabled to this poll, so I urge both Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on their amendments. There was a time when Parliament did not consider the rights of people with disabilities at all; those people and their rights were often ignored by society. We have moved a dramatic distance over the past 15 years in the rights of people with disability.

I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s words. When I was a Minister, an amendment might look perfectly sensible but some civil servant would come up with a reason why we could not possibly agree to it. The Whips would then say that we had to hold firm and that we could not possibly give way. The Minister may be right about some of the amendments, and it would be wrong to put in the Bill precise rules about whether the font size should be 12 point, 16 point or whatever. However, it would seem from what the Minister said that there would be no harm, in terms of their general principles, if the first two amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend were added to the Bill. They would apply only to this referendum, not to everything else.

The Minister made a point about the difference between the relationship in a normal election between the Electoral Commission and the returning officer, when the commission cannot direct, and the situation outlined in the Bill, when the chief counting officer can direct. That is all the more reason for us to provide in the Bill precise instructions that are in terms not of “may” but of “must”. I challenge the Minister to tell us what would be the harm in that amendment. I can see no harm that could possibly accrue, whereas the possible advantage could be significant to people with disabilities.

It is worth bearing in mind the statistics, which we have already heard, on the number of people who face significant accessibility barriers when voting at polling stations—67% of people with disabilities. We should recognise that there has been a tiny improvement on 2001 and 2005, but the previous Government were not enormously successful either, which is why we need to be more resolute in pursuing such issues.

The interesting figures in “Polls Apart” on voting by post are significant. Many people have presumed that now that people with disabilities can vote by post, the problem is solved. In actual fact, the great variation in how to cast a postal vote across the country—there are different ways of folding envelopes and of putting one envelope inside another—means that it is difficult to have a national campaign explaining how to use one’s postal vote. Many elderly people, quite apart from other people who might have disabilities, find it phenomenally difficult to vote by post.

At the general election, both in my constituency and when campaigning in other constituencies, I found that a lot of people had registered for a postal vote but found it difficult to understand precisely how they were meant to take it forward. Many of them would have preferred to have voted in a polling station, but if they are to be able to do so on an equal basis with anyone else in the land, explicit provision enabling them to do so needs to be made.

At the last election, there were fewer large ballot papers available than in 2005, which is a disgrace; I take no pleasure in saying that something that happened under the Labour Government was not an enormous success, but that is a fact. The difficulty with the argument that the Minister advances is that he is basically saying, “It’s all going in the right direction. We don’t need to put measures in the Bill, because it will all be provided for,” but the truth is that while many officials who have worked on the issue in previous years have made gains in some areas, in others they have moved backwards in relation to their obligations.

For instance, there are fewer polling stations in the Rhondda than there were in 2001. In the case of the polling station provided in Stanleytown, a small village in Tylorstown that is on a fairly steep hill, there was no public building in which to put it, and as the doors of all the houses are too narrow, no house could be used, so a portakabin was used. Unfortunately, halfway through the afternoon, the portakabin started sliding down the hill, which did not exactly make it more accessible than any other polling station.

There are serious problems, and I urge the Minister seriously to consider supporting, rather than opposing, the amendments that have been tabled.

[Mr Harper]

I have considered the amendments carefully, partly because of the role that I held before we entered government. I looked at the amendments myself, and at my advice from officials, and I genuinely do not think that the amendments add anything to the legal obligations that already fall on the Electoral Commission as a public body under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010. Also, interestingly, the chief counting officer can make directions about whether the guidance, which Scope acknowledged was good, is put into effect. In response to the “Polls Apart” report, I have asked officials to look at all the recommendations and how we might act on them. The period after the referendum will be a good opportunity to look at the difference that the chief counting officer has been able to make with her direction, and to see whether we have proposals to take forward for elections more generally.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but that is more soft soap. I fully understand the Minister’s good intentions—he has advocated the causes that we are discussing many times—but I think that he has been seized by civil-servantitis. I fully understand the motivation behind the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, relating to the size of font and so on. I understand why the Minister might not want those provisions in the Bill, with regard to the referendum, but his argument falls at the first hurdle. He says that the chief counting officer will be able not just to provide guidance, but to direct. Surely it would make more sense for us to say not that the chief counting officer may make certain directions, but that she must do so, including

“directions about the discharge of their functions specifically in relation to voters with disabilities”.

I cannot understand for the life of me why the amendments could not be accepted. I can see no harm that would be done if they were. The Minister has not advanced any example of harm that would be done to the legislative process. If we are in any doubt as to whether we should move forward with the amendments, I would have thought that we should err on the side of caution and support those with disabilities. Once again, I urge the Minister to change his mind, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, on their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 136, page 17, line 5, at end insert

‘subject to the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 264.

Amendment 247, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

‘7A (1) The Electoral Commission shall not issue any explanatory document to persons entitled to vote in the referendum during the relevant period unless the wording, content and design of such document has been agreed by both organisations designated for the purposes of section 108 of the 2000 Act (designation of organisations to whom assistance is available), where such designations have occurred.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) the “relevant period” is the relevant period for the referendum as defined in section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction on publication etc. of promotional period by central government etc.).’.

[Chris Bryant]

The amendment deals with the simple issue of the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to the referendum next year. While the Bill provides that the commission should take whatever steps it thinks appropriate to promote public awareness of the referendum and how to vote in it, we believe that that should be subject to the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I realise that hon. Members may think that that is some strange committee with no proper function and is just a bunch of MPs who want to interfere in the process, but in fact it is laid down in the 2000 Act. It has three ex-officio members—the Deputy Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. In addition, a Minister is appointed to the committee by the Prime Minister, in this case the Minister for Housing and Local Government, as well as five other Members—the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). One might call that an eclectic mix, but it represents a broad swathe of opinion on the issue of the referendum as well as many other electoral matters.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman know which of those members might vote yes in the referendum and which might uphold the current system?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I have not got the faintest idea. I just know that two or even three of them are definite noes. I do not know about the others. My point is that this body is used to considering electoral matters without seeking partisan advantage and to trying to promote a level playing field for all in electoral administration.

The committee has two specific roles, only one of which is material here. The first is in relation to the appointment of commissioners, which is why earlier last week we saw the appointment of new commissioners. In addition, it has a role in analysing the five-year financial plans produced by the Electoral Commission. It is the only point at which Parliament has a say in the financial plans of the commission and one of the issues that will have to be borne in mind is how much should be spent on the information that the commission provides to voters about the referendum. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission is therefore an important body to keep informed. The committee also provides an opportunity for a Minister to be directly involved, albeit only as one of the six Members on the committee.

The Electoral Commission has said that it knows that a considerable amount of information will have to be provided. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) knows that I do not share his views on the alternative vote. None the less, we share the view that the information provided should be fair, and it is important that we lay the details down in statute as far as possible to ensure that that happens. The way in which information is presented can inadvertently—and sometimes advertently—be biased. The commission said in its report on a referendum on the UK parliamentary voting system earlier this year:

“Without background information about the different voting systems, many participants in our research found the proposed question problematic.”

We might think that that is because the question is problematic, but the report continues:

“This was because they had almost no understanding of the ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV) system”—

and before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited—

“and very mixed understanding of ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP).”

The last election in which I took part was last Thursday in Treherbert in the Rhondda where we had a council by-election. It was beautifully precise, because we had just two candidates—a Labour candidate and a Plaid Cymru one. It might appear that that would be easy for people to understand—a straight choice between A and B and one cross in the relevant box. However, there were several spoiled ballot papers because normally people get two votes in local elections in that two-member ward. Some people had voted for both candidates, presumably because they thought the by-election was like the normal elections. I am sure that hon. Members are dying to know who won the by-election. Labour seized the seat from Plaid Cymru with a swing of 10%, so Councillor Luke Bouchard is now the youngest councillor in Wales.

The important point is that voters do not fully understand the current system. They certainly do not understand the alternative vote system very well. However, in order for the Electoral Commission to provide information so that people can have a full understanding, we need a system that includes not only the commission but the weathered eye of some elected politicians, through the Speaker’s committee, which is unbiased and has no particular axe to grind.

I note that the hon. Gentleman and several others have tabled an amendment that would solve the same problem slightly differently. I suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive, although it might be a case of belt and braces. I am keen to hear what he has to say, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr Gale. I hope that the Government will want to involve the Speaker’s committee in this process and accept the amendment.

[Mr Jenkin]

Amendment 247 is in my name and of several colleagues, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). I do not think that that represents any slight on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); it is just that I asked the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to table it with me.

The hon. Member for Rhondda has made the reason behind his amendment clear, and the principal purpose of our amendment is the same. The Electoral Commission has invited us to give it the enormous responsibility of sending out information, during a referendum, about the contentious matter on which voters will be asked to give an opinion. As the hon. Gentleman said, these are difficult issues to understand. Even the current voting system, to be called first past the post in the ballot question, is difficult for some voters to understand. That underlines the no campaign’s view that it should have been called the current system. As a more neutral description, that might have been better and more intelligible. These are subjective judgments, but the commission decided not to accept that suggestion. It also declined to accept our suggestion that the new system should be called the optional preferential voting system with instant run-off, which explains in more detail what it actually is. We are therefore left with some difficulty in explaining the systems.

Amendment 247 would provide that unless both the yes and the no campaigns are satisfied that the information being sent out is completely neutral, they should have the right of veto over it. That would be completely fair and equal, and would provide a safety valve, because there would be no possibility of information going out about which one campaign could cry foul.

--- Later in debate ---

On the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle, given what I said on the difficulty of producing factual information without being drawn on the merits, I think it unlikely that the commission will get involved in rebutting information from particular campaigns. That would get it into exactly the problem that he highlighted, and it would be wary of doing so. I shall conclude my remarks there, hoping that the hon. Member for Rhondda withdraws his amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

This has been an interesting discussion. In a sense, at the back of this debate lies the fact that the vast majority of voters do not spend all their time worrying about voting systems. For that matter, they do not spend much of their time worrying about party politics or politics in any shape or form. In July, I knocked on a door to ask someone to vote Labour in an election. He said, “I am never, ever going to vote Labour again in my life because you just increased VAT.” When I said, “But we haven’t,” he replied, “You’re the Government aren’t you?” I said, “No, we’re not,” and he said, “Well, you were earlier this year.” I suppose that is a version of the argument that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats use all the time.

There is a serious point. Sometimes, when it comes to explaining voting systems, it is not so much that voters are not bright enough to understand, but simply that their eyes glaze over, because they think, “Why on earth are you bothering to talk to me about this?”—[Hon. Members: “Hear hear!”] Listen: I am one of those who wants to reform the system. As we lead up to the referendum, it will be difficult to provide the kind of information that most voters would admit they ought to have in their heads before they vote.

That could quite simply be because voters are not always interested, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was absolutely right in saying that it is very difficult to arrive at a truly impartial presentation of the facts. From a theological point of view, that is true of nearly everything. We always underestimate how much our subjective opinions influence how we interpret and present the facts, and even what we choose to call a fact as opposed to something else. Certainly, that is true of the BBC. If the referendum were on the European Union or the Lisbon treaty, there would be even more excitement, and equal levels of misunderstanding and distrust of the system. The other aspect is that many voters simply do not believe anything that any politician says, so why on earth would they believe what is presented in the referendum?

There are specific matters on which there is enormous potential for quarrel in the material that the Electoral Commission will present. Let us say that the commission wanted to describe in its literature the advantages of a first-past-the-post system—the right hon. Member for Wokingham said that it could be presented as the person who gets the most votes wins. I would guess that every single one of those advantages would be disputed by someone on the other side of the argument. How on earth can the commission possibly arrive at a set of advantages or disadvantages of either system in the information? Similarly, some would argue that the alternative vote could lead to more hung Parliaments. That is highly contentious, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) would argue that that is a proven fact. I urge caution regarding the quantity of information that the commission will provide.

Interestingly enough—it may not be interesting to hon. Members, but it is to me—I had lunch today with some Chilean Senators and Members of Parliament who have accompanied President Pinera on his visit. They wanted to know exactly what alternative vote system was being proposed. They are experienced politicians and have just changed their electoral system, so I thought that they would know what the alternative vote system was. In their heads, they were working on the assumption that there would be a second round of voting rather than an instant run-off, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, because if nobody gets 50% in the first round of Chilean presidential elections, there is a second round.

Notwithstanding that, the Electoral Commission has made it clear that there is a need for information. Some of its findings from earlier this year are enlightening. Its report states:

“The vast majority had no knowledge of AV and did not know how to vote under the system or how candidates would win a seat…A few people who were more interested and engaged had found out about AV when they heard about the referendum. Some people, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, said they ‘had heard of’ the system but did not know how it worked. They assumed it to be the same as the proportional representation systems used in elections there.”

Of course, that makes the point that it is difficult to use a phrase such as, “The system used in parliamentary elections now,” because the system for Scottish parliamentary elections is not the same. We cannot simply refer to “the present system” because the system is different in Wales. For that matter, some have referred to the system for electing the London Mayor, but that is different again, because voters have only a second preference vote rather than a fully alternative vote.

There is also a problem in relation to the presentation of materials. Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the weathered eye—or perhaps the battered eye—of politicians can sometimes be useful. We are used to decrying politicians and saying how terrible they are. Everybody wants there to be no more politicians ever again, but we do add value in some regards.

[Mr Harper]

Just in case the hon. Gentleman is unaware, four former politicians were appointed to the Electoral Commission on 1 October specifically to improve the commission’s understanding of the conduct of politics. They are very experienced figures and represent major and minor parties, and I would have thought them perfectly capable of steering the commission out of any choppy waters into which it were so minded to sail.

[Chris Bryant]

I am aware that those people were appointed because I was in the Chamber when the Whip with the billiard cue came in and announced it. However, they are not all elected. Some are experienced in running elections—certainly Lord Kennedy of Southwark is—and some have stood for office, but none the less, the weathered eye of a sitting, elected politician would be quite useful.

For instance, let us say that the commission decides to use Labour red for everything relating to a yes vote and Conservative blue for everything relating to a no vote. That would be problematic. A politician would spot it instantly, but many professionals who run elections would not, because they are attuned to different things. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that there is a specific role for the Speaker’s Committee—I can see one member of that committee in the Chamber.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) is used to editors editing her copy, or perhaps it goes straight through and clean into her books, but I do not think that members of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission will want to interfere unnecessarily. They might just bring another valuable perspective to any material that is produced. There is no reason why that should lead to interminable delay, and I think it would be good if members and ex officio members of the committee were to bring their experience to deliberations.

The Minister pointed out that two committee members are also members of the Government, and he is right: there is the Minister for Housing and Local Government who is a Conservative, and there is the Deputy Prime Minister who, at least for the moment, is a Liberal Democrat. Of course, in their personal capacities the two of them will reach different conclusions coming from different sides of the argument, but in their ministerial capacities, they will agree on neutrality. Therefore, in making his observation the Minister adds to my argument, rather than takes away from it.

Finally, I have a bone to pick with the right hon. Member for Wokingham. He referred to the Minister speaking from his ex cathedra pulpit, and I just point out that one is either speaking ex cathedra or from a pulpit. The cathedra is the throne on which the bishop or Pope sits; it is certainly not a pulpit.

I will press my amendment to a Division, although I very much hope that the Minister will agree to it, notwithstanding his earlier complaints.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I am not mistaken, his wife is American. In the United States, it is a given that citizenship and the right to vote go together. At the very least, we should expect that when we choose to extend the right to vote to non-British citizens—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Brady]

I would not want to keep the Opposition spokesman waiting, as he appears to be pregnant with a very important point.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has started a theme running in my mind now. Please will he tell off the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)? It is impossible to be “almost unique”. It is a bit like pregnancy; something either is or is not unique. In regard to one of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), the truth is that we have reciprocal arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Brady]

Yes, we have reciprocal arrangements, although they are often not entirely symmetrical. For example, I believe that there is a qualifying period of residence for a British citizen in the Republic of Ireland before the reciprocal arrangement comes into effect. As a Brady, I hold no malice whatever towards those of Irish extraction, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, we allow an entirely different situation to exist in relation to citizens of Commonwealth countries. We have reciprocal arrangements with some of the smaller countries—typically the Caribbean countries, some of which have provided a significant number of residents in this country. However, the bigger Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer no reciprocal rights to British citizens living in those countries, even though we allow their citizens to vote when they are here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made the point brilliantly. The requirement that one should be a member of this country—that we should extend voting rights only to those who are fully part of our country—would surely seem entirely normal and entirely rational in almost any country of the world. However, as my hon. Friend says, it seems even more so when we are considering the nature of our democracy and the rules on which we base our constitution for the future.

As I make these brief remarks, I stand here in a spirit of enormous optimism—which is my usual state—because I happen to know that the Opposition support my position. At the very least, they supported the position that my amendments encapsulate as recently as 2008, when, in the document “Citizenship: Our Common Bond”, Lord Goldsmith said:

“Voting in all elections, along with holding a passport, is the ultimate badge of citizenship.”

He went on to say that

“I do propose that government gives consideration to making a clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote by limiting in principle the right to vote in Westminster elections to UK citizens. This would recognise that the right to vote is one of the hallmarks of the political status of citizens: it is not a means of expressing closeness between countries.”

That deals with the concerns that many of us might feel. We have a real strength of affection and affinity for the Commonwealth and we would not wish by any means to offend Commonwealth partners or their citizens. Citizenship carries some rights, but they are entirely different from those that come from that closeness, friendship and relationship between countries, just as Lord Goldsmith said.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Brady]

I hope that the shadow Minister will now endorse the views of his predecessor in the previous Labour Government’s views on this subject.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am pregnant again with this issue. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse the views of a former Minister with the views of the Labour party. It sometimes seems that former Ministers hold all sorts of fascinating views that they did not hold when they were in office—[Interruption.] I include myself in this. One day the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), will be a former Minister and he might then have some views. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) should not confuse the views—that was not the Labour party’s view at all.

[Mr Brady]

I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be commendably consistent. I hoped that that would be evidenced this evening, should he be called upon to enter the Division Lobby on these matters. My optimism is not bounded even by the shadow Minister’s words of caution, because my hon. Friend the Minister also appears to endorse the sentiments that I have expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brady]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I tabled amendment 60 in a spirit of compromise with the intention of avoiding re-opening difficult debates that had taken place at the time of the Good Friday agreement. It is of course an inconsistency set against amendment 59, but that is its sole purpose.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous, for giving way. May I clarify something? I realise that the amendments relate only to the referendum, but does he think that the perfect normality to which he has referred should apply to general elections? In other words, does he think that Commonwealth citizens should no longer be allowed to vote in British general elections, too?

[Mr Brady]

Absolutely. Like Lord Goldsmith in the document that I have quoted, I think we should move towards a position in which we treat the right to vote in a general election in this country as one of the rights and privileges that go hand in hand with full citizenship. I would like to see that happen. Clearly, it goes beyond the scope of this Bill—it is a debate that is yet to happen—but I hope it is a debate that we will have, because I think that most people in this country would be quite surprised even to hear what the franchise is for a general election. I certainly think that the hon. Gentleman and most other Members of this House would be hard pressed to advance a compelling case for the strange mishmash of franchise that I have set out this evening. We should simplify it and we should set out that important principle. I hope that the Opposition will continue with the rational position that was adopted on this subject in the previous Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on providing us with the amendment to debate this evening, and on the manner in which she presented her case. It showed that one can make a forceful case with a considerable degree of humour, and I think that we all enjoyed it. Indeed, it was one of the most enjoyable speeches that I have heard in the House for many a long year.

I was going to say that I was once a 16-year-old, but I am not entirely convinced that I ever really was; I think that I am going back to my childhood now. Several hon. Members referred to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I know that hon. Members in the Liberal Democrat party are trying to find reasons why they do not have to vote against the Whip this evening, but I honestly say to them, “You’re either in favour of votes at 16 and 17 or you’re not, and if you are you should be voting in favour of votes at 16 and 17 in the next election, which may be held next May.”

Otherwise, it seems to me that the Liberal Democrats really are taking to heart the words of Homer Simpson, when he said:

“Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals—except the weasels.”

I know that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) is not a weasel, and I know that none of the honourable people currently sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches is either, so I hope that they will stick with their manifesto commitment, which was to vote in favour of votes at 16 and 17. The most recent vote on the matter, held before the general election, was a free vote for Labour Members, and the Labour party will have a free vote again this evening.

I happen to support votes at 16 and 17, simply because we ask young people to do many things in modern society, and they are aged in many ways. We now expect them to take on significant levels of debt, and to consider doing so before they go to university, and I honestly believe that if they can make decisions about whether they can parent, about whether they have children, I think that they should also be able to decide who governs the country. That is not the precise proposal in the amendment before us, because it relates merely to the referendum, but I think that general election votes should also apply to that age group.

I am afraid that I find the amendment that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) tabled quite disturbing and unpleasant.

[Mr Charles Walker]

You’re over-egging it.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not over-egging it. Remarkably few people have migrated to my constituency of the Rhondda over the past 80 years, except from Ireland and England, so this is not an issue about who is and is not able to vote in my constituency. However, I rather like the fact that some elements of our law on citizenship are slightly fudged. I like the fact that we still emphasise the bonds of the Commonwealth sufficiently to be able to say that if an Australian works in this country in a bar as part of their gap year, is resident here, pays their taxes and is working, by virtue of their citizenship of Australia they are allowed to vote.

Let us refer to the Republic of Cyprus. Many north London Conservative MPs would reckon that it was not without the Cypriot vote in the general election that they were elected. In addition, if we were to disfranchise the large number of Greek Cypriots in north London and, for that matter, south Wales, we would be saying to them, “Please don’t engage in the British political system,” and doing so at a time when their engagement with the British political system enables us to engage better with the problem in Cyprus, which is still a divided island, with a divided capital city and all the problems about which this Committee knows.

[Mr Brady]

The shadow Minister may be disturbed, and I apologise for that, but, first, those Commonwealth bonds should be reciprocal, and they are not in the instances that he has set out. Secondly, on the Cypriot community in this country, can the hon. Gentleman give us any reason why somebody who chooses to make their home here permanently and wishes to be a part of our political process should not seek British citizenship?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I want to encourage people to take up British citizenship, but our legislation is shaped as it is because of Mrs Thatcher. She introduced the British Nationality Act 1981, followed by the Representation of the People Act 1983, which guarantees citizens of Commonwealth countries the right to vote in this country. I very rarely say so, but on that occasion Mrs Thatcher got it right. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] I think I might have lost the Rhondda there. There are other occasions on which I do not agree with her very much.

Let us take another instance. Papua New Guinea was never a British colony. It was an Australian colony and, therefore, part of the Commonwealth, but I delight in the fact that, because the main sport in Papua New Guinea is rugby league, Papua New Guineans come to the UK. There are some significant and famous Papua New Guineans playing that sport in northern England, and I am delighted that while they are here, they want to take an active part in British politics and are able to vote.

For that matter, I am delighted that Fijians, in significant numbers, want to join the British armed forces. All hon. Members will want to pay tribute to the role that Fijians have played in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Fiji is no longer a Commonwealth country, because of the situation in Suva, the military regime there and the fact it does not seem to have in place a direct course back to democracy, so I ask the Minister, why have we not amended the list under schedule 3 to the 1981 Act? Does he feel it right to leave it precisely as it is?

I say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West that the bond that I cite in relation to the Commonwealth also applies to Ireland. It is pretty difficult to unpick our entire historical relationship and the steady process towards peace on the island of Ireland, but through the hon. Gentleman’s amendment there would be a real danger of him doing so. I value our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. It is important that British people be able to continue to vote there, and others here.

[Mr Brady]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman may be about to raise the issue of whether the relationship should be directly comparable, and perhaps it should be, but my instinct would be to say that if one wants to move towards greater compatibility or to reciprocal arrangements between different countries, one should do so through a Representation of the People Act, not a referendum Act.

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I was not going to make that point. I have said that I am an eternal optimist, and as one door closes another door opens, so, given the importance of the bond between people in different countries, which he believes gives rise to a right for them to vote in elections in this country, I assume that he is about to say that British expatriates, who may wish to return to this country in the fullness of time, have at least an equal bond, and that he will therefore endorse amendment 61 later this evening.

[Chris Bryant]

That is quite interesting, because rather bizarrely I spent a lot of the general election in Spain, trying to help British people get home during the ash cloud problem. Indeed, it was as difficult to get to Spain as it was to get back, so it was a slightly complex mission. I am conscious that about 1 million British people live in Spain, and that about 800,000 live in France, and many exercise a right to vote because they have a second home either in the UK, Spain or wherever. However, when they no longer participate in British society, it is difficult to see why, after 15 years, they should continue to have the right to vote as an overseas voter. In actual fact, the number who use their vote is infinitesimal. That is partly because of the difficulty of voting by post. I suppose that arrangements could be made for voting in embassies, consulates-general and so on around the country, but I am not sure that it is worth the effort. After 15 years, there is a good argument to say that if someone has no direct investment in the future of the United Kingdom, then it does not apply.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I am trying to follow the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that rugby league players from Papua New Guinea playing in the north of England should have a right to vote in a referendum on the future voting system in the United Kingdom?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West—a man who just described himself as an eternal optimist. They are both so optimistic that they are still referring to me as a Minister, which is a delight. Of course, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) knows perfectly well that that is not the argument I am making; I know that because he did that little shrivel-up of his nose that he sometimes does when he is about to make a mischievous contribution in debate.

The basis of my argument is that the bonds of the Commonwealth are important, and I have given a couple of instances of that. We have significant numbers of people from these various communities in the UK. Many of them have been resident for some time, pay taxes and contribute to British political life, and I would like them to be able to remain in the same situation. The situation is not broken, and so, to use an old Conservative principle, I do not see the need to fix it. Particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland, it would be a step completely in the wrong direction to try to unpick the relationship that we have managed to maintain over the past few years.

Another issue that has been touched on only slightly relates to the overseas territories. We should consider, not directly in relation to this referendum, but certainly in relation to the future, how overseas territories are represented in the context of the British Government. There is an degree to which we still decide matters for the overseas territories. For instance, in recent weeks the Government have decided to overturn the decision on borrowing in the Cayman Islands and allowed the Cayman Islands to remain as a tax haven. I believe that that is entirely a mistake, and that the finances of Cayman are unsustainable. It is therefore important that we find some means of ensuring that the overseas territories have some form of representation.

I want to ask the Minister a couple of other questions about why the Government have introduced the clause precisely as it is. I presume that we will not have a clause stand part debate, so I will mention these points now, if that is all right, Ms Primarolo. I do not understand why peers should be allowed to vote in a referendum on elections to the House of Commons. That seems slightly odd, because all the other provisions relate to those who are able to vote in elections to the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. In particular—this may be down to my personal stupidity and inability to read legislation—[Interruption.] Undoubtedly it is, yes. I see that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) has swapped sides and decided to join the ranks of the Labour party: he is very welcome.

I asked the Minister about clause 2(2) earlier, so by now he might have had some inspiration from the officials. No, I see that he is not going to get any inspiration from them because they are all shaking their heads furiously. The clause makes provision for peers whose only right to vote will be by virtue of being able to do so through the City of London—for instance, as an alderman—and therefore not by virtue of their residence. Precisely how many people does he think that that catches?

Can the Minister tell us about the position of the bishops? As he will know, some bishops arrive in the House of Lords automatically and some arrive on a sort of episcopal escalator that takes them up there once they are among the longest-standing bishops of the Church of England, as long as they are diocesan, not suffragan or area bishops. What happens to bishops once they are no longer taking their ex officio seat? Will they be allowed to vote? What provisions does he think should be made for the future?

[Mr MacNeil]

How close does the hon. Gentleman think that this referendum might be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am hoping that it is some time distant yet. I hope that it will not be on 5 May, but so far we have not won any of those votes.

I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West will press his amendment to a vote, and I look forward to pushing lots of leaflets through doors pointing out who he has decided to disfranchise. I hope that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire is carried. I look forward to putting lots of notes through doors in Liberal Democrat constituencies pointing out who they have chosen to disfranchise because they are not prepared to follow up what they truly believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I did say that it was perfectly normal in other countries, but my hon. Friend knows that this country is special—[Interruption.] It has a unique history and we are where we are because of the experiences that we have had in the past. As Conservatives, we should not lightly throw off those historical resonances—

[Chris Bryant]

I hate to say it, but I agree with that last sentence. In offering solace to Conservative Back Benchers, the Minister seemed to suggest that he is actively considering whether Commonwealth citizens should be removed from the franchise for parliamentary elections. Is that true?

[Mr Harper]

I chose my words carefully and I said that I would think about it. There may be an opportunity in the future, when the House considers a wider Bill, when it would be appropriate to debate it. Even if the Government did not bring forward such proposals, hon. Members would table amendments—as they have for this Bill—and give us the opportunity to debate the matter.

[Chris Bryant]

That is clear, and I am grateful to the Minister. Can he answer the question that I asked earlier about Fiji?

[Mr Harper]

Fiji has been suspended from the Commonwealth, and the usual practice is that in such cases we do not take steps to remove the right of qualifying citizens from those countries to vote in our elections.

It is worth saying that the right of Commonwealth citizens to register to vote is restricted in electoral law to qualifying Commonwealth citizens—those who do not require leave to enter or remain under the immigration legislation, or those who do require leave but have it. I say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suggested that in some constituencies significant numbers of illegal immigrants had managed to get themselves on to the electoral register and that there was no duty on electoral registration officers to do anything about that. But that is not the case. Electoral registration officers have a duty to maintain an accurate and complete register and to inquire whether people are eligible to be—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

As I said in my intervention on the hon. Lady, she has not thought through her argument. She has tried to make two different arguments for her amendment, and they do not really make sense. Her argument that people who will be voting at the next general election, on 7 May 2015, should have a say in the referendum would imply logically that people who are 14 next year—four years before the election—should be able to vote in the referendum too. Even she, with her campaign to lower the voting age to 16, has not proposed that, because she knows perfectly well that a proposal to allow 14-year-olds to vote would get laughed out of court, even by those who propose lowering the voting age to 16.

The hon. Lady’s argument does not stack up or make any sense. If we take her argument to its logical conclusion—picking up on the point made about a new voting system kicking in in perpetuity—we should enfranchise everybody alive today, because at some point in the future they will be voting in a general election based on the voting system bought in by the referendum next year. That simply does not make any sense. So we have adopted the usual position in this country, which is that to be able to vote in an election, one must be an adult, which in our system means being 18.

[Chris Bryant]

As far as I can see, the Minister’s argument is that we should use the franchise used for parliamentary elections, but he makes one enormous exception, which is for the peers. [Interruption.] It is not a small exception; it is a large exception. These are the people who are least experienced in dealing with parliamentary elections. I say that not because I have any distaste for peers—some of my best friends are peers.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Were your best friends.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. Nevertheless, what is the logic behind the Minister’s argument for specifically exempting the peers?

[Mr Harper]

Let me deal with that point, and then I will finish off on the general point. Very simply, we considered the franchise, but we made one exception because, the usual argument for peers being excluded from voting for Members of this House is that they are Members of this Parliament. However, we did not think that that restriction made sense in a vote on the voting system, and we therefore decided to make that change. That is the only exception that we have made, and it is a very limited change—I think it unlikely that the result of the referendum will be swung by Members of the upper House.

Let me conclude on the point that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire raised. Her argument is a perfectly reasonable one, albeit one that I happen to disagree with, but just as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, this is not the place to make it. If we were having a debate about voting in general, she would be perfectly entitled to put that view before the Committee and to test the Committee’s opinion. However, for the referendum in question, it does not seem sensible to do that. Her argument—that people who will be affected by the election in 2015 should be entitled to vote in the referendum on the voting system—simply does not make sense, because it would mean giving 14-year-olds the vote in that referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The amendments make minor and technical drafting changes to the Bill. Amendments 267 and 269 change the deadline for issuing the notice of poll in the rules for the conduct of the referendum from 16 to 15 days before the poll. The change is necessary to ensure that the combination provisions, which we tabled earlier today, work in the right way.

The rest of the amendments contain a series of miscellaneous minor technical amendments and corrections. I am happy to discuss them further if Members are interested in the detail. I commend them to the Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

I briefly note the Minister’s point of information earlier. However, there are several amendments on the Order Paper and if he thinks that we shall not reach them because he has not allowed enough time, that is his problem. To force a vote, rather than hold a debate, is a disgrace.

I am always profoundly disturbed when I see the words “minor and technical amendments”, because all too often far too much can be hidden away in the detail. The Minister skirted over the change of the notice of poll from 16 to 15 days. As he rightly says, that is because of the combination of polls, but there is no need to have a combination of polls next year. As we have rehearsed many times already today, and on our previous day in Committee, we do not need to hold the elections on the same day, in which case 16 days could be provided for the notice of poll, which would be more sensible. I should be grateful if the Minister explained why he thinks it is better to have 15 rather than 16 days’ notice of poll, in particular because it is more difficult for overseas voters to know when an election is happening. Does he not think that if the elections were on different days, they would have more time? Why is it important to have just 15 days?

Amendment 171 would remove sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 21, which relates to the keeping of order in polling stations. The paragraph states:

“It is the presiding officer’s duty to keep order at the officer’s polling station…If a person engages in misconduct in a polling station or fails to obey the presiding officer’s lawful orders, the person may immediately, by the presiding officer’s order, be removed from the polling station.”

Sub-paragraph (4), which the amendment would remove, states:

“A person so removed may, if charged with the commission in the polling station of an offence, be dealt with as a person taken into custody by a constable for an offence without a warrant.”

I do not know why the provision was originally included, or for that matter why it is being removed. What has prompted this change of view? I presume it is nothing to do with the technical wording of the statement, in that the person might not have been charged when he was actually in the polling station, but might have been charged with committing an offence in the polling station. However, I should be grateful if the Minister enlightened us. Some of the other amendments indeed seem to be technical.

[Mr Harper]

I think that with the hon. Gentleman’s first set of questions he seeks to re-argue the debate we had last week.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated assent.

[Mr Harper]

Last week during our first day in Committee, we had an extensive debate on the date of the referendum. I know that the hon. Gentleman argued a different point, but the Committee took the view, by a significant minority, that it wished the election to be on 5 May next year. Given that, it absolutely makes sense to ensure that we combine the elections, so that we make the administration more sensible and make significant financial savings. We have had that argument, and it seems to me that he is seeking to reopen it.

On amendment 171, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that sub-paragraph (4) was an outdated provision; to be quite honest, that is why we have removed it. It is simply not necessary.

[Chris Bryant]

What has changed since the Bill was brought forward that has made the provision outdated?

[Mr Harper]

I think it is more the case that we copied across to the Bill a lot of the existing rules. This is a minor, technical change, but on going through the rules more closely, we decided that the provision was no longer necessary. We are simply tidying up the legislation, which I think is perfectly sensible. These are, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House often says, running repairs.

Amendment 267 agreed to.

Amendment made: 170, in schedule 2, page 27, line 33, leave out ‘education’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 354, page 27, line 37, at end insert—

‘(iii) a school which enjoys charitable status.’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 355, page 27, line 38, leave out from ‘Scotland’ to end of line 39 and insert

‘any school other than those which are run as profit-making enterprises’.

Amendment 356, page 27, line 41, after ‘Assembly’, insert

‘or a school which enjoys charitable status’.

[Chris Bryant]

The amendments are in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Historically, legislation has always provided that the returning officer is able to use polling stations in state-provided schools. For many people up and down the land, when they go to vote, they expect to turn up to a school. Normally it is their local primary school, but provision may be made in their local secondary school. Sometimes, where schools have disappeared, there is a problem with the local returning officer finding a suitable venue. Of course, there is an impact on local state schools: sometimes they have to be closed because there is no other means of providing that the returning officer can use the entrance and make sure that there is security for the children in the school.

These are three simple amendments, the first of which—amendment 354—would insert in schedule 2, page 27, line 37, the words

“a school which enjoys charitable status”,

so that the provisions applied not just to schools provided by the state. We have used that term in relation to the law in England and Wales, because in those areas, independent schools with good facilities that might be made available could be so termed. To provide a similar provision for Scotland, we have tabled amendment 355, which would insert, in schedule 2, page 27, line 38, the phrase

“any school other than those which are run as profit-making enterprises”,

because the independent sector in Scotland works slightly differently.

I see that none of our Northern Irish colleagues is with us, but amendment 356 relates to Northern Ireland. We would not want to conflict with the provisions relating to Roman Catholic schools run by nunneries and convents, so we have not provided the exact same measure as for England and Wales, where “charitable status” covers the situation. We therefore suggest in the amendment that in schedule 2, page 27, line 41, after “Assembly”, we should insert

“or a school which enjoys charitable status”.

I recognise that there are those who would say, “Why on earth should independent sector schools be forced to act as polling stations?” I suspect that more independent schools are likely to say that they would quite like the income that might accrue. More importantly, I do not see why state-provided schools should be regularly used and should therefore undergo the upheaval that polling stations cause, but the independent sector which, in the main, enjoys charitable status and is therefore able to have tax benefits, should not be required to provide the same facilities.

The Minister may say, “We think this is an unnecessary measure.” Our point is that it should be a matter of fairness. The provision should apply across the board. It should not be state schools alone that are inconvenienced. The inconvenience should be shared by all. In addition, some preparatory schools or public schools would be able to provide the necessary facilities relatively easily, without any major inconvenience to them.

In recent years we have seen a considerable attempt by schools in the independent sector to open their doors so that they are far more engaged in the local community. This is an opportunity for them to be engaged in the political process. I hope the amendments will be acceptable to the Government. I am sure they would not want to defend the present injustice.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am slightly puzzled as to why schools attached to religious establishments in Northern Ireland should be excluded, but not those in England and Wales. I can think of a number of Roman Catholic schools attached to monasteries that it might be wise to exclude in the amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I know personally only one public school in England and Wales that is attached to a monastery, which is Ampleforth. There is also Downside. I know of a considerable number of others, and many are attached to Anglican foundations in various ways, such as Charterhouse. The point I was making was specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland settlement. I now have two Northern Ireland colleagues present. I did not want to disturb the complex equilibrium that sometimes exists in relation to these matters in Northern Ireland.

In the case of Ampleforth, for example, which has a large number of pupils over the age of 18 and a large number of teachers who live on a very large campus, I see no reason why there should not be a polling station for Ampleforth itself. That might apply to a number of the larger public schools which, to all intents and purposes, would represent as large a polling district as some other polling districts. The amendment does not require any action to be taken against public schools. I hope they would see it as an enabling measure so that they might be able to encourage more of their students to vote.

I still hope the Minister will support the amendments.

[Mr Harper]

I fear I may disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The amendments would compel independent schools to be used for electoral purposes and for the referendum, should the local authority decide that they are the most suitable place for such a purpose. Electoral legislation at present provides that all publicly funded schools can be used as polling stations, and we are applying those provisions to the referendum. So that there is no doubt, following discussion with the Department for Education we can confirm that academies and free schools will fall within those provisions as well.

Under the Bill, as in electoral law generally—

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister hurried on there. Following discussions with the Department for Education, he says that the same arrangements will apply to academies and free schools, but under what Act is that made clear? Is it made clear in the new legislation that was rushed through Parliament earlier this year?

[Mr Harper]

It is clear that schools that are publicly funded and receive Government grants fall under these provisions. Schools that do not receive Government grants do not. I was setting that out for the benefit of the Committee, in case there was any doubt. I see no need to labour the point.

Under the Bill, as in electoral law generally, independent schools cannot be compelled to act as polling stations for other electoral purposes unless they receive Government grants. But, to pick up the hon. Gentleman’s point about how he hoped that his amendment would be an enabling measure, there is nothing in the law to prevent such schools from serving as polling stations voluntarily. So there is nothing in the law to prevent all those schools that he mentioned from acting as and hosting a polling station, particularly if they have lots of students of voting age. They can make that offer to the local authority, and the local authority can take it up; there is nothing at all to stop a school doing so.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wish for the amendment to be an enabling measure, I must say that it is simply not necessary. I do not see any need at all to change the arrangements, which work well. There is nothing to stop such schools volunteering their premises, and I see from his examples that there may well be benefits to the schools and to their students, so I urge him to withdraw this unnecessary amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

I shall not withdraw the amendment, because I do not accept the premise on which the Minister has advanced his argument. I presume that in his definition of a school for the purposes of the provision, he relies on paragraph (9)(3)(a) of schedule 2, which states that it is either

“(i) a school maintained or assisted by a local education authority;”

or

“(ii) a school in respect of which grants are made out of moneys provided by Parliament to the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the school”—

including, therefore, all the free schools. From the way he was talking, however, it seemed he was suggesting that he had come across some new reason in his conversations with the Department for Education which proved that free schools would be included.

The Minister is right that anybody can apply to provide a polling station. Indeed, some members of the public have said, “In my street, there is no provision,” or, “In my little village, there is no provision, so if you would like to use my house feel free to do so.” However, I am not aware of any public school or independent school having sought to do so. The Minister did not meet the point that for many state schools there is an inconvenience attached to providing a polling station. The law requires them to do so free of charge, but it does not require anybody else so to do.

The Minister’s distinction is based on whether schools are in receipt of moneys or not; my point is that if a school benefits from a favourable tax regime, namely the charitable status that attaches to large parts, although not all, of the independent sector, they should have a concomitant responsibility to provide such facilities. Many public schools are quite happy to provide on a limited basis their sporting facilities—swimming pool, gym or whatever—to the wider community, and such provision might apply to the situation before us, too. I shall therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding what I said earlier about technical and minor amendments, sometimes they are actually technical and minor amendments, and I do not want to delay the Committee too long.

I have two points. First, I do not understand why, in amendments 274 to 278—and, for all I know, in a couple of the others as well—the question has to be asked not just about “the referendum”, but about the referendum

“on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.”

I am not aware of many other referendums coming down the line on that date, so the amendments seem rather otiose and verbose. Will the Minister enlighten me on why they are thought necessary?

Perhaps a more serious point is that several of the amendments—in particular, amendments 287, 291, 293 and 296 to 298—replace the direction to vote just “once” with the direction that people should vote “in one box” only, which is slightly confusing, especially given that we will be having a combination of polls. Elsewhere, schedule 2 provides that there may be more than one polling station in a room, which is quite common because two polling districts might be using the same polling station—so there might be two desks with two electoral registers and two boxes. I presume, however, that in Wales and Scotland, there could be four desks with different registers, given that there are different electoral registers for the different elections—for the referendum and the elections. There could, therefore, be four ballot boxes in the room, and people might be expected to mark two boxes. So the inclusion of the words “in one box” is rather misleading.

As the Minister will know, a ballot paper will often contain the name of the candidate—for example, “No. 1: Chris Bryant”—followed by the address or whatever the candidate has allowed on there, followed by the party and finally the box. I presume that returning officers will be allowed to count as valid votes, as they do in parliamentary and other elections, any ballot paper on which the signifier, which could be an X or in some cases a tick, has been marked anywhere along the line of the yes part of the question—in other words, not in the one box specified as the box in which the person is meant to put their cross, but at any point across the whole of that line.

First, therefore, does the Minister think that extending the question on “the referendum” is necessary or otiose? Secondly, by inserting the words “in one box”, will we not actually make the situation worse? At combined polls, people will expect to vote in two ballot boxes and to mark two boxes on two forms, and whether they do so in the little box itself or in the wider area on the ballot paper will be of material significance. I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us on those matters.

[Mr Harper]

The point about mayoral referendums is that some may indeed be held. Where there are mayoral referendums, we simply wish to capture them and cover that circumstance. The hon. Gentleman may think that the provision is otiose, but we thought it sensible to be clear.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about amendment 287, amendment 291, and so forth—his point about putting an X in one box only—we are following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, which I understand it has tested, to make voting instructions clearer. I recognise that he thinks that that might lead to some confusion, but we do not propose to change the normal rules that apply for elections or the test that returning officers adopt to determine whether a vote is validly cast. For example, as long as someone has made clear their intention, the usual rules apply. So, if they have not put an X, but drawn a little smiley face, or if the mark is partly in one box and partly in another, but what the voter intended is clear, the usual rules will apply and returning officers will attempt to ensure that such votes count. Those are the normal rules for elections that we are all used to, so where there is doubt, if the returning officer thinks that there is clarity about someone’s intention but then does the usual check with the counting agents, that vote will be allowed.

[Chris Bryant]

I was not aware that a smiley face was a signifier of assent, but I hope that that matches present practice. The Minister may know more about that than I do, but if he is wrong, he will doubtless correct his statement later. However, the bit that the Electoral Commission has not been able to check is how the system works where combined polls take place in the same room and where a voter has to go to two desks to cast two votes, and therefore votes twice. That is the bit on which I am seeking clarification.

[Mr Harper]

Just to return to the other point, of course the rules talk about putting down an X, but it is usually the case in elections that if someone has made a mark and signified a clear intention, the returning officer will normally accept that, although that is usually run past the counting agents. That is the usual practice and we do not propose to change it. We do not want to disfranchise anybody unnecessarily.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about voters perhaps being confused by the number of ballot boxes, personally I think that he is making a point for the sake of making a point, but let us assume for the sake of argument that he is trying to make a sensible point. Given that the proposal was adopted following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, I will draw his concerns to its attention, and it can see whether they have any validity. The chief counting officer has the ability to amend some of the other forms and instructions given to voters, so I will draw the matter to her attention and see what the Electoral Commission thinks, which is perhaps the most reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

Amendment 268 agreed to.

Amendments made: 269, page 28, line 8, leave out ‘16th’ and insert ‘15th’.

Amendment 270, page 29, line 6, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—

‘(3) In England, the polling station allotted to electors from any parliamentary polling district wholly or partly within a particular voting area must, in the absence of special circumstances, be in the parliamentary polling place for that district unless the parliamentary polling place is outside the voting area.

(3A) In Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the polling station allotted to electors from any polling district must be in the polling place for that district.

(4) The polling districts and polling places that apply for the purposes of paragraph (3A) are—

(a) in Wales, those that would apply by virtue of provision made under section 13(1)(a) of the Government of Wales 2006 in respect of an election for membership of the National Assembly for Wales held on the day of the referendum;

(b) in Scotland, those that would apply by virtue of provision made under section 12(1)(a) of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament held on the day of the referendum;

(c) in Northern Ireland, those for the time being established under the law relating to local elections with the meaning of section 130 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.’.

Amendment 271, page 29, line 41, at end insert—

‘This paragraph is subject to paragraphs (1A) and (2).

(1A) An official poll card must not be sent to a person—

(a) as an elector, if the person is entitled to a postal vote in Northern Ireland;

(b) as a proxy, if the person is entitled to a proxy postal vote in Northern Ireland.’.

Amendment 272, page 30, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Amendment 273, page 30, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (d).

Amendment 171, page 35, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Amendment 274, page 35, line 31, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 275, page 36, line 5, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 276, page 36, line 9, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 277, page 36, line 22, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 278, page 36, line 35, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 352, page 37, line 26, after ‘contrary’, insert

‘including any validly registered voter who presents himself to the polling station before 10 pm but, because of a queue, is not immediately able to vote’.

The amendment seeks to rectify the situation that we saw in the general election this year, when, as hon. Members will know, in several constituencies around the land people turned up to vote at 9.40 pm, 9.45 pm, 9.50 pm or 9.55 pm, but could not cast their ballots. Indeed, they were not provided with ballot papers because they could not get through the doors, as there were queues of people wanting to vote. I hope that all hon. Members thought it a bit of a scandal that although people have historically said that England is the mother of all Parliaments, and although we pride ourselves enormously on our historical past, we were not able to run—

[Mr MacNeil]

England?

[Chris Bryant]

Unfortunately it was a Liberal who first said that England was the mother of all Parliaments, so I can only excuse him. However, if the hon. Gentleman wanted to point out that the first Parliament was not on these isles at all, he would be absolutely right: it was the Althing, the Parliament of Iceland, which has sat since 929.

My point is that on election night we were deeply embarrassed by the fact that so many people were unable to vote in so many parliamentary constituencies. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said that the situation was simply unacceptable in a democracy:

“It is not right that hundreds later found themselves unable to exercise their vote when the polls closed. That should never, ever happen again in our democracy”.

In fact, the situation in his own constituency was among the worst in the land. The returning officer, John Mothersole—a name I have not come across before—apologised to voters who were turned away, saying that the council had “got things wrong.” He said that the turnout had been phenomenal, probably the highest in 30 years. That was not quite right—it was not the highest turnout in 30 years—but the fact that some 200 people were turned away in Ranmoor in Sheffield, Hallam and the police had to deal with an angry crowd of about 100 would-be voters is a clear indication that there is a significant issue to consider.

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this problem is made worse by a number of local authorities closing polling stations, which means that the number of people having to attend one particular polling station is much greater than in the past?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is true that some people vote some days before the election when they vote by post, but for many people—those doing shift work, for example—it is vital to keep the polling stations open right up to 10 pm; otherwise, they would not be able to meet their work obligations as well as their voting duties.

[Mr MacNeil]

I saw how what the amendment proposes can work in practice in Venezuela, where I was once asked to be an international election monitor. When the time to close came, the polls stayed open until the queue of people had finished voting. It worked with no problem at all; it functioned very well in Venezuela.

[Chris Bryant]

Some people have had doubts about some of the Venezuelan elections, and I am not sure that we want to base what we do entirely on comrade Chavez’s elections. When I was the Minister with responsibility for Latin America, I was shown a hospital in Venezuela and on one occasion I saw the same woman in three different wards—to prove that the hospital was being used.

[Mr MacNeil]

Serious questions are often raised before elections, but that happens in this country, too. I do not want to leave people with the impression that there is anything specifically wrong with Venezuelan democracy. From what I have seen of that democracy, I know that both the opposition and the Government of that country were very happy with the process.

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps we should stick to elections in this country, rather than worry about Venezuela. The point is that the amendment is designed to allow someone who has presented themselves to the polling station before 10 o’clock to enter it, receive their ballot paper and vote after 10’clock, even though there was a queue that prevented them from being dealt with by the officials immediately. This will be even more important if we end up with combined polls next year. In many areas in the Rhonda, there tends to be a fairly quiet period between 8 pm and 9.30 pm, but then there is a sudden surge of voters. If Assembly elections as well as the referendum are happening in the same polling station, with people having to approach two desks to provide the information necessary to get their ballot papers, the delay might well be increased. If local authorities are worried about whether the number of staff is sufficient to fulfil all the functions properly, that provides all the more reason to make special and specific provision for people to be able to vote, even though they are not in the polling station until after 10 o’clock.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May I press the hon. Gentleman on the definition of presenting at a polling station? At what point when someone arrives at a polling station do they present? Will someone stand outside the polling station to decide? How long would a queue be before someone is excluded?

[Chris Bryant]

Discussing the length of the queue would be a great British debate, but my view is that if there is a queue of 500 people, they should be allowed to vote. I do not think that anybody should be disfranchised just because the operation is not swift enough to allow people who present themselves at the polling station before 10 o’clock to vote immediately. As is clear in the amendment, presenting means standing in a queue if it is not possible to vote at once. If a person arrives at one minute to 10 o’clock, they should be able to go straight through the polling station door and talk to the returning officer and then be presented with a ballot paper. If necessary, that should apply to the two polls—the referendum and local elections.

I note that the Electoral Commission has continued to be concerned about late polling since the general election. Clearly, there was uncertainty in the application of the regulations in different parts of the country, because some returning officers were slightly more generous than others. As I understand it, the commission is keen for a resolution, and is broadly supportive of the thrust of my proposal.

I am very hopeful, as always, that the Minister might succumb to my ardent desire in relation to the amendment.

[Mr Dodds]

I should like clarification. I take it that the amendment applies to voting in the referendum, because that is the Bill that we are discussing. However, it would mean that an elector who turns up to vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections and in the referendum could vote in the latter, but not the former.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I am glad that Ministers appear to be taking it on board. Had they presented their changes to the Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland legislation to allow for combined polls, I would be able to present proposals that dealt with that problem. However, because the Government are not proceeding in an orderly fashion—they are putting the cart before the horse—I can table an amendment only in relation to the referendum. Should the Government get their act together and present their other proposals, the Opposition would indeed seek to make provision so that people could receive both ballot papers when they present themselves at the polling station.

Additionally, some people might say, “I’m here, but there’s a queue. Which of the two ballots should I participate in before the 10 o’clock deadline?” That could lead to a degree of chaos and disorder in the polling station, particularly in urban areas. The amendment would be an important provision and we need to make it. As I said, I am very hopeful that the Minister will meet my ardent desire and agree to it.

[Mr Harper]

I fear that I might disappoint the hon. Gentleman again. Clearly, some of the scenes on election night did not do our reputation any good, but it is worth putting them in context. The Electoral Commission report states that there was a problem with queues in 27 polling stations out of 40,000 that were used for the May elections, and that about 1,200 people were affected out of the 29.6 million people who voted. I do not wish to underplay the position for those people, but it is worth putting the problems in perspective. The report also states:

“The main factors which contributed to the problems were evidence of poor planning assumptions in some areas”,

meaning that some areas used assumptions for the general election based on the turnout for local elections.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government are considering the Electoral Commission’s report and looking at what steps are necessary to prevent a repeat of these events. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment offers the right solution, however.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Chris Bryant]

It would be all right for this argument to be advanced if it were not for the fact that the Government are not doing anything about the problem. The Deputy Prime Minister said this was something that should never ever happen again. I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that voting fraud absolutely has to be dealt with, and I completely agree, but there are not any more incidences of that than there are of these problems in relation to the poll. If he were coming forward with a solution tonight, I might be more interested in his remarks.

[Mr Harper]

I did not say that we would do nothing about the problem. I specifically said the opposite—that the Government are looking carefully at the Electoral Commission’s report and its outline of the problem, and that we are considering possible solutions. We are not yet persuaded that a legislative solution is the right one, however. When we have decided what we think the appropriate solution is, if that requires legislation we will introduce it at the appropriate time. Also, if we were to make this change, we would need to make it for elections in the round, not just for this particular referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

The hour is late, but I wish to put on the record how concerned people in Hackney were by the debacle that we had at the polls earlier this year. The number of people who were turned away is an underestimate, because in my constituency hundreds of people came out after work to vote, saw the queues, went away, came back again, saw the queues and went away again, so we will never know how many people were put off voting. The cause of the queues was partly that people in Hackney were voting in three different ballots—that was one of the problems. Another cause was that the returning officer put a great deal of effort into encouraging people to cast their votes—my area had its highest ever turnout, particularly among young people who had never voted before. Another cause was the enthusiasm of people in Hackney to vote Labour.

I wish to stress that in a democracy the state has a very basic responsibility to allow people to cast their vote. These people did not come along at 9.50 pm; they had been queuing since 9 o’clock, but when 10 o’clock struck they were told that they could not cast their vote because they did not have a ballot paper in their hand. All I am saying is that this matter caused great concern in Hackney and it was very demoralising, particularly for people casting their vote for the first time. Voting is a fundamental right, and it is a fundamental duty of Government to allow people who want to vote, and who have come out in good time, to vote. We all saw last year’s American elections, where very long queues of young people wanted to vote for Barack Obama. A system was put in place that allowed people who were in a queue to vote; once the point where the queue was stopping had been marked, everybody in that queue was able to vote, even if that took hours. I do not see why we cannot have a similar system here in the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has exposed the problem: we do not really know the extent of the difficulties that voters had in this year’s general election. We are all deeply moved to see people voting in South Africa; they queued not just for a couple of hours, but for days when they first had the opportunity to vote. We felt moved when we saw people in the United States of America queuing to vote and we are moved when we see people in Poland, or people in other parts of the world who have not always enjoyed democratic rights, queuing to vote. So it is a bit depressing when the view that other countries had of our election night was of people queuing and not being allowed to vote. That is the simple point that Labour Members are trying to rectify by way of this amendment.

I had presumed, because the Liberal Democrat leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that this was something that should never happen again in our democracy, that he was going to deal with the matter rather more swiftly. The referendum will coincide with other ballots, as my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington have said. The Minister wants these combined polls next May—I would prefer not to have them—and it is therefore all the more important that we have a specific provision to deal with this matter.

If the amendment does not contain the right wording, I would be quite happy for the Minister to come back on Report and provide us with an amendment to our amendment. That is the advantage of this process, in which we debate constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House like this. That might also speed up his officials. I offer him this possibility in comradely spirit. If he were to support the amendment so that it were carried, that would spur on his officials to provide an answer to the problem before we reach the Report stage. I will, therefore, press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Mr Evans.

There are adequate provisions in the Bill for a recount mechanism at individual voting area level, just as at a general election count an agent or a candidate may call for a recount if the result is tight or there is some other doubt as to the accuracy of the count. However, if my reading of the Bill is correct, there is no such provision for a recount at national level and I am very concerned about that omission.

Counts in individual voting areas will be carried out in ignorance of what is happening in other counting areas. The Welsh devolution referendum of 1997 offers examples of where the problems may lie. Members may recall that the result of the referendum was very close. Of more than 1.1 million votes cast, the winning majority for the yes campaign was about 7,000 and there were approximately 4,000 spoilt ballot papers, so the result was on a knife edge.

It does not follow, however, that each area voted with the same margin of result; there were huge disparities between the counts in areas throughout Wales. In Rhondda, for example, which the shadow Minister may have some affection for and knowledge of, there was a large yes vote—a 15,000 majority for the yes campaign. Had that been at a general election, no candidate would have questioned it.

[Chris Bryant]

May I correct a mis-impression that is often given by Conservatives about the Rhondda? It was not actually in the Rhondda. The only result the hon. Gentleman can know about was for Rhondda Cynon Taff, which includes the whole county area. His Prime Minister has regularly said that there is a Conservative councillor in the Rhondda. There is not. There is, however, one in Rhondda Cynon Taff.

[Iain Stewart]

I stand corrected. I was using Rhondda as shorthand, in view of the late hour, but that does not undermine my point. The majority was clear in that counting area and had it been a general election no candidate would have challenged the result and called for a recount. However, in an authority close by—Vale of Glamorgan—there was a similar large majority for the no campaign, of 14,000 or thereabouts. There, too, no candidate would have chosen to call for a recount, but when we aggregate the two results, as happened throughout Wales, the result was very close overall. As far as I can tell, the Bill includes no provision for either the yes or no campaign to call for a recount in that eventuality.

Amendment 154 would establish a mechanism for calling a recount, and I invite the Minister to give some clarification as to whether my interpretation of the Bill is correct. Would the proposed mechanism be the most appropriate way to rectify the measure or would the Government care to suggest some other means?

Amendment 153 would provide for the chief counting officer to direct a recount. I am a little concerned about the wording in paragraph 42, which states:

“The Regional Counting Officer or Chief Counting Officer may give a direction under paragraph (3)(a) only if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes.”

I am not satisfied with the term “thinks that there is”, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the circumstances in which the chief counting officer should be compelled to call for a recount if he believes that there is some doubt about the accuracy of the count.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. In discussing the programme motion on 12 October, the Parliamentary Secretary said that

“we have taken steps…in the programme motion”

to ensure that

“the House will be able to debate and vote on the key issues raised by the Bill.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 183.]

On Second Reading he also made it quite clear that we would have the opportunity to debate and vote on the key issues. Nobody is suggesting that the threshold is anything other than a key issue in the Bill. Even at this late stage, it is open to the Minister to tell the Committee that he will come forward tomorrow with an amendment to the programme order to ensure that we can start the business tomorrow with a debate on clause 6, rather than closing down debate on that clause, which seems to be the Government’s intent. I should also point out that unless we have a debate, it will not be possible for the Committee to take a view on the relative merits of amendment 3 as compared with my amendments 64, 65 and 66. In the European debate the other night the Chair was able to decide which amendments were more worthy of being put to the vote on the basis of the debate. Without a debate, we will not be able to do that.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. Several hon. Members have made the point this evening that there has not been time to debate significant elements of the Bill. In addition, the Government have today tabled 100 pages of amendments to the Bill, which they have proposed we debate next Monday, but they have already said that those amendments are incorrect and will have to be superseded by further amendments. At the moment, only two days are provided for Report. I would therefore ask the Government to consider providing a third day on Report, so that the issues can be fully debated. Otherwise, I am sure that their lordships would want to spend a considerable period of time looking at the legislation properly. Finally, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) rightly pointed out that votes normally follow voices in this House. That is to say that Members who shout aye have to vote aye, and if the Minister is going to shout aye in a moment, he should be voting in the Aye Lobby.

[Mr Harper]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. If the hon. Member for Rhondda genuinely thought that this was the most important part of the Bill, he should have thought about that when he moved some of his less important amendments today. That was a time-wasting exercise and nothing else.

I gave a clear commitment on Second Reading that the Government would do everything within their power to ensure that we had a debate and a vote on all the key issues of the Bill. We provided extra time in the programme motion last week. Reaching a point in the debate, of course, requires Members to exercise some discipline, which they were incapable of doing today. What is left within my power is to propose amendment 3 to enable the Committee to vote on it, but I ask my colleagues to vote against it. I want to facilitate the opportunity for this Committee to vote.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have to say that the Minister is being remarkably blasé about this. I know that he goes blasé when he is trying to be nice, but—[Interruption.] Yes, he may be nice—he may have nice moments—but I am afraid that this is not a nice Bill so we will have to deal with him accordingly.

We are, of course, very grateful for the extended hours. However, I should say that since Mr Speaker rightly allowed the recent statement to go on for some considerable time, as it addressed a matter of importance to many people, today our deliberations on the Bill will be briefer than they would have been if there had been no statement, and it is likely that that will be the case in many further days.

[Mr Harper]

So let’s crack on.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman spoke for longer than I shall, so he can keep shtum for a moment.

It would be better if there were no guillotines in the days provided for debate. As the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), asked: what is the rush? Does this Bill have to be hurried through because its measures are the glue that hold together the coalition—that is what Opposition Members suspect, and indeed I think that it is what the hon. Gentleman suspects as well—or is there some honourable, decent reason for that? We know the answer, of course.

There is clearly a rush on. The Select Committee report has already said that hasty drafting and no consultation are the hallmarks. In recent years it has been extremely unusual for any constitutional reform Bill to go through this House without any pre-legislative scrutiny. I have also scoured history to find a constitutional Bill of this magnitude and significance that went through with so few days of consultation on the Floor of the House. The Minister says it is a short Bill, and that may be the case.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister has talked enough, and he wants us to get on with the business in hand. He said it is only a short Bill. However, although it may contain only a few clauses, it is 153 pages long, and it affects major and significant parts of our constitution. Also, he has crafted the motion in a way that allows us remarkably little freedom within each of the days and between the days. For instance, if we finish the business early on the second day, next Monday, we will not be able to proceed straight away with the business for the third day. We will almost certainly need to review that, because the business for the third day is clauses 7, 8 and 9 and schedule 6, which include the topic of precisely how the alternative vote would operate. We must remember that the Bill will never come back to the House if the referendum is carried—although I know that the Minister hopes it will not be carried.

The measures to be discussed on the third day also give us the new rules for the Boundary Commissions, cutting up the rules that have existed for many years. In addition, there is the cutting of the number of parliamentary seats and the decision about how we distribute them. That, too, would never come back to the House for any vote hereafter, unless the House of Lords were to change the provisions. It would be wrong to concertina debate on all that into one single day. It is quite possible that that would mean that there would be perhaps half an hour or 40 minutes to discuss the Northern Irish element of the Bill, including the distribution of seats. That would not serve Northern Ireland well.

As several Members have made clear, there is an additional point to do with the Secretary of State for Wales. I have to say that since becoming Secretary of State she has become far more sour than she was before, when she was a rather more pleasant individual. She has refused point blank to allow a Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the very significant issues that there are in relation to Wales.

Therefore, although the Minister may be blasé, we are not buying any of this.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I defer to my hon. Friend on elitism, a subject on which he is a great expert. However, calling people “ordinary”, and saying that if they do not have four weeks of a constant barrage of information on a particular subject they will be ill informed sounds pretty elitist to me.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s argument now boils down to his belief that we should not be wasting three hours—he said four hours, but actually we have been going for only three, although it may feel like four—on all this, because we have not spoken to our electors and asked them what they think. I am sure that most of my electors in the Rhondda would say that they do not want any messing around with the constitution in this particular way, so the hon. Gentleman’s argument is basically against the whole Bill.

[Nick Boles]

I hate to have words put in my mouth by anyone, let alone the hon. Gentleman. However, he is close to my conclusion, and I will now get to it. It is that most people, if asked, would say, “Ask us once a year what we want and what we think about how we want to be run, and then just get out of our lives and get on with it.” That is why I welcome legislation that says that once a year we will have a general election, national elections or a referendum.

I take an even more radical position. I would have, as in America, a date that everybody knows. People there can say what the dates of the presidential, congressional, mayoral or gubernatorial elections will be in 40 years’ time. Everybody knows when elections are, which is when they start to look at the questions.

[Chris Bryant]

It is every four years.

[Nick Boles]

It is every two years, actually, because there are mid-terms.

That is the time when all this should be done. It is the right way to conduct elections and to handle these matters, because it responds to how people think about the issues, rather than politicians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Promotion, indeed. The hon. Gentleman was heroically, magnificently incoherent—so he should go far on the Government Benches.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) distanced himself—and, to some extent, his party—from this shambles. That has a significance in Wales that some hon. Members perhaps do not quite realise.

As far as I can see, there are many, many reasons not to hold the referendum on the same date as the elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but so far no compelling reasons have been offered for why we must have the referendum on 5 May next year, apart from the reasons alluded to earlier: that this is part of the deal between the two parties that make up the coalition. As far as I can see, that is the only reason offered.

My major concern is that the referendum is to be held on the same day as the Assembly elections in Wales. In that respect, the arguments that we have heard about political interference from one campaign to the other are pertinent. It is difficult for us to hold the Assembly elections and the referendum on the same day, not least because of the points that have already been made about the media. In Wales, English newspapers have a huge penetration. Very few people read newspapers originating in Wales. The debate is therefore dominated by UK issues, or perhaps even by English issues. That will have a significant effect on the democratic debate leading up to our Assembly elections.

The argument has been made that there is a cost element involved, but, as I said in an earlier intervention, we will now have another referendum in Wales, on 3 March—we will have one on 3 March, one on 5 May and the Assembly elections on 5 May. That blows out of the water some of the arguments about cost.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a referendum on 3 March. My understanding is that the Assembly has asked for that referendum to be held on 3 March, but we have not yet heard from the Secretary of State for Wales whether there will be a referendum on that date or not.

[Hywel Williams]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point entirely. One of the reasons put forward for holding that referendum on 3 March is that there might be contamination between the referendum on further powers, the referendum on AV and the Assembly elections. That argument has been made by those in all parties in Wales, and it is the same argument that we are making this evening.

If we are not to have three elections on the same day in Wales, as the cost argument proposes, then why are we having two? Surely the argument against having three works against having two as well. There are a number of reasons for not holding those elections on the same day, including the difficulties of having a full and clear debate. Some hon. Members will remember the referendum that we had in 1979, when the unpopularity of the Government intruded strongly into the debate on whether devolution should have been introduced at that point. Unfortunately, the devolution question was not uppermost in many people’s minds in 1979.

There are administrative difficulties for the electoral services departments in councils. The number of ballot papers and the confusion among the general public has already been referred to, as has the ability to process electors at busy polling stations. All those reasons, which have been mentioned by other Members, are persuasive. There is also the issue of administration. Referendums have been organised in Wales on a number of previous occasions—we have even had one on Sunday opening. We are used to referendums in Wales, but they are normally organised on the basis of local government units, of which we have 22. However, on the same day as the referendum, we will be having Assembly elections organised by constituencies, 40 of which will be decided on first past the post, with a further 20 being decided on the d’Hondt 2 system. That is a recipe for potential confusion to say the least.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Opposition Members seem awfully obsessed by smoke-filled rooms. Given that this House voted in the previous Parliament to ban smoking in public places, I have not detected a lot of smoke in any of the rooms where we have had our discussions.

As I said, choices will be put to the House this evening; if the opinion of the House is tested, the House can make a judgment about which of the questions it finds most acceptable. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments that I have proposed, which the Government have tabled. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is perfectly free to test hers too, and we will see where the balance of opinion in the House lies. Given that we have only 18 minutes left and we are dealing with a number of amendments, I shall draw my remarks to a close and allow the debate to continue.

[Chris Bryant]

May I say first to the Minister that one of the things that has crept into the contributions made from that Dispatch Box of late is a differentiation of a Minister as a Minister from a Minister when he or she is not acting in a ministerial capacity in some way? That is a dangerous concept to begin to adumbrate, because Ministers have to act, to some degree, with collective responsibility. Once that starts to fall apart, government starts to fall apart.

[Mr Harper]

I made it clear that the coalition agreement says that there will be, and the Government’s policy is for there to be, a referendum on the voting system, offering a choice between first past the post and the alternative vote. The Government do not have a view on the outcome, and that has been made clear. The coalition agreement explicitly says that the coalition parties will campaign on different sides, so I do not think that there is any risk to collective responsibility.

[Chris Bryant]

I understand the Minister’s point, but I just want to help him avoid becoming too much like the Deputy Prime Minister, because we would not want him to morph into a Liberal Democrat—I am sure he would not want that either. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister started with this concept of a personal idea on the situation in Iraq, so I just gently say that to the Minister.

The one thing on which I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister is what he said about Government amendments 230, 231 and 232 on changing the precise wording of the question. I think that the Electoral Commission has done a good job. It has looked at this and given us a better question, and we wholeheartedly support that. However, that is not the real point. The real difficulty was pointed out by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who said that the bit that the Electoral Commission discovered that most people did not fully understand is what “alternative vote” means. I am not going to go down the route of supporting his amendment 244, which proposes

“optional preferential voting with instant runoff”

because I do not think that his is an unbiased question and I do not think it is intended to be helpful. It was presented with the usual finish and cheek with which he presents his arguments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

—as the hon. Gentleman is about to show.

[Mr Heath]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we did introduce such amendments, and that he and his colleagues voted against them?

[Chris Bryant]

Then why is the hon. Gentleman not presenting those amendments tonight? That would be the honest, decent and sensible thing to do. Instead, he is proposing a timorous beastie of a Bill—something that, in his honest heart, he knows he cannot possibly defend to his voters on the basis of his party’s manifesto.

Let me raise a few problems that I see with the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. First, there are complexities relating to how the amendment would work with regard to the spending limits set both in the Bill and in other legislation affecting referendums. That is not least because the legislation, as it stands, presumes that there will be a yes-no answer. In other words, it presumes that there will be two sides to the argument, rather than three, four or—as there might be in this case—five. Secondly, the amendment makes the assumption that one should arrive at the decision by use of AV; that is laid out in new clause 3. That gives rise to a problem. Finally, there is the problem that although the hon. Lady has presented some options, she has not presented all the options that might be available, as the starred amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) makes clear.

I believe that it is not time for this timorous beastie of a reform Bill, which was cobbled together not so much to bring about proper reform in the country as to keep people in government. It has not been properly consulted on, properly thought through, or given the proper time to allow it to be successful. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is sitting there on the Front Bench. He is now using arguments that I used, in which I was not very confident, when I sat on the Government Benches. It is about time he stopped using the argument about hypocrisy and brass neck when he is the one, despite the fact that we cannot see the difference between his shoulders and his head, with the largest brass neck of all in the Chamber.

Let us not hear any more about new politics from the Government. This is a shoddy little Bill, not a braveheart root and branch reform—a Bill built on narrow party advantage cobbled between the two Ministers. Nasty, incongruous deals have been pushed through by tough whipping, as we have seen this afternoon—everything that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) used to condemn when he sat on the Opposition Benches. The only reason there were not any smoke-filled rooms for Ministers to sit in to cobble together their deals is that we voted for the legislation to ensure that people’s health improved in this country. He did not.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a sincere speech in support of her amendment 7, but it was wrong because she argued about giving more power to the people. Her amendment has nothing whatever to do with standards in the House of Commons. It would cause confusion and lead to the loss of the two most important factors that any electoral system ought to depend on—clarity and certainty. They are present in first past the post, but they certainly are not in amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

What the hon. Lady thinks about the system is largely irrelevant. Amendment 7 is designed to allow the people to speak out—to put before them the choice of a preferential system. I have to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that this was exactly the wording of the New Zealand referendum. In 1993 it was decided that people did not want the first-past-the-post system, and they were given a choice about what system they wanted to replace it. In that referendum, almost 60% of people said that they wanted the additional member system. Only 6.6% said that they wanted the alternative vote.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right, but New Zealand is a unicameral system, and I have argued and campaigned in the House for many years in favour of a second Chamber that is elected, not appointed, on a proportional system. We should have a Bill about the whole of constitutional reform, rather than picking off bits and pieces one by one.

[Austin Mitchell]

Why does my hon. Friend not see that it is daft to give the second Chamber a better representative system than the first Chamber? It is important that the first Chamber has a system that gives us representation according to the way people vote. That is the essence of proportional representation; that is all we are trying to include in the referendum.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make progress before giving way again.

Some hon. Members have asked, quite reasonably, why Parliaments will run for five years, not four. That is one of the issues that has been raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report. Let me explain: five years is the current maximum length for which our legislation provides. Five years is the length of Parliaments in France, Italy, and South Africa, among others, and it is the maximum length of Parliament in India. In the United Kingdom, three of the past five Parliaments have run for five years. Leaving aside the very short Parliaments, half of all Parliaments since the war have run for more than four years, so five years is both in keeping with our current arrangements, and has international precedent.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But if the right hon. Gentleman is to give us all the statistics, he must add that since 1832 the average peacetime length of a Parliament has been three years and eight months—nowhere near five years, which has been pretty exceptional across that time. On the international comparisons, none of the other countries that he mentioned has the same structure with the Executive coming out of Parliament, so ours is a very different system. I urge him to look again at four years.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am not entirely sure whether that last assertion is correct. The hon. Gentleman wants to give the House a history lesson, so perhaps I may refer him to the Parliament Act 1911, which introduced the current five-year maximum. The then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, told the House that five years would

“probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1749.]

That is a quote that I picked up from the Committee’s report, rightly pointing out that when a Parliament is expected to last for only four years, as is now the case, it very often ends up, in effect, a three-year Parliament. So our view is that by fixing the cycle at five years, we help to mitigate—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that that is a ridiculous decision. He knows as well as anybody else that for 12 or 18 months before an election is held, work in the House is blighted by all the parties politicking in advance of polling day. Therefore, if we want Governments to govern for the long term, we think five years is the right period of time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

As I indicated a moment ago, the view of the Serious Fraud Office is that, on the basis of its submissions, it will have the necessary resources—including that £2 million—to do what is necessary in this area. It is worth remembering that the policy, which was commenced by the previous Government, was designed to limit the number of contested cases. For example, section 7 of the Act, which covers the failure by commercial organisations to prevent bribery, is intended to encourage commercial organisations to self-refer and co-operate. This is one of the reasons why it is hoped and expected that, in many cases, expenditure on major trial processes will not be necessary. The £2 million that has been identified is the Serious Fraud Office’s best assessment of what will be needed to take this policy forward.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I suggest one other area in which the Serious Fraud Office should do a bit more work? It relates to the suborning of police officers. We have only to read a couple of tabloid newspapers every day to see that newspapers and journalists pay police officers for stories, which constitutes suborning a police officer.

[The Attorney-General]

By its nature, the Serious Fraud Office is concerned principally with offences of serious fraud. I certainly think that suborning a police officer is an extremely serious offence, but it seems to me to be a matter that is more likely to lie with the Crown Prosecution Service.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

8. When he expects the Church of England to consecrate its first woman bishop.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

[Chris Bryant]

As one who did go into the Church ministry and then discovered that I had plenty of vices, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little more impatient about the issue of women bishops? To be honest, it felt as if he was saying, “Nearer and nearer draws the time”, but will it be the time that will surely come when we have women bishops, and why on earth does this legislation have to come back to this House? Surely the Church of England should be freed from the shackles of bringing its legislation here, so that we can move forward on this issue rather faster.

[Tony Baldry]

If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said to the General Synod, he will see that I made it clear that many of us want this legislation to come forward as speedily as possible, but we have to get it right. The reason it comes back here is that we have an established Church, and until such time as Parliament decides that we do not, we will continue to have an established Church.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I recognise, of course, the outstanding job that my right hon. Friend does across a constituency that is by far the largest in the country. That is why, taking the cue from his constituency, we will specify in the Bill that no new constituency can be any larger than his present constituency—just shy of 13,000 sq km. As for the basis upon which the Boundary Commissions will make their decisions, the exceptions on the face of the Bill will be very limited—for obvious reasons, the two island constituencies that I set out, and the geographical cap in size that I specified. Beyond that, the duty will be on the Boundary Commissions to deliver what we have always intended should be delivered—constituencies that are more equal in size in terms of the number of voters in each constituency.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If one were to cut the number of MPs but keep the same number of Government Ministers, as is laid down in statute, one would have increased the stranglehold of the Government over the House. If the Deputy Prime Minister is to proceed with the cut, will he undertake to cut the number of Ministers, and if so, could he cut it by 22?

Act of Settlement

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We move from a matter of modern, enormous significance to one of historic significance. None the less, it matters to today’s society, particularly, I would suggest, to many Roman Catholics in this country, as well as to people of other faiths. I am talking about the Act of Settlement, which makes a series of provisions. I will not deal with them all, because some have been dealt with in previous legislation. I shall instead focus on those that state, first, that the throne was to pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant successors; secondly, that the monarch

“shall join in communion with the Church of England”;

thirdly, that anyone who is married to a Catholic should be barred from the line of succession; and fourthly, that the monarch should make a series of oaths and declarations when they accede to the throne or are crowned.

The provisions of the Act of Settlement built on the Bill of Rights of 1688, particularly where it reads that

“whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queene marrying a papist the said lords spirituall and temporall and commons doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome or shall professe the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the crowne and government of this realme”.

In addition, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 provided that the new monarch would have to take an oath upon their coronation that they would

“maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law…and…preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them.”

One further provision springs from common law and means that the succession in the United Kingdom falls to a male, rather than a female, which is known as male preference primogeniture—another element that many people now would think to be rather outdated.

Subsequent Acts have amended elements of the Act of Settlement. The Scottish and English Acts of Union in 1707 ensured that there would be no alteration to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, that the new monarch, when monarch of both kingdoms, would ratify the confession of faith, and that a new oath would be undertaken by the monarch in relation to the Church of Scotland stating that the monarch

“shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the True Protestant Religion”—

I note that “True Protestant Religion” always comes with a capital T, capital P and capital R—

“with the Government Worship Discipline Right and Privileges of this Church as above established by the Laws of this Kingdom.”

Subsequent reforms also included the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which provided that the monarch could determine who any member of the royal family or anybody in the line of succession could marry. Today, still, the Lord Chancellor has to issue certificates for anyone in the line of succession stating whether they have married a Catholic or someone who has now renounced their Catholic faith. Not the most recent—there was an instance last June when the Lord Chancellor had to do this—but the better known recent case is probably that from 9 April 2008, when the marriage of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly had to be signed off by the Lord Chancellor.

In 1801, when the Parliaments of Ireland, England and Scotland were joined together, there was further reform of the Act of Settlement, which meant that the Irish agreed to the provisions in the Act. Later, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 specified that on accession, the monarch would have to declare:

“I am a faithful Protestant”—

capital P again—

“and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”

The Statute of Westminster 1931 further determined that if there were to be any changes to those or many other provisions, they ought to be consulted on around the Commonwealth so that, on a particular day, one could not have a different monarch for Australia from the monarch for Canada and the United Kingdom. However, it is worth pointing out that, because we had to perform another piece of legal jiggery-pokery over the abdication of Edward VIII, there was one day when Ireland had a different monarch from the United Kingdom.

There was one further, tiny, Church of England measure that affected the position, which was the Admission to Holy Communion Measure 1972. That meant that any person in good standing with their Church—in other words, not necessarily a member of the Church of England—was able to receive communion in the Church of England. In theory, that could mean that a monarch who was not an Anglican—or, for that matter, a Presbyterian member of the Church of Scotland—but was, for instance, a Methodist, would be able to enter into communion with the Church of England without being a member.

All those different provisions have meant that, in sum and in total, there is a complete bar on any Catholic—and probably also any member of various other religions—sitting in the line of succession or becoming the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, by extension therefore, of her further territories and the Commonwealth. I believe that this is now wholly inappropriate. The legislation that was written in 1688 and 1701 was, in one sense, deliberately offensive to those whom it termed “papists” or “followers of the popish religion”, because it was believed to be against the secure interests of the people of this land. Notwithstanding the fact that anti-Catholicism is, unfortunately, still a vibrant part of many sections of the British media and British society, I do not believe that there are many in this country who believe, in all honesty, that the Roman Catholic faith undermines our national security.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising something that is not only offensive to Roman Catholics and people of many other faiths, but offensive to anyone who wants equality under the law in our constitution in all respects. He will know that one of the arguments made against taking any such measure forward with urgency is that it would require agreement among all the countries of which the monarch is the Head of State. If by some chance we were to amend the legislation here in the UK, but Tuvalu, Belize, or St Vincent and the Grenadines, for example, inspired by some form of anti-Catholicism, did not change their constitutions, so that we ended up with a different monarch in the UK from those countries, would that really be a particularly worrying matter?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think that it would be, but I happen to know that some of those discussions have already happened with many parts of the Commonwealth, and I do not see any reason why we would not be able to proceed fairly swiftly. It is worth pointing out that, for the abdication of Edward VIII, we had to ensure that the rest of the countries to which my hon. Friend referred also subscribed to the change of monarch, so that not only Edward VIII, but any of his children or successors would also be barred from the succession. I therefore do not think that the issue that my hon. Friend has raised is too much of a problem, although I will come to some of the problems that I think the Minister might raise a little later.

The other point is that it is not just Catholics, but Muslims, Jews, Unitarians and Quakers who are all barred from being the monarch, either by virtue of the fact that the law expressly says that they have to be in communion with the Church of England or by virtue of the fact that they have to make a series of oaths that they would not be able to make. In addition, we have this ludicrous process of certification by the Lord Chancellor of those in line to the throne. The state in this country should not be deciding who can marry; the Crown should not be deciding which distant relative is able to marry or whom they can marry. That should surely be something of the past; indeed, it was much criticised in 1772 as well.

We also have a series of oaths, including a Protestant declaration, an oath in defence of the Church of England and an oath in defence of the Church of Scotland, which are made at different times—either in a Privy Council meeting, at the coronation service or at the first meeting of Parliament—but this is all hideously anachronistic now. We have protection for the Churches of Scotland and England but, to be honest, I think that the Churches of Scotland and England can defend themselves. There was a time, in the 13th century and the early 14th century, when the lower clergy, as well as the prelates, of the Church of England were invited into Parliament, but that has long gone. I hope that in the near future we will see the end of the prelates in Parliament, but it is surely time to give the Church of England and the Church of Scotland their own protection without any special pleading.

It is also wholly wrong to have a male preference in the line of succession. Now is the time to change this, before the young princes have children—just in case they were to have a daughter before they had a son, whereupon there would suddenly be a constitutional crisis. In other countries that have changed the law, they have sometimes had to do so when they are already effectively changing the next in line to the throne. I think that it would be better to do it now.

What would I like to see, then? First of all, we should remove all objectionable references to Catholicism from our constitutional settlement. That means significant repeal of large elements of the Act of Settlement 1701. Before anybody says, “But the Act of Settlement is quintessential to our national identity; this will be undoing and rubbing out parts of our history,” it is worth noting that we have already rubbed out large parts of that history. One element of the Act of Settlement states that the monarch should never be allowed to travel abroad without permission of the House of Commons. That was repealed many years—indeed, several centuries—ago, and rightly so. We need to make sure that our constitution is silent—absolutely silent—on this matter, so that there is equality for all.

Secondly, I believe that we should have a new single accession and coronation oath. This oath should be determined by this House—not by the heir to the throne; not by the monarch when he or she decides to come to the throne; and not by the Archbishop of Canterbury in consultation with anybody. It should be determined by this House, as has been our history and our tradition. I think the oath should be made between the monarch and Parliament, all sitting together, having been previously determined by us.

Thirdly, we need to remove all references to marriage. We need to repeal the Royal Marriages Act 1772. We need to make sure that any member of the royal family or anyone in distant line to the throne—it is remarkable, looking down the list, who is still caught by this provision—is free to marry precisely as they want to. We should establish in our constitutional settlement absolute, straightforward equality between men and women.

I was contacted by Hansard and asked whether I could provide a copy of my speech. I pointed out that it was unusual for Members to read out their speeches—indeed, it is proscribed—but Hansard said, “Well, it is absolutely certain that the Minister will read out his speech, so he is likely to send it to us beforehand.” I hope he has not, as I want him to respond to the things I have said. I suspect, however, that one thing he might say is, “Yes, but this is awfully complicated, as there are so many bits of legislation.” I hope he will not do this, but he might go through all the legislation with which I have already bored the House. I hope he is not suddenly going to say, “Aha, the hon. Member has left out Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711.” I can see from the Minister looking through his notes that he was toying with mentioning that Act.

To be honest, when I have heard Labour Ministers advancing from the Government Benches the argument that it is all too difficult, I have said, “Poppycock. Absolute tosh. Posh tosh maybe, but absolute tosh.” I know that the Minister is a stout, worthy, independently minded person, who is determined to see reform in many things. He is bringing forward, I hope, many pieces of legislation that we will be able to support. I hope he is not going to advocate delaying “because it is so awfully difficult in the Commonwealth” or say that we do not want to open up this Pandora’s box. If he is thinking of invoking Pandora’s box—it has been written into many Ministers’ speeches in the past—let me point out that at the bottom of that box is one important thing: hope.

I very much hope that the Minister is going to open Pandora’s box so that we can move forward. There are many people—not just Catholic prelates, not just Catholic priests, not just Catholics—who find it deeply offensive that we retain a piece of legislation that we could change, which would bring in full equality. I hope that this Minister will be like Alexander and cut through the Gordian knot. It will be a simple piece of legislation. Many others have brought forward legislation before and Labour Ministers have found ludicrous reasons for saying no to them in the past. I hope that this Minister is not going to be like that, and I hope that we shall be able to say of him, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said of Henry V in Shakespeare’s play “Henry V”,

“Turn him to any cause of policy,

The Gordian knot of it he will unloose,

Familiar as his garter”.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) tests us with flattery, hoping that it will get him somewhere, but I fear that he may be disappointed.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of subject. The House will know that it is a subject in which he has been interested for some time. Indeed, in 2008 he presented the last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), with his plans for reforming the constitution. I presume that they were broadly in line with what he has just proposed. He nods in assent. I understand from a report in The Guardian at the time that his plans were given to the last Prime Minister’s new adviser on the constitution, but not much seems to have happened to them in the following two years.

[Chris Bryant]

Apart from their getting into our manifesto.

[Mr Harper]

They may have got into the Labour manifesto. Many things may have got into the Labour manifesto. I fear, however, that the hon. Gentleman might have been disappointed even if Labour had been successful in the election.

As the hon. Gentleman said, many Members of both Houses have sought debate on this issue, and it is important for us to discuss it. However—I know that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman—it is complicated. He himself listed a significant number of pieces of legislation that would have to be considered, amended or possibly repealed: the Bill of Rights 1689, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, and the Regency Act 1706. This is not a straightforward matter, and I do not think that pretending it is straightforward or simple does any of us a service.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government —indeed, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I—will be introducing a number of pieces of legislation that are mentioned in the coalition Government’s programme for government. We will introduce legislation on a referendum on the alternative vote, on reviewing the boundaries, on fixed-term Parliaments, and indeed on reform of the House of Lords, which may deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about the position of bishops in the other place. He can be confident that we have the appetite for reform, but I think that this particular matter involves a number of complicated issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

As I said, posh tosh. The Minister is going to cite arguments that the civil servants around the corner will have prepared for him about how awfully difficult this is and how many pieces of legislation are involved, but if he is going to reform the House of Lords he is going to have to start with Magna Carta, and that is going considerably further back than the Act of Settlement.

[Mr Harper]

I said that merely to illustrate that this is a Government who are happy to carry out reform when it is necessary.

Clearly we would not legislate today to give men precedence over women in the line of succession, and I do not think that we would concern ourselves today with the religion of the monarch’s spouse or treat differently members of a particular religion. However, it is one thing to say that we would not legislate in that way today, and quite another to say that there are no obstacles to change. We need to think through the changes and their consequences before making them.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Act of Settlement is part of a political and constitutional settlement with strong historical roots. It does not, of course, prevent those in the line of succession from marrying Roman Catholics; it merely means that if they do so, they will lose their spot in the line of succession. It raises complex issues about the relationship between Church and state. There are many who, like the hon. Gentleman, do not think that the Church of England should be the established Church—

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Harper]

That was the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said when he talked of allowing the Church of England to rush off by itself. In any event, the Act raises issues connected with the establishment of the Church, and it does us no service to pretend that it is not so.

The issue of primogeniture, particularly male preference primogeniture, has been raised from time to time, as has the hon. Gentleman’s point about giving female descendants of the sovereign the same rights as their male siblings. The title to the Crown, however, derives not just from statute but from common rules of descent. Succession to the throne in this country is based on a form of primogeniture which favours sons over daughters, but favours daughters of a sovereign over the siblings of that sovereign, so an older sister would lose her place to a younger brother but not to an uncle. Again, changing that arrangement would be a major constitutional measure. The hon. Gentleman pointed out one thing that is important to note, which is that currently the first three members of the royal family in line to the throne are all male and so we have some time until there may be a pressing issue to address.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted an issue that is complicated and I do not think it is right to sweep it away, pretending it is not. I am talking about the fact that this is not just an issue for the United Kingdom, because Her Majesty the Queen is sovereign of a further 15 independent nations and they have a right, with us, to decide on the line of succession. I do not suggest that they would necessarily have any problems with removing outdated provisions, but it is not the substance of the issue that is the problem; the problem is how we go about doing that. Because of the nature of our Parliament, this House and the other place can change the most fundamental of our constitutional provisions by a simple Act of Parliament, so the Act of Settlement could indeed be amended in this House, as could any of the other Acts that he mentions. That is true of some of the other countries of which Her Majesty is Queen, but it is not true of all of them. For some that have a federal constitution, such as Australia and Canada, amending those rules is a more complicated process, involving the states in those countries; it is not as straightforward as it is here.

The relationship between the Crown of the United Kingdom and the Crown of the other realms is complicated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the one occasion when it has been tested, which was the abdication of Edward VIII. In those days, there were only six realms involved—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland and Eire. Only three still survive as realms, although there are now a further 12, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who is no longer in his place. Even then, when the concept of the “imperial crown” and the “imperial Parliament” was much stronger, there were, as the hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted, a number of different views about the extent to which the United Kingdom could legislate on their behalf and the extent to which if we changed the line of succession to our throne, that would automatically feed into their arrangements. So if we were to go ahead and legislate in the UK alone, we would either be presenting the other realms with no choice in their own Head of State or we would cause a divergence in the line of succession.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that discussions have started with those Commonwealth countries and are continuing, but they should involve careful consideration of how we would implement change, the consequences and the timing. I do not think that those matters should be unduly rushed. Dealing with our non-codified constitution is complicated without having unexpected consequences. The Act of Settlement is part of the backbone of our constitution, and tinkering with it lightly without thinking through all the changes would have unforeseen consequences.

[Chris Bryant]

I sort of sympathise with the Minister because he has officials who want to make life difficult for him about this. But the truth about timing is that if Prince William were to have a daughter first and then a son, in realms other than this, where people wanted to assert that they thought it was unfair to have an unequal system that disfranchised or shoved the daughter further down the list, there would be a constitutional crisis. That is why it is timely to do this now, while there is not a problem.

[Mr Harper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but that is why I thought it was important to highlight the fact that discussions are under way with other Commonwealth countries. It is not that the Government are in favour of no change; we are simply considering change carefully and thoughtfully.

The hon. Gentleman mentions timing, so it is worth picking up on the issue relating to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the throne. We should examine the view of the Church on this, although I appreciate that there are divergent opinions. The previous Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, said that he thought that the Act of Settlement was

“discriminatory. I think it will disappear, but I don’t want to cause a great fuss”.

The current Archbishop of Westminster has said:

“I wouldn’t rush to support such a change in the law. I think that the position of the Queen and the monarchy is to be handled with great sensitivity”.

[Chris Bryant]

However, Catholic cardinals in Scotland have asserted very forcefully that they believe the law is entirely discriminatory and should be changed, and many prelates in the Church of England have also said it should be changed. I think I am right in saying that the General Synod of the Church of England also believes that it should be changed.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point. Cardinal O’Brien in Scotland, for example, is much firmer about wanting to move quickly on this. However, this merely highlights the complexity of the debate. There is not even a single clear view within the Catholic Church in these islands. Some very significant Catholics think that the law should be changed, but should not be rushed or done in a way that causes the monarchy difficulty.

[Chris Bryant]

But there is not a single Catholic in the land who does not think that the law should be changed.

[Mr Harper]

I cannot possibly know the views of every single person in the United Kingdom, and neither can the hon. Gentleman.

As I have said, the Government are not saying that there should be no change. We are simply saying that, if we are to undertake change, we need to do it in a careful and thoughtful way. We are not saying that the parts of the Act of Settlement that we are discussing should never be changed. We do not rule out change. We simply argue that, if there is to be a change, it should be thoughtful, and undertaken carefully and with due consideration for our obligations to the other Commonwealth realms of which Her Majesty is Queen. We should also have consideration for the consequences not only for the Crown and the succession but for the position of the established Church in this country.

To give the hon. Gentleman hope, let me assure him that we have not ruled out change, but it would need to be done carefully and thoughtfully. If done in that way, it is much more likely to endure and not have unforeseen consequences. I shall leave him with that positive message, although I am sure that he will go away disappointed. I will also leave him with the thought that, although I will give the Hansard reporters a copy of my speech, I have waited until after the debate to do so, rather than giving it to them in advance, as he suggested. He was probably expecting the comments that I have uttered tonight. I fear that he will have to be disappointed in the pace of reform in this area, but when we bring to the House the measures on other areas of constitutional reform that were in our manifesto, I shall look forward to his wholehearted support for them.

Question put and agreed to.

G8 and G20 Summits

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge caution on my right hon. Friend when it comes to Turkey’s membership of the European Union? Unless we have already left the EU by that stage—I can but hope—Turkey’s membership could lead only to the British taxpayer being asked to put his hand further in his pocket and further strain on immigration into this country.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Not complete agreement.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there is not quite complete agreement on this issue, but as I would say to the French President or German Chancellor, even if people do not agree with me that Turkey should be a member of the EU, we should be straining every sinew to think of ways of encouraging Turkey to play a full role in the affairs of our continent. It is a member of NATO, and we have a strong bilateral relationship and a trading relationship with the country. Turkey wants those relationships with us, and we should do everything that we can to enhance them.