Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That allows me to pose a question to the Leader of the House. My understanding of the Order Paper is that the debate may continue beyond 10 pm. I am not sure of the mechanism that would be adopted, but my understanding is that the Government would like the debate to have the opportunity, if necessary, to continue beyond 10 pm. If that has been withdrawn, I would be grateful for clarification from the Chair.

The Leader of the House said in his brief yet succinct remarks that if we were to change the balance of the Committee, that would give the Opposition parties control of the Committee. I did not have the benefits of the wonderful education of many Members on the Government Benches because I grew up under the previous Conservative Government, but by my maths there would still be three members of the Conservative party and two members of the Opposition on the Committee. The Government would still have a majority. They are perfectly entitled to nominate a new member, if they choose to do so, and we would support a suitable candidate. Perhaps in his rush to get his suntan creams and holiday brochures out, the Leader of the House had not quite checked the membership of the Committee.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend like to take the opportunity to correct the record and the rather uncharitable statement made by the Leader of the House that those supporting the amendment are in some way attempting to undermine pre-legislative scrutiny? Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny at a much earlier stage in previous Parliaments, some of the issues in the financial sector may not have been as profound as they have been?

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is correct. I am baffled—I would happily take clarification from the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House—as to how removing one member of the Committee is tantamount to seeking to thwart the business of the House. My understanding—I am sure the Deputy Speaker would correct me if I was wrong—is that the Committee would still be quorate and would still be competent.

I look at the names of some members of the Committee and see good, learned and wise individuals from both sides of the House. At least one member, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is present in the Chamber to hear the discussion. The Committee consists of a competent set of Members from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) is a long-standing member of the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I always have great respect for your counsel, Mr Speaker, and obviously do not seek a time when you might perhaps be advising other Parliaments in other parts of the country, or other parts of the world. [Interruption.]

[John Mann]

If I could hear myself speak, I would ask my hon. Friend whether he would care to comment on the fact that the constituency of Yeovil is an English constituency, whether he has considered the make-up of the Committee that is proposed, whether he perceives that it will in fact be an English Committee, rather than a United Kingdom one, and what the potential consequences might be, not least for his constituents, of that happening in such a biased way.

[Thomas Docherty]

I obviously look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution in due course.

I must say that I thought the cracks about monkeys and organ grinders that the hon. Member for Devizes made did nothing to raise the standard of the debate, but as she used to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer I expected nothing more, because her speeches were never that good when she worked for him. It is important that we look at whether the people who are being put forward in general are of a correct measure. The hon. Member for Warrington South, who I think is now detained elsewhere, asked about the qualifications needed for serving on the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I are equally concerned about what qualifications should or may bar an individual Member from serving on the Committee. Having read from cover to cover the Standards and Privileges Committee report, and having read the introduction to the draft Bill prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team about the need for financial probity and for a new set of regulations, I have severe doubts about whether one member of the Committee is adequately suited to the task.

In a week when Parliament has had to deal with some very severe accusations levelled against members of the Government and against members of Her Majesty’s police forces, when we have seen former special advisers being placed under arrest, and when Government Members simply argue, as I have heard them do today, that we will take people on the basis of the assurances they have given although they are under active police investigation, the public will look at this Committee and say that it beggars belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that question. Obviously, I will not have the last word. Indeed, I imagine that you, will have the last word Mr Speaker when you read out the result of the Division that may occur later. Having taken advice from senior officers in the House, it is my understanding, although I have not checked the latest edition of “Erskine May”—the 24th edition, which was edited by the Clerk of the House, is out now and is a snip at £295—that Labour Members would not be allowed to put forward the name of a Liberal Democrat Member without their express consent. I fully understand why a Liberal Democrat Member would not seek publicly to undermine their parliamentary colleague and I respect that. It would be for the Government Whips to approach Liberal Democrat Members.

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of one of the key issues. Is not the dilemma that, when wishing to amend the membership of a Standing Committee or any other Committee of the House, the modernisation of this place has not gone far enough for anything other than the usual channels to determine such things? It is only in the last year that Chairs of Select Committees have been elected by the House. Modernisation has only gone so far. In raising such matters in the House, we are rather trapped in the antiquated systems of how we can object.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will know that I am a member of the Procedure Committee, which is the successor to the Modernisation Committee. I have the privilege to serve with a number of the members of that Committee. He is right to say that this is something that I take a particularly keen—[Interruption.] I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is with pleasure that I address such a packed House. Having sat through and participated in a significant number of debates since the general election, I cannot recall on any occasion, even when there have been debates on so-called fundamental reform of the constitution by the Deputy Prime Minister, seeing so many Liberal Democrats present. I heard someone say from a sedentary position that this was Parliament at its worst, but it is a good sign of democracy for this type of debate to have so many active would-be participants. I welcome the Liberal Democrats into the House in such large numbers, and it is good to see that their coalition partners wish to see some balance and to be informed by the debate.

I hope that we can have the full, thorough and proper debate that the House has lacked in relation to the establishment of such Committees, which are a new venture for the House. They should generally be welcomed, but the Leader of the House and his shadow exemplified the bind that we are in, as democratic politicians in this House, when we attempt to amend anything in any way that has not gone through the “usual channels”.

[Thomas Docherty]

I did not get a chance to notice this while I was speaking—following the rules, I was looking at you, Mr Speaker—but has my hon. Friend noticed that one of the chief cheerleaders tonight is a Liberal Democrat Whip?

[John Mann]

We take the view that all Members of the House are equal, which is an important principle, so the ability to participate and influence should be equal. It is ironic, therefore, that when it comes to the selection of Committee members some are more equal than others. It seems to me that as we have started a modernisation process that is very slowly beginning to trickle through the House, after many years of waiting, that issue needs proper attention.

It is rather a shame that someone needs to table an amendment even to get the issue on to the Floor of the House. The Government were not going to allocate any time to debating this important Committee, its make-up, whether we should have it at all, the timetable allocated to it, the role of the House of Lords within it, whether the Lords should have a role in financial matters, or the issue of England versus the rest when it comes to the membership of the Committee. None of that could have been debated had not my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and myself chosen to learn the rules and object at 10 o’clock on a number of occasions over the past week, and then to table an amendment. By its nature, that amendment has forced the Government to create time for this debate.

It is a little odd that the Government are seeking to have unlimited time for this debate, which can continue till any hour, when we have just debated major energy statements—a fundamental issue for each and every hon. Member and our constituents—with speech limits of five minutes per Member. That seems to me a poor allocation of time, but it is another example of the impotence of the Back Bencher in attempting to influence what goes on in here.

I do not court favour, and I never have, with any side of the House. Indeed, on some issues, on some occasions, I have been in a vocal but rather small all-party minority. When the expenses issue was first emerging, and this House was refusing to deal with it and was still not totally on top of it, the usual channels—or what I termed the “gentleman’s club”—were a hindrance to democracy and to our relationship with our voters.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking a very high moral tone, but as a person who has been serially rebuked by the Standards and Privileges Committee, is he therefore ruling himself out of any future Committee membership?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Mr Speaker, I do think that it would be appropriate to respond directly to the inaccuracies in the comments just made. However, there is an important point—

[Claire Perry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I shall give way in a minute.

There is an important point about who should be a Back Bencher and who should remain a Back Bencher, because within the House, some will always be fated to be Back Benchers, often at the behest of their party leader. In power, party leaders love to exercise the power to choose who will be in ministerial positions or sit on Committees and the rest. However, on occasion there is perhaps a democratic requirement that some people should choose to be Back Benchers, or be chosen to be Back Benchers, for the length of a Parliament. It can be quite cathartic, as a politician, to spend one’s time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman either to dilate or to rhapsodise about the merits of Back-Bench life. Anybody would think that he was seeking to imitate his hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and to pen a book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”. He is welcome to do that, but if he wishes to do so, he must do so outside the Chamber.

[John Mann]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for redirecting me following my aberration after that intervention.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) accused my hon. Friend of taking a high moral tone, but does he agree that surely a high moral tone is to be preferred to a low moral tone?

[John Mann]

I am attempting simply to put across a few views that I believe would appropriately reflect the views of my constituents. I am putting no tone—high, low or otherwise—into this debate.

Members are elected to come and put forward in this House what we think appropriate. One thing that my constituents, and therefore I, would not regard as appropriate, and that the House overall should not regard as appropriate, is having a Joint Committee made up exclusively of English members. A Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services Bill that reflects this House, in the way that Select Committees do, ought to be more reflective of the entirety of the UK, and not just of England. I say that with some irony, because I am one of those who has argued that the English voice has been understated in this House.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many financial services jobs are based in Edinburgh?

[John Mann]

Our colleagues from every corner of Scotland, not just Edinburgh, are always rightly happy to demonstrate the importance of financial services—

[Thomas Docherty]

It may assist my hon. Friend to learn that I have more than 2,000 people working in the banking industry in my constituency, not to mention the thousands who make the lovely commute every morning over the bridges to Edinburgh.

[John Mann]

I put it to my hon. Friend that it would be an own goal by this Parliament, not least considering the job losses in the Royal Bank of Scotland and other institutions in Scotland and elsewhere, to go ahead with this Committee with only English members. One of the niceties—

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned by the lack of members from Scotland. There are two Labour members on the Committee, so perhaps one of them could be replaced by a member from Scotland. That would resolve the problem without bothering about any other party.

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. There are other reasons why, when considering altering the balance of the Committee to represent the balance in Parliament more appropriately, we picked a Liberal Democrat to remove, not a replacement from my party. No replacement will be required if this resolution is passed, as I hope it will be. One of the consequences would be that the Government could rethink the membership of the Committee. The question of how many members, and the balance from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—

[Thomas Docherty]

And the gender balance.

[John Mann]

I was just about to come to that point.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John Mann]

I have only just begun on it, but I will give way.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman started his very long speech by saying that all Members were equal, but all his points so far contradict that principle. Can he not just end it?

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is rather intemperate. Here we are having a good and important debate, and I anticipated an informed intervention from him. Instead, he merely wishes to curtail debate on equality. That says something about these new Conservatives, the partners of the Liberal Democrats—

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am all in favour of gender balance on Committees, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Treasury Committee, which has only one lady member. I do not recall him ever making the point that he or his Labour colleagues—all of whom are men, of course—should be replaced by women.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is not an hon. Friend of mine—to use the parliamentary language—so he is not privy to the debates and discussions in the parliamentary Labour party. However, I assure him, and the House, that this is an issue that I have raised. It is one of the traps that the House has set for itself, in the same way as it has with this motion. How do we achieve gender balance? I intend to make some suggestions about what we can do if the amendment is passed, and why that is so important.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his party has just had the opportunity to appoint a new member to the Treasury Committee, but it did not take the opportunity to appoint a woman. We were joined by another Labour man for the first time today. The hon. Gentleman claims to be concerned about gender balance, but this rather spiteful amendment would have been better if it had proposed such a balance, rather than being a veiled attack on one hon. Member.

[John Mann]

There is nothing veiled or spiteful about it. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw her allegation. As she should know, being a woman on the Treasury Committee, the power is not there—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is not, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has been around for longer than he ought to have been. [Interruption.] I am not wishing his untimely end, notwithstanding the sedentary dissent of the Patronage Secretary.

[John Mann]

As I was saying, equality is a fundamental issue in respect of Treasury matters. The make-up of this Committee reinforces and exemplifies an historical bias on equality that is a significant bar to effective decision making cross-party and over many generations. One only needs to look at the fact that Chancellors of the Exchequer have been male throughout the centuries. Therefore, in the modern era when all parties rightly, and with increasing success, are bringing women forward into Parliament, this Committee’s membership demonstrates an old-fashionedness and backdatedness that this House should not endorse tonight.

This gets to the nub of the gentleman’s club and the way in which decisions are being made and have been made. I suspect that no such discussions on equality took place as the names were put forward, and that, in fact, the different parties put forward their names in accordance with the usual time-honoured, historical tradition, and nobody then took an overview. I suspect that the bias against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland came about in exactly the same way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Based on this argument, I am surprised that two male Members have tabled this amendment. Surely 50% of them should have been female, but I do not think that that is the case.

[John Mann]

It is good that serious interventions are being made. On Treasury matters, there is a historical bias going back over the centuries, but this Parliament has not got to grips with it. We made exactly the same mistakes when establishing the Select Committees. The usual channels have brought forward names and those names are not reflective of the House or the country. That is a fundamental weakness.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be moving on to the next point, which is the disproportionate number of people called David on this Committee?

[John Mann]

I will not be making frivolous points about the forename or surname of any of the Members put forward for this Committee. However, the question of gender balance is not going to be knocked off the agenda so easily, because it is fundamental to the whole workings of Parliament. If Parliament in the modern era is portraying itself through one of the very first Joint Scrutiny Committees to be established and the elected House of Commons manages to get itself in a bind whereby all the Members put forward are English males, we are letting the country down. We are also letting down the principle of modernisation, which, superficially at least, is shared by those on both sides of the House. If we are really trying to encourage a wider array of people to take an interest in this House and, in future years, to stand for this House, how we portray ourselves in the Committees that we create is a fundamental principle.

I put it to the House: in what other way can the House manifest its commitment to an inclusive Parliament—a Parliament that is representative of all parts of the country, of all sections of the country and of both sides of the gender division within the country? There is a fundamental point at issue, which the Government, in failing to give proper time to have this proposal debated, are shying away from. That is a weakness at the heart of government.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. Has he considered the idea that in the future it might be helpful if a statement were attached to each name, spelling out what the usual channels felt were the Member’s qualifications for this Committee or for the Select Committees?

[John Mann]

No, I disagree with my hon. Friend. Others were arguing in interventions—they are welcome to make the point at greater length in debate if they wish—that this Committee should be based on experts, but that is a fundamental flaw of logic. The idea that it has to be bankers and specialist economists who investigate, make decisions on our behalf and carry out pre-legislative scrutiny and that the basis of these bodies should be some academic prowess or past profession is part of the old school and the gentlemen’s club. There is no reason why those from manual working backgrounds or care backgrounds should not also be able to participate in making such decisions as effectively as anyone else as members of these Committees.

When the world looks in, and, in particular, when our constituents look in, and we examine how far we have modernised or not modernised, as exemplified by the failure in the make-up of this Committee, we find, at the very end of the first year of this two-year Parliament and as we go into the summer recess, that the problem is magnified. We are talking about one of the last decisions made by Parliament before the recess. It is a recess that some believe is too long—I tend to share that view—but through which this Joint Committee will apparently be working. If that is the signal we send out to the country of how we see the modern world and financial services and how we intend to influence such services, it undermines our ability to do the kind of things we want to, although we disagree on the precise remedies. Removing such influence from ourselves and weakening ourselves by having such an unrepresentative Committee is a fundamentally flawed policy, but other weaknesses in the make-up of the Committee must be explored.

One such weakness is the fact that the balance between Government and Opposition does not reflect the balance in Parliament. That seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. There may or may not be a desire to have votes in the Committee, but, as regards the contribution, input and perspectives raised when four of the members come from the Government side and two from the combined Opposition side, that distribution does not seem to be democratic or appropriate. It does not reflect the election results.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Unless the number of members is increased, changing the balance by one person from 4:2 to 3:3 brings equality, which does not reflect the present situation in the House of Commons, does it?

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but there is no suggestion of any name being added—certainly not from me. The suggestion is merely to remove one name to create a better balance of 3:2. Of course, one never could and never should attempt to use an entirely mathematical equation to resolve such matters, but the principle that the balance in Committees should reflect the balance in the elected House is surely one this House would have to abide by. The hon. Gentleman is right; there could have been other ways of doing this, such as adding another member, but it seems to me that adding another member, perhaps from one of the smaller parties, would be rather a hostage to fortune, because we must ask which Member it would be and from which party. Back Benchers could not simply be nominated at random without some process to enable consultation—the very consultation that the Government failed properly to carry out for this Committee. We all know why the make-up of the Committee is as it is and what the Government’s agenda is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

That is inconsistent.

[John Mann]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, from a sedentary position, says that that is inconsistent, but there is no requirement for those proposing an amendment to agree on every remedy that would emanate from it.

My purpose is not to make any comment on individual Members but to ensure that because there is a balance between the other place and this place the Government take the issue back and rethink the entire make-up of the Committee in order properly to reflect the Parliament that we have, the elections we have had and the modern world we live in. I seek no more than that, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who has added his name to the amendment, may have other, additional and different reasons. That does not negate the argument; indeed, one could argue that in a democracy it strengthens the case because there are different arguments from different perspectives with different options provided. The principle remains the same, however: it is invidious to have a balance of 4:2, four from the Government side and two from all the combined Opposition parties. However one looks at it, that in no way reflects the result of the last election.

It seems to me rather demeaning for this Parliament to go into such a long summer recess with this Committee apparently sitting through it with such imbalance and such bias. This question of priority and of why the Committee is sitting through the summer is another reason why the amendment has been tabled. If the amendment was passed, one would hope that the Government would be forced to rethink at this late stage. They chose not to table the debate earlier, although they had the opportunity to do so, but one would hope that the time for reflection they would have over the recess would also mean that the proposal for this biased and unrepresentative group, in relation to the general election, to Parliament as a whole, to the nations of the United Kingdom, to the gender balance in the House, to democracy and to the world in which we live, could not happen. It seems to me a wrong priority in the month of August, when there are many important things that we could be deliberating and engaging on, for this Joint Committee to be establishing its work. A slight delay allowing the Government to rethink, reformulate and re-democratise the proposal would be wholly in order. I am sure that in their heart of hearts that is exactly what hon. Members are thinking tonight, having heard the arguments that have been put forward. No hon. Member would want to go into this long recess having taken a decision so unrepresentative of our country, our Parliament and the world in which we live.

There is another fundamental issue at stake that has not yet been addressed, which the amendment would also allow reconsideration of—the giving away of financial control and powers to the other place. Important debates and deliberations on the future of the other place are currently going on, such as whether it should be partially elected—80% elected—how many should sit in it, where they should come from and what the time scale for reform should be. Those are all important issues, not least to parliamentarians in this House. Pre-empting that by giving financial powers to the other place—as the proposal is, in essence, a move towards doing—by having it scrutinise the draft Financial Services Bill jointly with this House is a start on a slippery slope in relation to the historical division on financial matters that has existed ever since democracy in this place was established. The proposal begins to unravel that and one might think that there are some within the coalition whose very agenda that is—those who want a proportionally elected second Chamber that has those financial powers. It seems to me that they have managed to sneak in, through this proposal at this late hour and this late stage—indeed, it would have been without this debate had we not tabled this amendment—potentially a constitutional issue of profound ramifications. It would mean handing over, albeit the very first semblance of doing so, financial powers, decision-making powers and authority to a second Chamber that some want to become an elected Chamber in the very near future.

There will be different views about that and I do not intend to go into what those views are—that is for another day—but it is relevant to the amendment to point out the consequences. Hon. Members who vote through this unwise, undemocratic, unegalitarian, anti-regions, anti-nations, badly thought-out, badly timetabled, rushed and last-minute proposal will be opening this House to potential ridicule from future generations who come here. They will ask when was the moment when we handed over to the other place that first little bit of power in relation to financial matters. When did we allow the second Chamber—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it to you that the question of the allocation of powers to the other place is completely outside the scope of the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was listening intently and I was about to say, which I shall now do, that we are concerning ourselves in this debate with the establishment, composition and remit of the draft Financial Services Bill Joint Committee, upon which subject the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is tabling and, I think, speaking to an amendment relating to a narrow part of the matter—namely, a particular member of the Committee. A wider dilation about possible future transfers of power, which might haunt the hon. Gentleman, are not subject matter for this evening’s debate, to which I know he will now return.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice. I seek your clarification on one important matter. It was my intention, as demonstrated by my previous remarks, to confine myself to one contribution, looking at the substantive motion as well as the amendment. I may be in error in so doing and may require a second speech. It was my intention to restrict myself to a single speech, and I seek your guidance in relation to that.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should proceed with his speech according to his own lights. It is not the normal practice of the Chair to conduct a running commentary on the speech of any hon. Member or to advise an hon. Member in advance of when he might inadvertently be about to slip beyond order. The hon. Gentleman can protect himself.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that helpful guidance.

The final point that I wish to make in relation to the amendment is that the randomness of selection of an individual member to remove can have many motives and be for many reasons. This important proposal by the Government is fundamentally flawed in its make-up, as I have outlined, being English only and male only, with the Committee meeting as a priority during the summer and being a Joint Committee with the House of Lords.

The weakness of the usual channels, inspired by Government and the Government’s timetabling, has meant that we have not been able to have this debate without amendment. I therefore urge that in future when such matters are before the House, they should not be tabled to be nodded through at 10 pm with no debate or require objections from individual Members or groups of Members in order to stop that process, requiring an amendment to allow a debate both on the amendment and on the issues underlying the make-up of the Committee and the flawed and biased decision of Government in that regard. That is the Government’s responsibility. We as a House have a responsibility to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they do not get away with such sloppiness in their programming of legislation that they put legislation—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend seems to be coming to the end of his speech, which I am enjoying so much. Does he agree that there are far too many tight programme motions in the Chamber and that we should have more thorough debates to make sure that every point can be thoroughly discussed, as my hon. Friend is doing?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a most interesting intervention, but sadly it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment, composition or remit of the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill.

[John Mann]

I shall therefore humbly ignore my hon. Friend’s intervention and conclude my remarks. As guardians of our democracy, albeit within the confines of the gentlemen’s club and the usual channels, and despite the weaknesses imposed upon us by the lack of modernisation, it is our responsibility and duty to expose flawed proposals, such as how the Government have unnaturally put together this unrepresentative and biased group without allowing us a debate that is timetabled in a proper and normal way. It is the Government’s responsibility to get that right, and I implore them to do so in future to save us having to object repeatedly at 10 o’clock at night to the flawed logic and bad politics that they have had to use—we all appreciate that it is a difficult time for the coalition—in order to try to hold these two ramshackle coalition partners together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

5. What assessment the House of Commons Commission has made of the potential for use of renewable energy technology on the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)]

In 2005, a study was conducted on the potential for solar photovoltaic and hot water systems on the roofs of the Palace of Westminster. However, it was ruled out because the financial payback was 125 years and the equipment had a life expectancy of 30 years. The current mechanical and electrical project has already installed new energy-efficient pumps and motors, and the medium to long-term plans include solar photovoltaics, greywater harvesting, borehole water cooling, and combined heat and power.

[John Mann]

We do not want windmills here just as much as I do not want them cluttering the landscape of Bassetlaw, but there must be scope for solar energy, and not least for air source heat pumps, in the Palace of Westminster. Is it not time that we got our act together and started using renewables far more on the parliamentary estate?

[John Thurso]

I am very happy to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to inform him that these issues are at the heart of the project that is ongoing within the Facilities Department. All of these options are considered for ongoing programmes and where repairs and renewals are undertaken or where capital investment is made.

Members’ Salaries

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Here we are again. On 3 July 2008, the Speaker did not select my amendment. Last year, the same thing happened. Today, again, the Speaker has not selected my amendment. Democracy has not been the better for it. My amendment in 2008 would have prevented the practice of flipping homes. My amendment tonight would have reaffirmed the principle that we should not determine our own pay.

I will not vote for or against my pay tonight, and I urge others to do the same—not to abstain, but to refuse to vote. The motion removes the principle of our not determining our pay. It is not simply a decision on the SSRB proposals; it revokes the decision on independence without anything more than a vague promise that, at some stage, the Government will get around to tabling amendments to have IPSA set pay. The Government have had plenty of time in recent weeks to table such an amendment, and they have chosen not to do so.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

If everything is to go to IPSA, so be it, but I am in the position, as a new Member, of not knowing what will happen to my staff pay 11 days hence, from 1 April. That is a disgraceful situation in which to be. None of us can work out what will happen to our staff. I have to renew contracts in 11 days, and I do not know what to do.

[John Mann]

That shows the muddle that the Government and Parliament have got into. Instead of resolving those problems, whether one or other of us likes it or not, in a way that is crystal clear, within which we can work and that the public can see, we go round in circles. Here we go again.

Having been through the pain, which is not yet over, of the expenses scandal, and eventually decided that we should not determine our own pay, and having all allegedly agreed the principle, we are suddenly back where we started—deciding our own pay. The issue tonight is not the amount of the pay—that is a small part of the matter. Of course, it will always be important to Members and even more important to the general public. However, to breach the principle so unnecessarily and cack-handedly lays us open to ridicule. The House should get its act together on pay and expenses and say that we will not break the principle of not setting our pay, conditions or expenses, because that is precisely the problem that got us into the scandal in the first place. We must learn the lesson of putting it outside, keeping it there and not interfering with it. Whether it is comfortable or uncomfortable, whatever the level, whether we like it or the general public do not like, it should be determined independently, not by us.

I appeal to Members to refuse to vote either way on the pay, thereby not breaching the principle that it should be determined independently or agreeing that it should be brought back in-house because if we do that, we will rue the day, and pay and expenses will come back again and again to bite us. We should put that behind us.

Registration of Members’ Financial Interests

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Is not one of the key issues that the hon. Gentleman highlights the dilemma of whether a group of Members of Parliament, as an APPG, appoints a secretariat, and the danger that, in some instances, a secretariat—particularly a professional one—can essentially scout around for Members of Parliament to create the all-party group that the secretariat wishes to run? Should not Members of Parliament appoint a secretariat, not the other way around?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) knows perfectly well that I entirely agree with him. I note that at least 12 Labour Members have not yet been able to speak, and that is why I will speak very briefly now.

Let me just say this to the Government. The danger is that in their desire to create mathematically perfect constituencies and to allow only 5% of leeway to the boundary commissions, and in creating the exemptions for three seats in Scotland, they will undermine the three Scottish constituencies and make them seem like rotten boroughs. The Government will make the whole country look like a mathematical exercise, and not like anything that recognises the facts of life.

When miners went down the mines in the Rhondda in the 19th and 20th centuries, they had a number stamped on their miners’ lamps. The people of this country do not want to be just numbers on a miner’s lamp. The people of this country want to be recognised for the constituencies and the communities that are represented in it, and it is their voices that should be heard in the House rather than just the statistics with which the Minister agrees.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said in response to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) that a point about who gets to speak is not a point of order for the Chair. A point about which amendments are selected is, however, a point of order for the Chair. My amendment to this part of the Bill deals with the same kind of special privilege that other Members have addressed in their amendments, but it was not selected. I appreciate that the Chair has a difficult task. However, my point of order is: if this Bill had been taken in full Committee, would not my amendment have been allowed and debated?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has raised this point previously, and I stress once again that it is not a point of order. He cannot challenge what amendments are selected. The selection of amendments is the Speaker’s prerogative, and that has been decided. I now call the Deputy Leader of the House.

[John Mann]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, I have ruled on that.

[John Mann]

It is an incorrect ruling.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the Member will wish to withdraw that comment, for all our sakes.

[John Mann]

I withdraw that comment, but further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point of order I am raising is that in full Committee any amendment that is put in the Committee is eligible to be taken, and it is only the time constraints that have required you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule out certain amendments, including my own.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not going to push this any further. I have made a ruling, I stand by that ruling and the Member must accept it. I call Mr Heath.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is speaking from sincere and heartfelt beliefs, but that is totally illogical. If there are, say, 76,000 potential voters in a constituency and 40,000 of them decide not to vote, that is their democratic choice, just as it is the democratic choice of the other 37,000—I think I got the arithmetic wrong there—to cast their vote. People who decide not to vote are exercising their democratic judgment in the same way as people who decide to vote. There has been a lot of discussion about where the heart is, communities, boundaries, and so on—matters that appear to be anything other than purely arithmetical.

[John Mann]

Completing the circle of logic in the hon. Lady’s argument, presumably she will want to table, or to have someone else table, an amendment that would prohibit people from registering in more than one place, because those voters, be they students or second property owners, have the opportunity to choose where they would cast their vote. Therefore their vote is not as equal as anybody else’s. Given her logic, she is presumably in favour of such an amendment and will be urging Government Front Benchers to bring it forward immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not usually one for hyperbole, but let us be absolutely clear that the Government’s proposal to abolish public inquiries is driven by one overriding concern—the politically driven desire to rush the completion of the boundary review through by October 2013. That is against due process and natural justice, and it is partisan. I say to the hon. Lady that if there are concerns about public inquiries taking too long, the Government should speed up the process, not abolish them. There is obviously a tension between the speed of the boundary reviews, strict adherence to electoral equality and the strong tradition of consultation and public involvement in such reviews. This country is currently giving lectures to emerging democracies about the importance of voting and of involving communities in how boundaries are drawn up, but at the same time we are abolishing public inquiries.

[John Mann]

Is it not the case that where the traditional English counties, for example, are breached, such as by constituencies crossing from Nottinghamshire into Derbyshire, Yorkshire or Lincolnshire, people will want to have a far greater say than they have for many years in a county such as Nottinghamshire? Although the boundary reviews there have sometimes been contentious, they have been within clearly defined parameters, which have been publicly available and generally publicly acceptable.

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I will come later to the evidence, which is something the Government seem scared of. It proves his point that at the time when the public inquiries are serving their greatest function, they are being abolished. One has to ask why.

A balance needs to be struck between overlapping objectives, but in the Bill the Government have managed to get the weighting wrong in almost every regard. The limits on disparities between seats are too severe and inflexible, the time scale for the boundary review is far too tight, and the abolition of local inquiries in return for an extended window for written submissions is deplorable.

As I have said, because of the programming of the Bill we have dealt inadequately with the speed of the boundary reviews and with the strictness of the adherence to electoral equality. The abolition of inquiries is entirely at odds with the concept of localism and open politics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to a moment ago and which the Deputy Prime Minister, who has called himself the great reformer, has previously professed. In a speech five months ago, which I will quote because it is important that colleagues in the other place hear it, he said:

“I have spent my whole political life fighting to open up politics. So let me make one thing very clear: this government is going to be unlike any other. This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state.”

How does the abolition of local public inquiries empower people?

To suit their rushed agenda, the Government are simply withdrawing any meaningful element of public participation and consultation, thereby reducing the boundary review process to an opaque, bureaucratic and largely mathematical exercise. The loss of transparency and the ability to comment on and amend proposals will seriously damage the reputation of the boundary commissions. It will erode the high level of trust in their impartiality that they rely on for their reports to be accepted, and the quality of their proposals will be compromised.

Any significant boundary change is likely to cause some level of discontent and controversy, but that will be magnified to previously unknown levels of disquiet if the rigid new rules in the Bill are adopted and 50 seats are abolished. In a written submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the secretaries of the four boundary commissions were clear:

“The changes to the total number of constituencies, and the tighter limits on the number of electors in each constituency, will result in a complete redrawing of constituency boundaries.”

They continued:

“The electoral parity target may require the Commissions to work with electorate data below ward level in many cases”

and

“will result in many constituencies crossing local authority boundaries…the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies.”

If there is no procedural outlet for that discontent, the boundary commissions and the entire review process will be rapidly discredited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I advise my hon. Friend to be very careful with this coalition Government. In five months, they have got rid of the local public inquiry for the sake of expediency. God knows, next year they may get rid of the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and just rely on written representations. They may think, “This democracy malarkey is just too expensive. Let’s just have written submissions and then have a vote in our constituencies rather than turning up and having a debate and arguing the pros and cons of an issue.” I am astonished that hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches, who should know better, are taking through this shabby piece of legislation.

Another criticism, which came from the hon. Member for Epping Forest, is that the local inquiry takes too long. The final and most lengthy inquiry, the fifth review, was in Greater Manchester and took more than two weeks. The assistant commissioner, Nicholas Elliot QC, made the following observation:

“The advantage, sitting as an Assistant Boundary Commissioner, is that one gets from the two major political parties that they equally look at the overall picture in somewhere like Greater Manchester where it has to be done, whereas others examine it from their own perspective. The difficulty of the Assistant Commissioner is that you do have to look at the overall picture, and it is only those two major political parties who do provide very, very great assistance in trying to come to what may be the best or worst answer.”

[John Mann]

It is good to use Manchester as an example when one talks about public inquiries. South Manchester has the highest concentration of university students in western Europe. Is not one of the anomalies that boundary commission inquiries might need to take evidence on the fact that university students will be able to register in two locations? Therefore, there will not be equal-sized constituencies. What we will have are university constituencies with a significant number of dual registrations. There could be as many as 15,000 people who are dual-registered and choose to vote in their other constituency. The concept of equal votes in equal constituencies is thrown out of the water. Is that not the sort of thing that the boundary commission, even with this rotten legislation, would want to have a look at?

[Sadiq Khan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

It is very tempting to be taken down the road that my hon. Friend seeks to lead me, but having spent a lifetime struggling with the problems of the Mersey I am hardly likely to spend what remains of my life struggling with the problems of the Solent. He makes his point effectively.

My key point is that there are practical implications to such changes. They need to be examined and the best way to do that is in a public inquiry. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for whom I have some affection—she referred to Socrates, so perhaps at this point I should say that it is entirely Platonic—outlined the argument that this issue is not important and that a lot of these inquiries were vexatious and just held for the benefit of political parties. I do not think that is true. My experience of having sat through two public inquiries into major constituency boundary changes is that people from the community—people from community groups or individuals—come along, express their opinion and either it is taken into account or it is not. If there is a valid objection, it will often be taken into account: if not, not. The point is that they are the most important people in that inquiry. It is important to them with whom they are linked in a parliamentary constituency.

I come back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was making: of course there needs to be fairness on the size of constituencies, but if we reach the point where they are purely mathematical entities and if everybody changes—if it is like a roundabout, where someone jumps on at one point and jumps off at the next election, finding themselves representing an entirely different constituency—the relationship between the constituency, the Member of Parliament and the people whom that Member of Parliament represents will change dramatically. Not only will those constituencies be a mathematical entity, but Members of this House will start to view them in that light. That will dramatically change the relationship with our constituents.

[John Mann]

rose—

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Howarth]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Then I really do want to finish this speech.

[John Mann]

I thank my right hon. Friend for generously giving way, and he is making an excellent point. Will the problem not be further and particularly compounded by the fact that with individual registration proposed for 2014-15, there will be a huge ripple effect throughout the country—particularly in areas where there are university residences with large concentrations of students who are automatically registered by the university authorities? If students are not automatically registered, there will be a huge ripple effect throughout the country that will alter the boundaries significantly in every constituency?

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The ripple effect in a metropolitan county such as Merseyside, which I described earlier, would go right through the country.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. The amendments selected in this group include some that are proposing special privileges—some might say gerrymandering—for certain constituencies, and these have been ruled to be in order, while others suggesting gerrymandering, such as my own, which suggests that the traditional rotten borough of Retford should be created, as it was in 1832, have been ruled out of order. [Hon. Members: “It is not this group. It is the next group.”] Well, I am making my point now anyway. Why have some been ruled in and some ruled out, when they are all about gerrymandering the boundaries?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I welcome your opinion, but you cannot discuss amendments that have not been selected.



Clause 9

Number and distribution of seats

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Have we not now reached the crucial, salient point, which is that even in recent times Parliament has set not an absolute number, but a target—I believe that the last one was 613—for the Boundary Commission, so that an independent boundary commission, taking into account other criteria, can then set the boundaries? Is not the fundamental difference that this rather irregular Bill attempts to create an arbitrary number without building in that flexibility for an independent body to set this coherently?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This approach runs against the grain of how we have always done things in this House; the proposition has always been that representation in the British Parliament should be based on the communities that exist. There has been a recognition, first, that the shires needed representation. Irrespective of whether they were large or small, the shires always had exactly the same number of seats—at first they had two, then four for a while, then two again and briefly three. It was then said that towns had to be represented and the row was then about which towns genuinely represented communities. The big change in the 1832 Act was that this House said that we could not have rotten boroughs where, to all intents and purposes, there were no electors and the seat was granted by the landlord to whomever he thought fit, and instead we had to ensure that where there were genuine communities, they should have representation, with large communities having two seats and smaller communities having one.

In addition, specifically at the moments of union, this House decided that the communities involved needed representation. So under the Act of Union in 1536, when Wales was brought in, 44 Members of Parliament were allowed for Wales—it took them six years to get here, but they were here by 1542. After the Union with England Act 1707, Scotland had 45 Members—that was increased to 53 by the 1832 Act. Following the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, Ireland had 100 Members, a number that subsequently increased to 105, reduced to 103 and was reformed again in the 20th century with the creation of the Irish Free State.

It is also important that we do not fix the number at 600 because of the way in which the Government have crafted their Bill. It rightly allows a certain flexibility, because the electorate of any constituency may be between 95% and 105% of the aimed-at electorate across the country.

Now, let us leave aside the question of whether it is right or wrong to be precise in one’s mathematics and whether a further provision should allow the Boundary Commission to say that where there is an overriding further concern, such as a geographical, cultural or political concern, further leniency or flexibility should be allowed. What happens if the Boundary Commission, when it starts its process in the south of England and works up through the country or, in the case of Wales, starts in the south and goes north—or starts in the north and goes south—decides that the first 20 constituencies are best representing 95% of the quota? Does it then have to start filling in some 105% of that quota? The danger is that it will end up having to start all over again. Every time there is a new Boundary Commission, it will have to start all over again, because there will be knock-on effects from one constituency to another.

That is why I think it is wrong to fix the number at 600. If hon. Members think there should be a precise equation between the electorate in constituencies, it would be better to say that every constituency should be roughly 75,000 electors, give or take 5% or 10%. The Boundary Commission could then conclude how many seats there should be as a result of that to meet the two requirements—first, getting close to the 75,000 and, secondly, any other overriding concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

If my hon. Friend is getting only 250 communications a week, he needs to enhance his communication profile.

My intervention is on a different issue, however. My hon. Friend suggested accurately that the arbitrary number of 600 is an attempt to gerrymander the boundaries against Labour. That is clearly the attempt, but does he think that the Government have done their mathematics in a sufficiently competent way? If we do an analysis throughout the country and think of the rationale that the Boundary Commission might have chosen to adopt—had it been given any under the Bill—we find that there is obviously an issue in Wales and Northern Ireland, but that in Scotland the Liberals and the Scottish Nationalists have the smaller average seats, not Labour. Throughout England, the area where it is easiest to blur boundaries—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech, and I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has got the gist of the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Ms Primarolo, you have already criticised me for speculating, and I am certainly not going to speculate. All I am saying is that, before this House gives approval to a reduction in the number of MPs to a fixed number of 600, the case needs to be made and we need something more than an assertion that it is an arbitrary figure, that it accords with the public mood and that it meets the needs of this House. None of those things has been established. Apart from anything else, even if I agreed with such a move, I would not support it unless I could see evidence of a pro rata reduction in the number of Ministers and the size of the Executive, and thereby not a dilution of this House’s ability to hold the Executive to account. That is my modest contribution, but I make it clear that I intend to seek re-election in the next Parliament, be there 600 or 585 constituencies, or the current number.

[John Mann]

I wish to address my remarks to amendments 364 and 227. I particularly wish to deal with the principle of having the number of Members of Parliament fixed at 600, because I find the fixed number particularly objectionable and dangerous. That contradicts the history of this country going back many centuries, because our system has evolved as a majority system. We have had first past the post—although the alternative vote is now being suggested—as a way of electing individual Members who represent individual constituencies. The moment that one moves towards a mathematical fixation determining the number of seats, the trip down the slippery slope towards proportional representation has begun. If the mindset is that there should be an equality of votes, however that is defined—of course there were important arguments yesterday about how to define the equality of voters and who defines the electorate—and that there should be a mathematical equation, the logical conclusion is that that can be taken further as things ebb and flow.

A further conclusion could be drawn from that, because if it is good enough for the House of Commons, it is good enough for other parts of the—I use this phrase lightly—British constitution. So the House of Lords should have a fixed number of seats and Members of that House should be aware of the likely logic that must follow, whatever that number might be. Some might suggest—I think I once did—that if there was a fixed number, it should be as low as 100. It might be a shock to them to go so low. However, the moment one has a fixed number, one sets in place a principle that totally and absolutely contradicts every principle in establishing constituencies that this country has had before.

This is a critical principle, which seems to have been overlooked in the debate about the precise numbers. The moment we make that change, that principle will be enshrined for ever. The Deputy Prime Minister made comparisons to the Great Reform Act of 1832. I have studied that Act quite extensively, not least because the originator, John Cartwright, came up with the concept living in the house that I now occupy and would have been a constituent of mine. The original rotten borough was East Retford, with 150 voters choosing two Members of Parliament. Following the recent boundary changes, done on the basis of equalising constituencies across the county of Nottinghamshire, I now have the privilege of representing Retford, having lost the district of Warsop.

That was part of a boundary change under the current system to numerically equalise as much as possible the size of parliamentary seats. I have 20,000 new voters and I lost 10,000. I do not object to that principle. The 10,000 who went objected vehemently, because they seemed to feel that I was a good and representative Member of Parliament, but those whom I now represent were delighted to have the opportunity to vote for or against me. That was a major redistribution on the principle of equalising size, but this rotten Bill enshrines in perpetuity the concept of a mathematical arbitrary equation that each constituency will be of the same size, which has fundamental ramifications.

[Mr Mark Field]

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but does he not recognise that we have already enshrined PR in our political system to quite a large extent, through the European Parliament since 1999, through the way we elect the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London assembly, and through the way in which local authorities are elected in Scotland? We are going down precisely that path, but it is a slippery slope that we started down quite some time ago.

[John Mann]

We have had this slippery slope with the European Parliament and with how we choose its Members. Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister, apparently, was once a representative in my area—no one seems to have realised that fact, because such Members are rather distant and remote, whether they do a good job or not, because of the size of the constituency.

The interrelationship between individual and electorate that has been the basis of democracy in this country—one that other countries have, too often, moved away from in their determination to have either proportionality or equality and to have mathematical solutions to how they build a legislature—is the foundation of participative democracy. We are not just a representative democracy in this Chamber: if we are effective, we are a participatory democracy as well. That principle would be somewhat undermined by an arbitrary mathematical solution to how many Members there should be.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to give us a long history lesson, will he at least assure us that he realises that Members of the House were elected using a transferable voting system until 1945 in some cases?

[John Mann]

There has never been an arbitrary mathematical equation. I would be ruled out of order if I went through an historical analysis of the Great Reform Act, why Cartwright brought it forward and its relationship to the rotten boroughs, including East Retford, so I shall not, but the principle was one of expanding democracy. There was representation before it, but it was the wrong kind of representation. The principle was about participation; it was in the evolution of participatory democracy that this country led the world—not representative democracy, which we already had. The definition of democracy was changed by the Great Reform Act into one of participatory democracy and has changed over time into one in which all citizens over the age of 18 can participate.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about mathematics, so here is some maths for him: 70% of MPs in Scotland are from the Labour party but they secured only 42% of the vote. I know that he is a fair man and I feel the pain of the citizens of Warsop, but does he agree that there is something wrong with that?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. We are discussing the number of Members of Parliament in the House, not how they got here.

[John Mann]

Much though I would love to answer the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I shall refrain from doing so. Perhaps we can continue a discussion of such matters in private.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing that the Committee should not decide how many Members of Parliament there ought to be, but if it is not for Parliament to take that decision, who should have the power to do so?

[John Mann]

The hon. Lady asks an excellent question and I shall give her a precise answer: Parliament should do so on the same basis on which it has been done before. The principle previously and now, unless this rotten Bill, particularly this part of it, is made into law, is that the House sets an ideal target, but that the Boundary Commission independently determines the boundaries within which each Member will sit using a set of criteria that relate to the history of the country, the four nations, the history of England, locality and the nature of our democracy. But that principle will be thrown out by the Bill. With the Great Reform Act, there were riots in Nottingham and years of deliberation before the Act was passed and changed the principle to one of participatory democracy and the wider franchise. Are we to break that principle after a couple of days of truncated debate in the House? Are we to have a principle, which could stand in perpetuity, of having a fixed number of MPs? The idea that we would do that is a disgrace to the House and to the traditions of our democracy.

This principle is important and the consequences are great, so let me illustrate them. I have none of the fears that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) discussed about the precise boundaries in my area. The boundaries were changed in the last election and my majority went up against all the predictions, so I have no fears about any such change or about who will come in and who will go out.

Of course, my constituents would strongly resist the notion that, having built a relationship with one Member of Parliament, good or bad, they should not have the opportunity to re-elect or dismiss that Member of Parliament. That principle is enshrined in our democracy, but it is endangered and partly thrown away by the arbitrary nature of setting a mathematical equation to determine the numbers. My constituency boundaries are a good example of how that would destroy the traditions of England and English democracy.

Ministers laugh at the fact that the county of Nottinghamshire, the seat of Bassetlaw and the electoral representation in Bassetlaw and Nottinghamshire have been set over the centuries, not in a few minutes or a few hours’ debate, but by the very nature and history of this country. Do hon. Members know why the seat of Bassetlaw was created? Because it was a road through the forest and a route through the country. That is why Robin Hood was robbing in such places. The history and geography of this country, going back hundreds and thousands of years, have produced the shire counties.

Should my constituency’s boundaries be changed arbitrarily? My situation is not unique, but it emphasises the nature of an arbitrary mathematical solution. My current boundaries and electorate are about the mean—it is not a small constituency—but a change to the south, which is precisely what has happened before, would be a change within Nottinghamshire. One bit goes in; one bit goes out. That is how the Boundary Commission has done its work over the decades. That is reasonable. It makes its decisions. I disagreed with the last one, but that is democracy: an independent body, not politicians, heard representations and made its decisions on the basis of trying to maximise equality between the seats in Nottinghamshire. That is why that change took place. Any change to the north would take us across a regional boundary—Ministers will not be bothered about regions—and a county boundary as well, into Yorkshire. I have nothing against the people of Yorkshire. That is where I come from. I am sure that I would be as popular there as I am in Nottinghamshire, so that is not the fear.

I deal with Nottinghamshire county council, Nottinghamshire police and Bassetlaw council in Nottinghamshire. The fear of the elected Member is that if we had to move over to an arbitrary base of different councils and authorities, however they are formulated by whichever Government are in power, we would be looking in different directions at once and the role of MPs in advocating for and representing their constituents would be significantly diminished.

It is not just the boundaries with Yorkshire that could be changed; there could be a change to the east, in which case we would go into Lincolnshire, perhaps into North Lincolnshire or West Lindsey council—again, entirely different local government, police and health set-ups. Of course, if the boundary was changed to the west, we would go into Derbyshire, yet another county and yet another set of police and fire authorities.

All that illustrates the point that if we do not attempt, in any system, to try to maintain as much as we can the integrity of the English counties and a direct relationship with local government, however it is structured, the role of the MP and the credibility of Parliament are diminished. That is the weakness in arbitrary mathematical equations, and it is why we all know that the Boundary Commission is in reality horrified by the notion that it would need to use some kind of mathematical equation, because the criteria that it has used over the decades have been proven. They are transparent and challengeable in the courts if anyone wants to challenge them—people have occasionally tried to do so. They are tested in the courts and they are good and rational. Each party might occasionally object to the conclusions and MPs might feel that we have been badly done by, given the nature of the change, but the process is democratic. That fundamental principle is being changed.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion, but I am not sure what his speech has to do with the amendment. He objects to the plus or minus 5% rule, which could cause constituency boundaries to cross county boundaries, but there is nothing intrinsic whatsoever in a reduction from 650 to 600, the subject of the amendment, that would have the effect that he suggests.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is under the misapprehension that we have a statutory limit. At the moment, we have a Boundary Commission, and the setting of an absolute figure will tie its hands, which is precisely why there could be arbitrary boundaries in a constituency such as mine, crossing county boundaries and breaking up the integrity of the English counties. That will do nothing for our democracy.

Some in this House feel that a smaller number of Members will be good for democracy, and I share some of the concerns and think that we could go much further than down to just 600 Members, but the process should be done rationally and over a significant period. In other words, there should be full consultation and thought, and the Boundary Commission should be allowed to do its work in its normal way. Politicians, for whatever reason, should not attempt to fix the result. By fixing the result, the sting in the tail not only for Liberal Members, but some Conservatives is the notion that has been sold to some Back Benchers—that a change will be bad for Labour. But any mathematician can analyse the information and show that that may well not happen in the boundary review. Given the arbitrary nature of mathematics, the opposite may well occur. In fact, any change may well have a neutral effect overall.

Nevertheless, that is the principle, and that is why the Government are rushing the measure through. But to sacrifice the English counties and the basis of our democracy simply for short-term expediency—in order to rush a Bill through and not allow the independent Boundary Commission to do its job in any way—is an outrage to our democracy, and I suggest most humbly that any decent democrat should withdraw those proposals immediately.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have spoken to amendments in my name—amendments 227 and 228 are the two to which I refer—and it is unfortunate that on this first occasion I should do so against my Government, of whom I am an ardent supporter. I appreciate that this might not be a career-enhancing move, but I feel particularly strongly about the issue.

It is irrelevant whether the number of MPs is 600, 620 or 585; it is foolish to put the Boundary Commission into a straitjacket and say, “There will be that number, with no variation.” Many Members from all parts of the House will have been involved in boundary reviews, whether at constituency or ward level, and they will appreciate that the jigsaw never fits together. Equality is desirable, but it should not be the sole criterion.

I agree with the comments that have been made about community identity, but this is about more than just figures. The ancient county boundaries have been mentioned too, and they are particularly important, but my constituency completely surrounds the constituency of Great Grimsby. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) has left the Chamber, but it is always a pleasure to hear him speak, particularly as he is my Member of Parliament. He made a reasonable argument, but it is completely out of touch with the people whom he represents, because, in line with the manifesto on which I stood, I am actually in favour of reducing the size of the House. I see no objection to that whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman’s sedentary comment. I believe that there is something about 666, though I am not an adherent to that principle either—for me, it goes with Benthamism. I am therefore glad that we are not discussing 666, but why not 600? It is a reasonable, round number. We have to choose a number for Members of Parliament. [Hon. Members: “No, we don’t.”] I am arguing that we have to choose a number; that it is correct for Parliament to do so. We have talked much about the Great Reform Act of 1832, but the subject of how many Members there should be has not been properly discussed for a long time.

[John Mann]

Yes, it has.

[Mrs Laing]

Not for a very long time, and the hon. Gentleman should not shout.

The matter is being discussed properly now, and there is nothing wrong with the figure of 600. It is a perfectly reasonable, round number.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

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

[John Mann]

Nonsense!

[Mrs Laing]

That is a fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Syms]

It is; it happened because of the Scottish reduction. The reality is that we need to build a slight reduction into the system, otherwise we will have a constant creep-up of the numbers. Is it very much more difficult to represent 76,000 electors than it is to represent 69,000? I do not think that it is terribly difficult—we have the staff and the commitment to do it. All that we are talking about is drawing up fair boundaries, with a modest reduction in the House, which is not going to make a major difference to most people in this House, except in Wales.

The problem with Wales is over-representation. There have been changes in Northern Ireland, where the number of seats was increased because the constituencies were very large, as well as in Scotland and England; Wales is the one part of the Union that is out of line. I understand the pain and difficulty that the proposals will cause in Wales, because there will be quite a radical change there, but throughout most of the UK, it will be a very modest change indeed.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument would be more consistent if he were to tell us why he sees a problem arising if county boundaries in England are crossed. The moment those boundaries start to be crossed at random, we shall have an entirely different solution in England.

[Mr Syms]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. For historic reasons, it will depend on where any such changes might be made. This is one of the arguments that he will be able to put to the Boundary Commission when it brings forward its proposals—[Interruption.] Yes, he will; people will still have the capacity to make representations to the commission on the reports on the constituencies.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way again. I recall one of the Tory backwoodsmen with whom he is in such happy coalition these days saying that those young people would come in here and put chewing gum on the seats and use penknives to carve them up. Could he report back to the House on how many such incidents occurred?

[Mr Heath]

Of course no incidents of that kind occurred at all. Indeed, the behaviour of the young people in the Youth Parliament was impeccable in every sense. Indeed, there were staff and Officers of the House who confided in me after the event that they had had real reservations about the invitation being issued. They had been worried about what would happen, but they were astonished at the maturity, good sense, good manners and proper behaviour of those young people—young people who engaged in debate that was often of a higher quality than what we hear in this Chamber on a normal working day. That is a testament to the maturity and good sense of those young people.

Information for Backbenchers on Statements

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

It is probably both, to be fair. I am not moving this motion in a politically partisan way; I am moving it on behalf of my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee and all Back-Bench Members, whatever parties they represent, in order to hold the people on the Front Bench to account for their behaviour. As a Back-Bench Member, I do not particularly care whether they are Conservative, coalition or Labour Ministers. Their first duty should be to report their new policy announcements on the Floor of the Chamber.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says he is speaking on behalf of all of us, so why is the motion pussyfooting around so much by referring the matter to another Committee? Why not propose that such Ministers be suspended? When the ceiling can take it, let us have these people suspended.

[Mr Hollobone]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would say in answer to his question that it is a sensible way forward for the Procedure Committee to take evidence from hon. Members, and I suspect that he will be the first in the queue. The Chair of the Procedure Committee is here tonight to hear contributions from hon. Members. We can develop a sensible protocol that everyone can understand, including Ministers of Crown, and we can find a better way forward. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that the motion has been sitting on the Order Paper for some time, and if he had wanted to table an amendment, he would have been quite within his rights to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

That is a most helpful and excellent suggestion from my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that she has had the opportunity to make it. It would appear to most people outside this place that the hours we sit are in many ways absurd and certainly not family friendly. Furthermore, in many ways they are not the best hours for us to do good business in the House, and anything that would stop journalists getting information before hon. Members would need to be welcomed.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked what comfort our Committee could offer minority parties. The invitation is open to the minority parties and every other Back Bencher: whatever party they might represent—this goes for independent Members too—they should come and tell the Committee what they would like to be discussed on the Floor of the House.

[John Mann]

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to invite us all to the meetings, but we elect people to represent us. If the Procedure Committee comes back with some wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed excuse of an answer to the question that has been put, how will the Backbench Business Committee represent us all properly and ensure that the issue that it has rightly raised is properly voted on by the House?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a hypothetical case. Knowing the Chairman of the Procedure Committee as I do—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire—I think that wishy-washy is the last thing that any recommendation will be. I am also sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be taking a close interest in the work of the Procedure Committee and any motion that may come back to the House in due course, so I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be unduly worried about the process.

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but the question of process is rather important. This is the first opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to try to have some influence, yet the issue is being referred to another Committee of the House. We have seen this kind of thing before. If the Procedure Committee fails to come back with something sufficiently substantive, how will the Backbench Business Committee take the issue forward?

[Mr Hollobone]

I anticipate a substantive motion on the Floor of the House in due course to endorse the principle that we have to hold the Government to account by having a proper procedure for statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes, indeed. It was a question of honour, and I think that we have lost a little of that.

As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kettering, the 1947 Budget was famously leaked to the Star by the then Labour Chancellor, and the 1996 Budget somehow ended up in the hands of the Daily Mirror. As I have said, it is not a new problem; but it is a problem whose resolution is long overdue. We must take it upon ourselves, in this new Parliament, to ensure that the House is returned to the heart of substantive political life in this country.

I am not interested in the question of who has the worst track record, although it is useful to be able to draw on historical examples. I am interested in how we can bring the practice to an end. This was supposed to be the “clean slate” Parliament. A new Parliament with a large influx of new Members should have been able to start afresh. We have made many advances in the way in which we do things—I am thinking not least of the advent of a Committee devoted to Back-Bench business—but the continuation of the old way of doing things must be nipped in the bud.

The fact that Governments, Labour, Liberal and Tory, have leaked and pre-announced policy to the media in the past—advertently or inadvertently—does not give licence to the current incumbents to carry on in the same way. We are in the process of changing the balance of Parliament, so that it ceases to be a Parliament in which Back Benchers are here simply to cheer on their respective Front Benchers, and becomes one in which ministerial promotion is not seen as the sole career path, and in which Back Benchers can bring their experience to bear and ensure that their constituents’ interests are fully represented. We cannot do that if the House is not treated as the right and proper place for ministerial announcements and statements.

We all know that Ministers have a hard job to do. Working on red boxes at 2 am, as Ministers do in some of the busier Departments, is not fun, and mistakes do occur. Working in haste also leads to mistakes and poor scrutiny by Ministers of vital papers, as has happened in the last week or two. We must not mention the word “lists” too often. However, it is within the power of Ministers to prevent some of those mistakes from happening, and it is a shame—a real shame—that the Education Department’s Ministers did not check the detail of those lists more carefully. As has been pointed out, however, the Secretary of State had the good grace to apologise in person.

Back Benchers really should not have to sit by their radios every morning listening with bated breath to the “Today” programme while simultaneously channel-hopping across the various breakfast television media, simply to make certain that they know what is going on. Back Benchers ought to know that this House, and this House alone, is where statements are made, where policy will first be debated, and where their views will be heard before the media circus kicks off. The comments of the hon. Member for Kettering about the empty Press Gallery reinforce that point. If Ministers had to come to this House, those in the Press Gallery would be able to see the reaction of Back-Bench MPs and hear our constituents’ concerns being voiced directly. An empty Press Gallery is not a good sign.

[John Mann]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if this motion is passed tonight and a Minister transgresses in the near future, that would be a far greater offence than in recent years, and it would therefore require far stronger action from the House?

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, if the motion is agreed to, it will be interesting to see how the Procedure Committee takes matters forward. I shall have some suggestions later in my comments as to exactly what some of the penalties might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend has brought up a critical change that has taken place with complicity on both sides of the House, which is that the majority of special advisers appear, in fact, to be media advisers and press officers who advise on nothing special other than how to manage news. Is this not a problem that has now become deeply embedded in our politics, and which we could look at addressing?

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes, it is a problem, and strangely enough it is at its worst at the beginning of a new Government. When our party was elected to government in 1997, we had a lot of very good advisers who had been extraordinarily good in opposition at spinning stories out and making sure that shadow Ministers got their stories in the press. However, working with the civil service and Parliament in government involves a completely different mindset. We have to treat the two phases quite differently. A special adviser just chatting away to a media person and trying to get the nub of a story out—or spinning it out—from a Government position can have the sort of effect that we have seen, and which we are all here in the Chamber now objecting about, when a story appears in the press in advance of being announced in the House.

[John Mann]

Taking the Department for Transport, or whatever it might be called these days, as an example, is not the point that the concept of a special adviser suggests someone who is highly specialist and gives advice on transport, not somebody who is highly specialist and gives advice on news management? Even if Ministers are held to greater account by the House, it is that feature of special advisers that is so embedded in our system, as is the concept of their spinning to the media. After all, that is precisely what these people are paid to do.

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. To be fair to special advisers and to Ministers who employ them, they are not all of that ilk; there are within government, as there certainly were within our Government, very specialist people in the particular spheres in which they work.

Unfortunately, despite the risk of being chastised by you, Mr Speaker, and your predecessors, it has been difficult to bring both the current Government and the previous one to heel on some of these issues. Although apologies have been made, sanctions should be considered. I hope that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is listening to these comments, which I am sure will be reinforced later in the debate. What is an appropriate punishment for Ministers? Perhaps we should make them deliver the apology on their knees at the Bar of the House.

I shall stop being frivolous, because this is a serious issue and one on which the Government were elected. All parties stood for cleaning up Parliament, modernising this House and listening to Back-Bench MPs, and the Government were elected on that. It might therefore be appropriate for the Procedure Committee to consider insisting that the Prime Minister come to the House to apologise in person every time one of his Ministers pre-announces something. The thought of a Prime Minister having to come to the Dispatch Box on a regular basis to apologise for the actions of members of his team would help to focus minds. Such an approach would make him force his Front Benchers to behave, because that would not be good for his business or for his image.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who made a thoughtful speech about the need for a modern and well-informed House. On her remarks, it is indeed our ambition to have a legislative programme that is well prepared when the Bills are introduced and that is of a size that the House can easily digest, and it is our intention that the House should have an opportunity, which it did not always have in the last Parliament, to consider the legislation seriously and without undue pressure.

It is a pleasure to intervene briefly in the first debate initiated by the new Backbench Business Committee. This is the first time that the House has had an opportunity to debate a substantive motion on a subject tabled by a Back Bencher since the old system of private Members’ motions was abolished in 1995. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) went a little further back in history to the Jesuit, Robert Parsons, to identify the source of the Backbench Business Committee. I do not want to prejudice the consensual nature of the debate by complaining too loudly of the last Government’s failure to set up that Committee. It would be uncharitable to blame even the last Leader of the House for making slow progress on an idea that appears to have been some four centuries in the making.

I pay tribute to the energetic way that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) has set up the Committee and hit the ground running. I said in the last Parliament that I wanted the Backbench Business Committee to set the first topical debate of this Parliament. In fact, it has done better than that and chosen a subject for a full three-hour debate, and I am delighted that progress is being made. Restoring public confidence in Parliament is one of the ambitions of the coalition. Enabling Parliament to do its job effectively is a key part of that process, and giving the Backbench Business Committee its agenda-setting powers is a major milestone in doing that.

Turning to the motion, allegations that the Government make announcements to the media before making them to the House are not new. This is my 10th Parliament, and I can remember occasions in every preceding one when one of the six Speakers who have sat in the Chair, beginning with Selwyn Lloyd, have rebuked Ministers for continuing that practice. As we have heard, Mr Speaker, you made it clear in your very first statement that

“when Ministers have key policy statements to make, the House must be the first to hear them, and they should not be released beforehand.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 797.]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on a first-class speech in moving the motion. If I may say so, he was a little bit tough on those who sit on the Treasury Bench in implying that every Minister in the coalition Government should resign because they had all leaked information to the press, but otherwise, he made his case forcefully and convincingly. There is little doubt that, over perhaps the last 13 years, we have seen a more cavalier approach to the way in which announcements are made than previously. In 1998, the then Speaker felt strongly enough about the Labour Government’s consistent and deliberate leaks that she gave a BBC interview outlining her frustration that, although successive Governments had briefed the press before Parliament, it was being done

“far more subtly and professionally”

since the 1997 election.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and, indeed, other hon. Members have said, Parliament pays a price for that process. We devalue ourselves if the news is being made elsewhere. We therefore risk losing our position as the centre of British national debate. That is surely why the principle that we are debating today is important. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston touched on that principle. Again, it was well put by Speaker Boothroyd who said in her farewell address:

“This is the chief forum of the nation—today, tomorrow and, I hope, for ever.”—[Official Report, 26 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1114.]

We are elected here to scrutinise the Executive and to hold Ministers to account on behalf of our constituents. It is therefore crucial that Ministers explain and justify their policies in the Chamber in the first instance.

[John Mann]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. Does he agree that, if the motion is passed tonight, the scale of the offence of any Minister who transgresses is significantly higher than it would have been in the past?

[Sir George Young]

It was a serious offence before this debate and it will remain a serious offence afterwards.

The Government await with interest the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, especially in relation to the ministerial code, which has already been cited. Among other things, the code provides:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”

Since the start of this Parliament, the Government have made 20 oral statements and 189 written statements, which is an average since the Queen’s Speech of nearly three oral statements per sitting week and nearly seven written statements per sitting day. On top of that, we have answered five urgent questions. In this Parliament, there have already been a total of 214 announcements to the House over 30 sitting days, so I hope that the House accepts that as evidence that the Government take the code seriously.

Even with the best endeavours, as we have heard, leaks to the media can occur before announcements are made to the House and without the connivance of Ministers. For example, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said, the whole of the 1996 Budget found its way to the Daily Mirror. The then Chancellor decided that there was nothing much that he could do about it and took his whole team to an Indian restaurant—a characteristic response from my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said, when things have gone wrong in this Parliament, Ministers have come to apologise.

The code says that the “most important announcements” should be made first to Parliament, but as we heard earlier, that gives rise to the question of what the most important announcements are—perhaps the Procedure Committee would like to address that point. However, it is worth pointing out that the code should not prevent Ministers from making observations or comments about policies that have already been announced, and nor should it mean that we cannot make speeches or give interviews outside the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was criticised last week for comments that he made about the graduate tax in a television interview, but as I told the House last Thursday, there was no policy change because the question of a graduate tax had already been referred to Lord Browne’s review by the previous Government. In my view, my right hon. Friend was taking part in the entirely legitimate debate that is developing outside the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Despite the fact that horse racing does not directly fall into my brief, I can answer my hon. Friend’s question, for the simple reason that many of the races that attract the largest television audiences are, of course, part of the listed events review. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have called for an independent economic analysis and are looking through it at the moment, and we hope to make an announcement at the beginning of July.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

MPs from all parts of the House attended a seminar convened by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on race hate and the internet. What is the next stage for the Department in this important initiative?

[Mr Vaizey]

I understand that we are working closely with Home Office colleagues on the initiative. I read a letter from the hon. Gentleman to me only today, and I shall meet him shortly to discuss the next stages of his important initiative.