Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Williams]

As my hon. Friend says, we must hear what he has to say on the subject first. His intervention is timely, as I am now moved to speculate on what he may say.

Schedule 4(6) adds to section 9A the words

“and for the purpose of securing that, so far as is reasonably practicable, persons who are entitled to be registered in a register (and no others) are registered in it”.

I know that the Government are content with that, feeling that it strengthens the responsibilities that EROs already have, but what risk, I ask my hon. Friend, does the change pose to the accuracy and completeness of the register? I feel that my amendment 35, which deletes the phrase

“so far as is reasonably practical”,

buttresses the obligation of EROs to secure persons who are entitled to be included in the register.

Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly—for he is my friend—that mine is a probing amendment, and that, as I said at the outset, I am seeking to clarify these matters for the benefit of those of us who have discussed their concerns with the Electoral Commission. Certainly there is no good reason to reduce the duty imposed on EROs, and, if anything—given the tone of our debate and the cross-party aspiration that has been expressed—we should be enhancing and strengthening it. I should be grateful if the Minister explained the reasoning behind the changes in the Bill, and how they would affect EROs’ current obligations.

It seems to me that the Bill in its current form has the potential to weaken the principle of maximising registration, which would undermine what the Government are attempting to do. I do not believe for a moment that that is their intention, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

We have heard from other Members about the expectations that we have of EROs, and the performance standards that are used to assess their role. Let me refer again to the Electoral Commission’s report. Performance standard 3 refers to

“house-to-house enquiries to ensure that all eligible residents are registered.”

Although the Electoral Commission observed that progress had been made—

“the number of EROs who reported meeting or exceeding this standard increased between 2008 and 2010”—

eight EROs did not meet the standard. The commission stated that it had been able to contact them and remind them of their responsibility to “take all necessary steps”. It also stated that in 2011, for a range of reasons, it had heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that a greater number of EROs might not have met the standard in that year, and might not have taken “all necessary steps”. That prompted it to do some research. It contacted EROs and asked them whether they had carried out a personal canvass of all non-responders, and 58 replied citing budgetary restraints and rurality.

There is clearly continuing concern about house-to-house inquiries. The Electoral Commission is worried enough about the present set-up and the present wording of the legislation, but it fears that the position could worsen as a result of the new wording.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is obvious from the attendance in the Chamber that the issues we are discussing are hardly setting the heather alight, but they are nevertheless important in the context of the relationship between central and local government. I think that Members in all parts of the Committee agree that there has been substantial consultation on the Bill, and that many key stakeholders—not least the Electoral Commission—have had an opportunity to draw on real-life experience for their prognostications and recommendations. However, I think that the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) risk changing a permissive, directional approach from the centre to the Electoral Commission vis-à-vis electoral returning officers to a much more oppressive approach, which would not take into consideration the differences that exist throughout the country in districts, boroughs and cities.

I think that had the Government not taken account of the experience of May 2010—for instance, the performance of EROs at polling stations and the administrative arrangements that caused difficulties in areas such as Sheffield and Hackney—it would have been fair to comment on their performance with regard to registration. However, the Bill does take account of that experience, not least in clause 17, which refers to the

“Inadequate performance of returning officer”.

One of the problems of being too prescriptive and draconian, and including in legislation what is effectively a direction to EROs, is that it fetters their discretion and allows central Government, through the Cabinet Office, to instruct them to do things that may not be appropriate in their areas. The data-matching projects are a good example. In my constituency, there were high levels of registration during our pilot project for the Electoral Commission because there was a very thorough door-to-door canvass. However, it should be borne in mind that the actual matching to the DWP and other databases was only 54% in Peterborough, and that it may be significantly higher in other parts of the country.

I think that it would be wrong to instruct electoral registration officers, who are typically chief executives or borough, city or district solicitors, that the fall-back position should be that they are not doing their job properly and not adhering to the existing legislation. The Bill in its present form recognises that it is imperative to maximise the number of people on the electoral register—and we all welcome that because we believe that it is important to democracy and future civic engagement—while also giving discretion to individuals at local level.

[Mr Love]

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is it not important for the Electoral Commission, which will carry out these functions, to be both an independent body and a great repository of expertise in these areas? If that were the case, it would take into account local circumstances, and it would not act in a draconian manner.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Electoral Commission commissioners, but we are in danger of overlooking two key facts. One is that EROs are ultimately responsible to those who are locally elected to direct their work and to have oversight of their effectiveness in their role—the leader of the council, perhaps, or the cabinet or the appropriate committees. That explains the importance of clause 17. Secondly, as ever in politics and governance, if we do not attach a price tag, it is likely that we will not get the desired end.

The measures in these amendments would be resource-intensive and would impact directly on the other local authority budgets. Ultimately, it is for the local authorities, and EROs guided by elected members, to make the value judgments that they see fit in regard to registration. They will clearly want to perform as well as neighbouring boroughs, districts and cities, and their performance will be compared on a nationwide basis by the Electoral Commission. My objection to this aspect of these amendments is that it would be unnecessarily draconian for the legislation to direct in a catch-all way. The current system is right in this respect.

[Mr Love]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that where the Electoral Commission feels an ERO has done the job effectively but is resource-constrained, it would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission and the ERO to refer that to the political leadership of their borough for proper discussion?

[Mr Jackson]

I agree, but there are existing checks and balances if the system does not work. I referred earlier to the situation in Sheffield, and in particular Sheffield, Hallam, the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency. That was not just swept under the carpet. That was a very serious issue of people feeling they had not had the opportunity to take part in a vote and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it resulted in a full, open, transparent inquiry by the Electoral Commission, and lessons have been learned. There is room for discretion within a permissive approach, but the amendments do not propose that.

I am always slightly wary of dismissing legislation that says, as schedule 4 does,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

That is the language of consensus, reality and pragmatism—the language of a practical approach. To disregard that and be overly-prescriptive would be a mistake. For that reason, if this amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government. I hope the Minister makes it clear that this amendment is unnecessary and the Bill’s current wording is appropriate.

[Mr Heath]

It is a pleasure to return to this Bill under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for their amendments and the manner in which they discussed them. However, the hon. Gentleman’s revealing that he intends to vote for his amendment irrespective of my response does not give me a great incentive to try to persuade him—but my hon. Friend has a more open mind, and I know will listen carefully to what I have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

No, it would not. The steps that an ERO needs to take will be set out both in the guidance from the Electoral Commission and in the secondary legislation. Those steps will be a duty upon them; it will not be about doing this if they get round to it or if they feel it would be a good idea. There will be a basic level of steps that they must take. All we are doing with this “reasonably practicable” qualification is saying that, despite their best endeavours, EROs are not going to achieve a perfect register, because no one in any constituency in any country in the known world has ever produced a register that is absolutely accurate and perfect. However, EROs must do everything they can to make it is as near to that as possible by taking all reasonable steps.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The Minister is making a strong case. Is not the corollary of these amendments that, if we disregard the practicability of the efforts by the EROs to put this register together, compiling a register would be exactly the same, and would be seen as such, in Colchester, a constituency made up of one town in a compact urban area, as it would be in Orkney and Shetland, a constituency of many islands? It simply is not practical to regard the constituencies as being the same for the purposes of compiling a register.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He sets out why we must avoid being too prescriptive: we want EROs to do a variety of different things in different places to achieve their objective.

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) asked whether there is a minimum that is required. I can tell him that there is. Our draft regulations will set out what the EROs must do to encourage applications to register to vote. That will include, as a minimum, the sending of an invitation, of two reminders and of a canvasser to encourage an application. There is no question of our watering down the duty of EROs; we are simply recognising that even at the end of all that, because of the change in the way in which this section is constructed by the amendment of the original Act, EROs will not have a perfect register. However, they must have as near to a perfect system as possible for getting to the perfect register.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that point.

May I just deal with the other two issues raised in the amendments? Amendment 37 deals with the reporting of suspicions that an individual had committed offences relating to electoral fraud when submitting either a registration or absent vote application. Again, nobody would quarrel with the purpose of that. Perhaps I should say the “purported purpose”, as we never know exactly what the purpose of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly is because he does not provide an explanatory statement, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. I accept that the purported purpose is a good one.

Let us be absolutely clear that there is a need for EROs to refer to the police any suspicions they have on registration and postal vote applications that they receive, and that is set out clearly in the guidance issued to them by the Electoral Commission. The hon. Member for Caerphilly will have looked at that, and he will know that paragraph 3.37 of the Electoral Commission’s “Managing electoral registration in Great Britain” guidance clearly states:

“Any issues concerning the integrity of the registration process should be reported”—

by the ERO—

“to the police immediately.”

In addition, the Electoral Commission has worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers to produce guidance for EROs, returning officers and police officers on identifying and responding to allegations of electoral fraud associated with the registration and postal voting process. In exercising powers under section 9A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission has also set out a specific performance standard on integrity—performance standard 4— which EROs need to meet on maintaining the integrity of registration and postal vote applications. In order to meet that performance standard, EROs are required to establish and maintain contact with their local police—a single point of contact—and ensure that any suspicions arising from registration and postal vote applications are reported to them immediately. EROs are already assessed on their compliance with that standard by the Electoral Commission, so putting in place this statutory requirement would be otiose in those circumstances. If the question is whether they are doing that, the Electoral Commission’s report is encouraging. EROs appear to be making significant progress in the completion of the integrity performance standard.

The figures in the report on the performance of electoral registration officers in 2011 show that 260 EROs, or 68%, met the standard, whereas 116, or 31%, performed above it. Those who are mathematically gifted will work out that 68 plus 31 is 99, which leaves only 1% of EROs—only four—who did not meet the standard. Why not? They did not provide sufficient documentation to the Electoral Commission about the work they had done—they had done it—to take matters forward with the police. The Electoral Commission has give a strong bill of health to the steps taken by EROs of their own volition and with the support of local authorities, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said, to do the job with which they are entrusted and to report their suspicions.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I concur warmly with the Minister. My experience of living through Operation Hooper, which was the postal vote fraud investigation in Cambridgeshire arising from the June 2004 local and European elections, puts that sharply into perspective. It is important that there should be no perverse incentive that means that electoral registration officers do not take action because of the resource implications. Hooper cost the Cambridgeshire constabulary a huge amount of money, which has never been recouped by the constabulary or by the city of Peterborough, and the Minister should be mindful of that.

[Mr Heath]

I absolutely agree. There should be no constraint on dealing effectively with attempted or actual fraud in the electoral process. EROs should be confident not only that they have the capacity to act but that the police will engage with them. That is why the work between the Electoral Commission and ACPO is so important.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That is a good steer, Mr Weir. Let me make the point in passing that the 2009 Act to which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) referred was not uncontroversial. We voted against it by way of a reasoned amendment because it did not include provisions on individual electoral registration. They were put in only when the Bill went to the other place, so I think we have done very well. Let me clarify what we have done. We have added to the secondary legislation and put in provisions setting out the steps the registration officer should take before insisting on a penalty and we have set out some information about the penalty, to which I shall return in a few moments.

Let me explain, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned it, that “agile methodology” is a way of developing information technology—the way it is done in the private sector—in order to avoid complicated and massive IT systems that cost a fortune, do not work and then have to be scrapped. We have learned much from how the previous Government operated; this is the way in which this Government will develop IT systems, and I think that they will be much more successful.

Picking up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), let me be clear from the beginning that we are talking about registration; we are absolutely not talking about imposing a penalty for not voting. Voting is voluntary and it will remain voluntary. While this Government are in office, there will be no proposals to change that. I am always disappointed when people do not vote, but they absolutely have the right not to, and it is our job as politicians to give them reasons for going out to vote or use their postal vote and to ensure that there is no obstacle to their doing so. If they do not vote, it will be because we have not given them sufficiently compelling reasons either to vote for us or against us, depending on their point of view. That remains the case.

It is worth setting out—it is a bit of a stand part debate, but it is relevant to the amendments—how we have arrived at this point. Members will know that it is not now and will not be in the future a specific offence not to register to vote in the first instance. The current position is that if people do not respond to the household form or, indeed, other inquiries that the electoral registration officer makes—this is the current way of getting on the electoral register—it is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to £1,000. We have no plans to change that; it will remain in place.

The question we faced with the invitation to register was whether to have a penalty. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is quite right that when the draft Bill was first published, it did not include a penalty. Several hon. Members have touched on the public policy reasons justifying a penalty. Some aspects of registration affect other people. First, the register provides the source of jurors, and it is important to have balanced juries made up of a proper cross-section of adult electors. Secondly, electoral registers can affect boundary changes—not just parliamentary boundary changes, but local ones as well, as highlighted by several hon. Members. That is why we decided it made sense to have a civil penalty, which was also in response to the Select Committee’s report and some of the evidence that was taken.

As for the amendments—the Select Committee’s amendment 33 and amendment 14 from the hon. Member for Caerphilly—regardless of the amounts specified, I do not believe it sensible to put the civil penalty directly in the Bill, as this would be better done through secondary legislation. I hesitate to correct the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee, but these matters are not at the diktat of the Minister. All the Bill’s powers are made by Ministers, but they all have to be approved by way of affirmative resolutions by both Houses. There is proper parliamentary control over the exercise of that Executive power.

I hope that both hon. Members will withdraw their amendments; as I said, it is not appropriate to put the figures directly on the face of the Bill rather than implement them through secondary legislation. As for how we get to the figure for the penalty, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is going to remain disappointed for today, as I do not propose to pluck a figure out of the air. The process we want to adopt is one that we have done all the way through—we are going to listen to people. We have explained how we will go about this. We think that the analogy with parking fines is sensible. The hon. Member for Caerphilly observed that there was a range of parking fines across the country, but the range is fairly narrow. A parking fine is not £500; it is about £40 at the lower end and £130 at the higher end.

There are some good arguments in favour of setting the fine at the higher level, for instance to reflect the importance of the matter and to ensure that it is a proper deterrent, but there are also arguments in favour of setting it at the lower level. Unlike the £1,000 fine issued by magistrates who can take into account the circumstances of voters—both the extent to which they believe them to be culpable and their financial resources—this will be a fixed penalty. It should also be borne in mind that although the criminal penalty involves a maximum fine of £1,000, the fines that are actually issued are usually much lower. During the 2011 canvass, the London borough of Hounslow successfully prosecuted 10 people for not providing the information required, but the average fine issued was £125. That was because magistrates were able to take various factors into account. This penalty will be fixed throughout the country, and when it is issued it will not be possible for the electoral registration officer to alter it.

We have listed a number of factors that should guide the arguments in favour of a higher or lower level, given broadly the same range as that which applies to parking fines, and we will do some targeted work with our stakeholders and consider their responses. I suspect that some will favour a reasonably high number for encouragement purposes, while others will be a little concerned about the potential impact.

I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced today. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly’s proposal is at least in the ball park of the parking fine system, while the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham North on behalf of his Select Committee is rather on the high side. We will draw our conclusions, and Members will be able to see what we have come up with.

I should also say, in response to a point made by both the hon. Member for Caerphilly—who referred to the impact assessment—and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, that this is not the first course to which electoral registration officers should resort. We do not want them running around the country handing out fines like confetti; indeed, in an ideal world we would not want fines at all.

Those who receive parking fines can usually reduce them by paying promptly, but they cannot reduce them to zero. In this instance, everyone who incurs a civil penalty—and we hope that the number will be no more than the 100 a year or so who incur criminal penalties—will be able to reduce the amount to zero by registering to vote. If they register as a result of incurring the penalty, the electoral registration officer will be able to waive it. The purpose is to persuade people to register, not to issue fines. The Bill will prevent registration officers from keeping the money, so that they are not tempted, and so that people do not think that they are issuing the fines in order to use them as a revenue generation exercise, which would be just as bad.

We will specify—and have set out in draft regulations—what registration officers must do. They must issue the invitation, send reminders and send a door-to-door canvasser, and they must be satisfied that the individual has received the invitation and still resides at the address involved. Only when they have done all that can they tell people that they will issue a notice, and that if they do not register after that, a penalty will be incurred.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The Minister touched on an important point earlier. He will know that some London boroughs, in particular, have given parking attendants an incentive to issue tickets by offering payment by results. Will he include in secondary legislation a methodology that would preclude such activities in areas where the level of registration is usually low in the first instance, so that there is no incentive to fleece the taxpayer?

[Mr Harper]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when I said this, but we have included in the Bill the important provision that any revenue from fines does not go to the ERO and is not kept by the local authority. It must go to the centre. The purpose of the fines is to encourage people to register to vote, not to generate revenue for local authorities. Therefore, the process of issuing a penalty will come with a cost to, and a burden on, the local authority. We do not want this to become a means of revenue generation for local authorities, as some people think is the case in respect of parking and speeding fines. I am confident our proposals strike the right balance.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

The point is the ministerial code and how it has been degraded by this Government and this Prime Minister. In the last Parliament and in this Parliament, the Public Administration Committee has thought that there should be an independent adviser who has the right to decide what he wants to investigate. If the Prime Minister is alleged to have broken the ministerial code, who will advise the independent adviser to investigate him? That advice is a function of the Public Administration Committee. There was no investigation of a far less serious complaint about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who failed to register an interest when he had a meal provided by a lobbyist on the excuse that that day he was eating with his private stomach, not his ministerial stomach. That was a matter for the ministerial code as it was a clear breach. The matter before us is the third breach that has taken place.

We should consider our position. We have just escaped from the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Our standing in the country is no higher than it was two years ago and if the Prime Minister continues to ignore a major reform—which the ministerial code was—and use it to defend his own political position, we will sink further into the perception of sleaze as seen by the country.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The noxious stink of hypocrisy holds sway in this debate. It is unbelievable that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can compare an honest, genuine lapse of judgment by the special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the systematic, malicious and vindictive character assassination by Damian McBride on the family of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), for which the former Prime Minister was never called on to resign.

[Paul Flynn]

I challenge anyone on the Government Benches to cite any example of anyone claiming that that incident should have been referred under the ministerial code. I have been interested in these matters for a good decade and there was no such claim. There was a case, and it was investigated. The ministerial code was used by the previous Labour Government. It has been abused three times by this Government when strong cases have come up.

We have another reform that has not been implemented by the Government. The Prime Minister made an impassioned plea on lobbying, saying that he was going to have a new lobbying code—because, as a former lobbyist, he understood it. We do not yet have a code. The one that has been put forward is lame and weak, and it would actually weaken the system. The Government have failed in their prime task—and the prime task of all us—which is to escape from the shame of the last two years, for which all of us were responsible. Many Members left the House, with their careers in ruins, and some suffered greatly, including many who were not guilty—collateral damage. I have just concluded a biography of one former Member who lost his life because of the effect of that scandal on his health.

The shame still lies on this House. The perception outside is that politics is debased and that we do not tell the truth or obey a moral code. I appeal to all Members not to see this as one of the usual tribal votes when we go into the Lobbies—[Interruption.] I cite the contributions that I made on the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament and the last, when I was as severe a critic of my own Government as I am of the excesses of this Government. This is a matter of honour for hon. Members here today.

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their position. This is not a question of winning a vote tonight—that does not matter. But it matters whether we stand up for the House of Commons reforms and whether we respect the reforms that have taken place. The ministerial code has been abused. Sir Alex Allan was put in place. The Committee examined him and questioned him, and unanimously—with a Conservative majority on the Committee—said that this man is not fit for this office. We communicated that to the Government and nothing was done. Elizabeth Filkin was regarded as a strong Rottweiler, and she was replaced by Sir Philip Mawer, who was regarded as not so strong, but he resigned because he was not called in to investigate what took place with Adam Werritty, which was a matter of great importance. Adam Werritty called himself an adviser, but he was paid by people outside and attended a ministerial meeting. What happened was absolution by resignation. He was allowed to resign before the country knew the full facts of what went on. What possibly happened was that his advice—his seat at the table—might have brought us closer to a war with Iran. I appeal to all hon. Members to treat this matter seriously—[Interruption.] If Members are not aware of this, it is because the investigation was carried out by Gus O’Donnell to get it over in a few days rather than having a full, legitimate investigation. That investigation was itself a breach of the ministerial code.

If we are to increase respect for ourselves in society, we have to subject every Minister to examination by someone who is genuinely independent. If the Prime Minister breaks the ministerial code, we need an independent investigator to decide, of his own volition, whether to investigate. Now we have a poodle who has been instructed by the Prime Minister—

Business of the House

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked a commission to look at the whole issue of regional pay, so I think it would be premature to have a debate before that work is completed, which I believe is expected in the autumn. Thereafter it might be worth while to have a debate on the issue. So far as tensions within the Government are concerned, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that he was a member of a Government where the tensions within a one-party Administration were far greater than any tensions in the present two-party Administration.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate on freedom of speech, following on from the news that the Law Society in its conference arm last week banned the session on marriage that was to be addressed by the distinguished judge Sir Paul Coleridge and the Marriage Foundation? Does my right hon. Friend, like me, deprecate this suppression of debate on an area of great public policy importance?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that it is the responsibility of a Minister to comment on that, although I understand my hon. Friend’s views. I will share his concern with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—just to see whether there is a role for Government to play in this.

Business of the House

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s comments. As she knows, the Prime Minister extended to Aung San Suu Kyi an invitation to visit this country and I have seen reports, which I welcome if they are true, that she plans to spend some time in Oxford where she used to live. I suspect that the question of an address in Westminster Hall is above my pay grade, but I will ensure that it goes to the relevant authorities for serious consideration in view of her record on human rights.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is more than 20 years since the landmark Medical Research Council study that showed that the fortification of foodstuffs with folic acid taken prior to conception would reduce neural tube defects such as spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Many countries have pursued that policy, but there is an impasse in our country between the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health. May we have a debate in Government time to ensure that we properly debate this matter and follow the lead of other countries to reduce the incidence of these dreadful medical conditions?

[Sir George Young]

I applaud my hon. Friend’s concern on this subject and his campaign and zeal for progress. I cannot promise a debate, but it sounds like an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment of the House. In the meantime, however, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to bring my hon. Friend up to date with the progress he is making on resolving the conflict of interest to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Charging for Access to Parliament

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his persistence in getting this debate and on his passionate advocacy of the position that he has taken. However, I hope that the House will accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the Commission to have another look at the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made the profoundly true observation that we, and all our constituents, are struggling with how to prioritise difficult decisions in tough times, and this is one such example. We are not in an ideal world where perhaps all access to this building could be free, but we have to make the savings that—at the beginning of this Parliament—Mr Speaker, in his role as head of the House of Commons Commission, committed us to making.

It is also important to remember that this issue is about the Clock Tower, not about access to this building in its working sense as a Parliament. Our constituents will still have free access to see their Members of Parliament and to watch proceedings in the Chamber from the Public Gallery, as well as to visit Committees. I for one would not support the amendment if I thought that there would be any slippage in that very important principle. We need to separate the two issues, although I do understand the worries that people have.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I agree with some of the hon. Lady’s basic tenets, but is it not true that as a result of the opaque and antediluvian nature of the Commission and the Management Board, we are effectively held accountable for decisions over which we have had no real, effective or demonstrable say?

[Ms Eagle]

That is a very timely intervention from the hon. Gentleman as I was about to deal with that point, especially as I am a very new member of the House of Commons Commission. I have been in the House for 20 years and always thought that the way in which the House was managed was rather antediluvian and opaque, to put it kindly. I expected when I was given this job that I would dash into the Commission and everything would be revealed. I thought that I would see how the House and all of its domestic Committees worked. I have to confess that after a few months I am still rather of the hon. Gentleman’s view, and light, transparency and more debate about such matters should be organised. We need to think as a Parliament about how we can bring that about.

We are all busy. Doubtless everybody read the e-mails that were sent in 2010 about this issue, but perhaps they did not fully take them in. I therefore have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we should consider how we might ventilate the serious issues that the Management Board has to deal with so that hon. Members on both sides of the House become aware of them in a more timely way. E-mails go out, but we cannot force Members to notice them or read them in detail. The system is antediluvian and lacks transparency, and we might want to think about more modern approaches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I first visited this great Palace of Westminster in the summer of 1976, at the age of 11. It was part of a school visit. My parents were not particularly well off; we could not afford a foreign trip, so we came and visited all the London sights, one of which was the Palace of Westminster. The Palace of Westminster, including Big Ben, has been intrinsic to our national Parliament—some may call it the mother of Parliaments—for 150 years. It was Sir Giles Gilbert Scott who said:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”

Ever since William Rufus built the great hall in 1099, a Parliament has existed on this site. In 2008 Big Ben was voted the most popular UK landmark, and this debate is very much about that. This is not an administrative housekeeping issue; this is about setting a precedent. I believe that the public, who have already paid their taxes—as people have done over the hundreds of years there has been a Parliament here—should not be charged twice to visit a place that is theirs. The influence, power and discretion that we exercise here is done on the basis of a leasehold in the name of the people we represent. They ultimately own these buildings, and we are responsible and accountable to them.

That leads me on to the discussion that we have had today—thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who secured this debate—on the antediluvian, opaque nature of the governance of this place, and on the Commission and the Management Board in particular. I was never consulted on the closure of Bellamy’s bar in order to create a crèche, or on the closure of Annie’s bar. I have not been consulted on the alternative proposals on sitting days, on early-day motions or on the duplication of administration and paperwork in the House, all of which should be presented to us. We really need to have a proper debate on all that.

Are the House of Commons and the House of Lords really to become a kind of glorified Harry Potter-esque theme park? In this, the 200th year since Dickens’s birth, are we really so focused on taking a Dickensian, “Mr Gradgrind” approach that we must destroy the basic tenet that the people of this country who pay taxes should have free access to all the public parts of the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?

[Duncan Hames]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

We must keep that access free, because it sends an important message. If we do not, we could find that only the wealthy, the well connected and businesses will have access to the mother of Parliaments. That would be a sad day, and a tragedy for democracy. It would further undermine people’s faith and trust in us. Let us imagine that a husband and wife and their two children get on the train in my constituency of Peterborough and pay £90 return each to come to London. Why should they have to pay £15 each to visit the Clock Tower? Why should we charge them an extra tax to visit part of the political and historical heritage of this country, one of the most famous buildings in the world? I do not believe that that would be right.

We need to explore the governance that has led to this proposal, because it has not involved ordinary elected Members. This feels like the script for “The Da Vinci Code”, because it is not open and transparent; far from it. I also reject the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). His remarks have been erudite and eloquent, as ever, but I nevertheless smell an establishment stitch-up.

[John Thurso]

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that on this occasion his sense of smell is a touch out? What he should be smelling is a desperate attempt—if I can put it like that—by those of us who are in charge of these things to seek to accommodate the views being expressed. I put it to him, to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and to his other hon. Friends that I really am seeking to arrive at where they want to go.

[Mr Jackson]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but one of the points of the Backbench Business Committee, if it is not to become the nobbled shih tzu of the Executive, is to ensure that the emphatic will and opinion of the House is sought on certain matters. We voted on such matters on Monday. Today we are looking at the thin end of a wedge; a precedent could be set that would result in our constituents being effectively excluded from part of the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. If the House divides on the motion, we must be emphatic in making it clear that we are not minded to enter into any kind of long-drawn-out scenario of kicking this matter into the long grass, and that we need to make a decision now. We need to set our own precedent. This is the people’s Parliament; they have paid for it through their taxes and they should have free rein here. We represent them, and we should be mindful of their opinions. We should keep the status quo.

Business of the House

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Three of this week’s four days have been on Government business, on Monday we have the Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill, and on Wednesday we will deal with the local government and police grant orders, without which no local authority will get its funding next year. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that that is important legislation. There is an Opposition debate on Tuesday—I hope she is not going to describe that as “thumb-twiddling”, as she said last week. Next Thursday we have an important debate on Somalia, which some Opposition Back Benchers have asked for. I hope she will not be so dismissive about the House of Commons programme.

As for the Queen’s Speech, the date will be announced in due course in the usual way—a response with which the hon. Lady may be becoming familiar. There is legislation still to get on to the statute book. On the one hand, she wonders why things are taking so long, but on the other hand I am constantly being asked for more time for debates. At some point, the shadow Leader of the House will have to work out whether the Government are pushing their programme through the House of Commons too fast or whether they are taking a leisurely time about it.

We have no plans to drop the Health and Social Care Bill. The principles of clinical-based commissioning, of patient choice and of any qualified provider as well as the linking of health and social care are important reforms. There will be an opportunity for further debate when the House returns.

We discussed the issue of fairness at some length yesterday. We are convinced that work must always pay more than benefits, which is at the heart of our welfare reform. We owe it to people who work hard, do the right thing and pay their taxes to make sure that there are some limits on welfare. Some families in Westminster receive £2,000 a week in housing benefit; I think that position is wholly unsustainable.

So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, I have announced a Second Reading on Monday of the Financial Services Bill; the hon. Lady may find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the House for that. On student loans, we have just sat through 40 minutes of an urgent question, and I have nothing to add to what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said.

As to bankers’ bonuses, the hon. Lady keeps on asking who signed off the contract with Mr Lester, but we know who signed off the contract for the bonus for Mr Hester at the Royal Bank of Scotland. There is no doubt that the Labour Government signed off that contract, which entitled him to the bonus. Since then, we have taken steps, which Labour never took, to cap bankers’ bonuses in cash. Last week, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced new reforms to empower shareholders to control future pay.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the EU treaty. Perhaps at some point we could have an answer to the question of whether or not the Leader of the Opposition would have signed the proposed treaty.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

We shall never know the true circumstances behind the murder of Avtar and Carole Kolar by, allegedly, the Lithuanian career criminal Rimvydas Liorancas, but we do know that he entered the United Kingdom without a passport. May we have an urgent debate on the sharing of criminal records data with law enforcement agencies throughout the European economic area, which would prevent such tragedies from ever happening again?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that the House has sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituents who were murdered. As for the Lithuanian, who I think has taken his own life, I understand that police inquiries are continuing, so it is difficult for me to comment specifically on the case. I will, however, raise the general issue of the sharing of information about criminals with the Home Secretary, and will ask her to write to my hon. Friend giving the details and specifying the concordats that have been entered into ensuring that relevant information is shared between countries.

Business of the House

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the House that Members who have not been present from the start should not expect to be called?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate on freedom of speech? Mr Peter Tatchell—a gentleman for whom I have some admiration—has today attacked the Trafford Housing Trust for its despicable decision to downgrade the position and cut the salary of Mr Adrian Smith, a Christian, for posting private comments on his own private Facebook account on the subject of gay marriage. Should we be putting public money into an organisation that is, effectively, propagating state-sponsored intolerance?

[Sir George Young]

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of worship. Of course people should obey the law of the country. I will draw this incident to the attention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, to see whether there is any action to be taken either by him or the Housing Corporation.

Business of the House

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise that subject in Wednesday’s debate on the revenue support grant for local government. Some 80% of bus services outside London are commercially run, and so do not depend on direct funding from councils. There has been no cut in the financial support that we provide for those services, and we have protected the statutory concessionary travel schemes.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate on record-keeping at the UK Border Agency? Hon. Members will be aware that we recently debated the successor to control orders, but we are also routinely told that it is not possible to provide information on how many individuals are using articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights to avoid deportation when they should be removed from this country. Will the Leader of the House have a word with our colleagues in the Home Office to investigate this unsatisfactory situation?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I wonder whether he would be able to get the information about the numbers that he quite rightly seeks by tabling parliamentary questions, but in any event I shall raise the matter with the Home Secretary.

Business of the House

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

We followed the precedent of the previous Government, who, in a similar debate, drew stumps at 5 o’clock.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on propriety in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? My right hon. Friend will know, because three hon. Members, including me and the very experienced right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), have advised him of the matter, that it is alleged that Anne Power, the communications official at IPSA, is touting so-called juicy stories around the Lobby to friendly journalists. That accusation has been made on several occasions. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to speak to the chief executive of IPSA? At the very least, the individual concerned is breaching the Data Protection Act. If true, the position is completely unacceptable and intolerable.

[Sir George Young]

If that activity took place, it is indeed unacceptable. I think that I am right to say that a question was tabled to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on the specific issue, and an answer was provided either yesterday or today, stating that IPSA denies that any such contact took place.