Prime Minister’s Statement
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. While addressing the Democratic Unionist party conference in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no border down the Irish sea, whether customs, regulatory or any other sort. He promised the same thing to his Conservative colleagues during his pursuit of power to become the jungle king. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to formally apologise to the DUP, his Conservative colleagues and the good people of Northern Ireland for having sold them down the river and for having broken yet another promise?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say in all candour and humility that he misrepresents what I think is an excellent deal. It takes Northern Ireland out of the EU customs union and preserves it in the UK’s customs territory. It does not create a border in the Irish sea; it allows us together, as a single United Kingdom, to do free trade deals around the world. I think his constituents would want him to support this deal and get Brexit done tonight and on 31 October.
Debate on the Address
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
I think the Leader of the House might need a bit more space if he is to lie back as he is prone to do.
This is a serious matter. We know that, if Scotland is taken out of the European Union against its will, it will cost us up to 100,000 jobs. We also know, because the Government have told us through the Yellowhammer document, that there is a threat to the supply of food and medicines. And now the chief medical officer for England is telling us that there is a threat to lives. At the end of the day, it is the Government who are responsible for this situation and it is the Prime Minister who has it within his gift to recognise what a calamity a no-deal Brexit would be.
The Prime Minister could stand up in this House today and say that he will respect the rule of law and the Benn Act, and that under no circumstances will we leave the European Union on a no-deal basis at the end of October. To do so would be an act of dignity and an act that respects the rule of law. I will happily give the Prime Minister the opportunity, if he so chooses, to rise now and tell the House that he will respect the law and that he is never, ever above the law. Well, there we are. There is the answer that the House needs. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister might be tying his laces, but he is tying the Conservative party in knots.
It is worth noting that 10 of the Bills introduced by the UK Government during the 2017-19 Session did not complete their passage through Parliament despite the length of the Session, emphasising the chaos at the heart of this Government. In contrast, just last month, the Scottish Government set out their latest programme for government and continue to pass progressive legislation such as the Climate Change Bill, committing Scotland to becoming a net zero society by 2045.
The Government have announced 22 Bills today, but they are not truly proposing the pathway for governance. It is blatant, egotistical electioneering—another toxic Tory agenda, presenting wish lists for a Prime Minister who carries no majority in Parliament. This Government’s top priority is to leave the—[Interruption.] You know, it gets a bit rich for someone who is behaving as if he is a barrack-room lawyer to shout out repeatedly. I tell you what—I look forward to the people of Stirling being able to give their judgment on the behaviour of the hon. Gentleman. That the Government’s top priority is to leave the European Union shows contempt for the majority view of Scotland that we should remain in the European Union. It is about time that those who are temporarily here from Scottish seats representing the Tories recognised that they should be standing up for the people of Scotland, who want to stay in the European Union, not stabbing them in the back.
These legislative proposals will be devastating for Scotland. Despite the rouge and the fanfare around today, the Prime Minister is not really interested in delivering a new legislative programme; he is only interested in showcasing his party’s manifesto—and what a regressive manifesto it is. The Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity to address years of austerity and punishing cuts in social security support. We call it social security, by the way—you lot call it welfare, and that is the difference. The Queen’s Speech completely failed to address the social security disaster the Tories have overseen since 2010. The Scottish National party is clear that universal credit should be radically reformed, and that the disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful—two-child cap on child tax credits, along with the appalling rape clause, must be scrapped immediately. It is astonishing that this Government continue to pursue a policy of inflicting hardship and economic harm on people across the United Kingdom.
The sheer hypocrisy of saying that this Queen’s Speech is heavy on law and order, coming from a Prime Minister who is prepared to break the law: you really couldn’t make it up. The Prime Minister was found by the Supreme Court to have given unlawful advice to the Queen. Then he told the Commons he would not abide by the Benn Act. However, he then gave a sworn promise to the Scottish courts that he would obey the law and issue a letter for extension if no deal is agreed by 19 October. The Prime Minister must deliver that letter but, if not, I give him this promise: he will find himself back in the courts next week and answerable to them.
On Thursday 3 October, the Prime Minister told the Commons that his proposals would not create physical infrastructure on the Irish border, which the Taoiseach then called out, stating simply that United Kingdom proposals would mean infrastructure on the border. Many across the UK will find it hard to stomach a Prime Minister talking about law and order when he himself shows the rule of law absolutely no respect.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In terms of law and order, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative party has lost any shred of reputation with regard to keeping our communities safe? In constituencies like mine, knife crime and violent crime are the highest on record and communities are no longer feeling safe because more than 21,000 police officers, 7,000 police community support officers and 5,000 specials have been cut. That is why we need to get rid of this Conservative Government—does he agree?
Ian Blackford
I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman makes a great deal of sense and he is absolutely correct. The harsh reality is that the Conservative Government have cut police numbers alarmingly over the past seven years. That stands in direct contrast to the performance of my Government—the Scottish Government—who have increased police numbers in Scotland, recognised the challenge that violent crime and knife crime presents, and dealt with that in a progressive manner north of the border.
In the context of everything that we are discussing today, we cannot ignore the behaviour that is exhibited in this place, and in particular the language that is used—language such as “the surrender Bill”, and accusing those of us who wish to stay in the European Union, which our constituents voted for, of being collaborators. The Prime Minister and his cronies talk about freedom of speech, yet they blithely ignore the abuse, online threats and death threats that many Members—[Interruption.] I find it remarkable, when many Members of this House have spoken eloquently of the death threats they have faced, that what we had from the Government Benches was loud guffawing—we lost a Member of this House a few short years ago, and we have that kind of behaviour.
Too many Members of this House are being threatened, and the behaviour that is exhibited in this place is a clarion call to those who wish to send threats to Members of Parliament. I appeal to everyone to think about where we are and the importance of the next few days. All of us—and I mean all of us—have a responsibility to call out misbehaviour whenever it happens, across the House, whichever party it comes from. We have a duty to ensure that we create respectful debate and dialogue, and I commit myself and my party to that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question because this is an issue that my own constituents have raised with me, and I know that many of my hon. Friends have also had this issue raised with them. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House have met people who have taken out loan charges in the expectation that they can reduce their tax exposure. It is a very, very difficult issue and I have undertaken to have a thoroughgoing review of the matter. Of course, I will make sure that my hon. Friend has every opportunity to have further discussions with the Treasury about how to redress the situation and about the gravity of the situation.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster
That is certainly an invite any Wales Office Minister would find hard to refuse; we will try to co-ordinate. It is vital that the mid-Wales growth deal focuses on sectors such as agri-tech, where there is a significant opportunity to introduce transformational economic change. We encourage our partners to work closely with research institutions such as IBERS to put together a compelling case to both Governments.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was meant to say “Question 13”, but he was so overcome with excitement that he neglected to do so. Never mind. We will take it as part of Question 11.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I have to disagree with him. I am clear that we need to take the choice that is right for this country and our citizens who live abroad, many of whom have literally fought for this country and still retain very strong emotional connections to it and an interest in its affairs. That is why the Government’s view is that the 15-year limit is arbitrary and should be removed.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
We are doing more than ever to encourage SMEs in public procurement. Recently published figures show an increase in spend from the previous year. Examples of measures that we have taken include streamlining procurement processes and improving transparency and, from September, we will be able to exclude suppliers that fail to pay subcontractors on time.
Mr Dhesi
Research from the Federation of Small Businesses shows that 25% of businesses that are in supply chains for public infrastructure projects experience late payment more than half the time. Along with the Government lagging dismally behind their target of spending 33% of central Government procurement with SMEs by 2022, is this not yet more evidence that they simply do not represent the interests of small businesses?
Oliver Dowden
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome figures that show we are spending more with small businesses than ever before. On his point about prompt payment, we set a very challenging target of 90% of undisputed invoices from SMEs being paid within five days and we are meeting that for most Departments.
Overseas Electors Bill
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi ExcerptsFriday 22nd March 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 View all Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 March 2019 - (22 Mar 2019)
Philip Davies
No. I would rather eat up the time of the House looking back on whether something is necessary and should be brought back rather than use up its time inventing new laws, which are often unnecessary and make things worse. To be perfectly honest, I think it would be a better use of Parliament’s time if we looked back over these things. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point about the different purposes of sunset clauses; I understand that.
You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that I have gone through the new clauses. However, I still have to cover a number of amendments, although I hope to do that more quickly. My amendment 40 is a reheated version of one from the hon. Member for Nottingham North: to put a deadline of 19 days before an election for an overseas vote registration to take place. In proposing it, the hon. Gentleman said—I agree with his rationale—that it was to allow electoral administrators more time to process applications. He felt that the current timescale for registration deadlines did not work, and his amendment was designed to improve it. He reported concern among those who administer our elections about the issue—particularly about the timetable more widely for postal ballot papers to go out to overseas voters. That is not easy.
The hon. Gentleman went on to make a very good point: if we do not push this amendment through, we would be raising expectations among people who were enthusiastic about their chance to vote, but they would end up being disappointed because, owing to the volume of applications, in the end they would never get the chance. The hon. Gentleman’s argument was very good.
I dread mentioning the EU referendum again, given everything that is going on at the moment, but I understand that in that referendum, and in the 2015 general election, the processing and checking of overseas applications was a big challenge in many places due to the high volume of applications in a very tight timeframe during the lead-up to the vote. If that was the case then, what problems will arise if we extend it massively? There is an issue here. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the deadline should be extended was a sensible way to make sure that, if we do extend it, everyone will get the chance to vote.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely detailed examination of the Bill. In its impact assessment of the Overseas Electors Bill, the Cabinet Office stated that funding was
“planned to be provided by central government to support the additional costs incurred by EROs”.
Given the stretched state of local budgets and austerity, will that financial support cover the £8.8 million expected cost of implementation and the 10 years of running policy from 2020-21?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, for which I thank him. Again, that is why we need detailed scrutiny of these matters in the House.
I do want to press on, Mr Speaker.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point I was trying to make about amendment (h) is this. In the circumstances where the vast majority of those who are campaigning for exactly the same end think that this is not the time for that amendment, is it the case that those who are pushing the amendment genuinely disagree with their co-campaigners, or are they pushing it for another reason?
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the record-breaking defeats suffered by the Government, and their abysmal failure to get a consensus, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that amendment (e), tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendment (i) tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), merely provide a vehicle to arrive at consensus? Given that the Government have failed, surely that is the only way in which we can move forward.
Keir Starmer
I agree with that. In the end, stripping away all the amendments, the simple proposition is whether we can vote to extend article 50 today and then, between us, come up with a vehicle or model to help us to break the impasse. That is why we crafted our amendment. We have been clear that we support a close economic relationship, and we also support a public vote. We have offered, as of yesterday, to talk to people across the House to discuss those approaches. That will take time—it is not a silver bullet—but it is the responsible thing to do. It is the way out of the mess that the Government have made. The Government should listen, even at this late stage, and facilitate that process. I urge the House to support our amendment tonight.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
No.
We should not indulge the amendment from the Leader of the Opposition. First he wanted a comprehensive customs union, then it was a new customs union and now it is a permanent customs union. Last week, I asked him whether he means accepting the common external tariff, accepting the common commercial policy, accepting the Union customs code, or accepting EU state aid rules: he had no answers then; he has no answers now; he hasn’t got a clue. He is still facing both ways on whether Labour would keep freedom of movement, and last night he whipped his MPs to oppose the Bill that would end free movement and introduce a skills-based system. And he is still facing both ways on a second referendum: his amendment calls for legislation for a public vote, but we still do not know whether he would use it or what the question would be.
I know that many Labour voters and MPs, and others in the Labour movement, are frustrated by the Leader of the Opposition’s approach. It is surely time for him to step up to the responsibility of being Leader of the Opposition and finally sit down with me and talk about how we can secure support in this House for a deal. As I said last week, he has been willing to sit down with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA without preconditions; it is time he did something in our national interest, not against it.
The Prime Minister
No, I am going to make some progress.
None of the amendments I have addressed so far will ensure that we deliver Brexit. Instead, they simply provide more arguments against action and more reasons to stand still. Rather than setting out a plan to make Brexit work, they create further delay. And delay without a plan is not a solution; it is a road to nowhere.
The Prime Minister
No. I have said to the hon. Lady that I am going to make progress.
I am not prepared to stand still and put at risk either the Brexit that the people of this country voted for or the economic success they have worked so hard to secure. After this House gave its verdict on the withdrawal agreement, I stood at this Dispatch Box and pledged to work with the House to determine what steps to take next, and in the two weeks since, I have done just that. [Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers say that I have not done that. Actually, the only people I have not been able to talk to about this are the Labour party’s Front Benchers, because they decided not to come.
I have listened to the House, met MPs from all parties and spoken with and listened to Members of the European Parliament, Heads of the devolved Administrations, senior trade unionists and the leaders of Britain’s biggest businesses. From those conversations, it is obvious that three key changes are needed.
First, we must be more flexible, open and inclusive in how we engage this House in our approach to negotiating our future partnership with the European Union. Secondly, we must and will embed the strongest possible protections for workers’ rights and the environment. The Government will not allow the UK leaving the EU to result in any lowering of standards in relation to employment, environmental protection or health and safety. Furthermore, we will ensure that, after exit day, the House has the opportunity to consider any measure approved by EU institutions that strengthens any of those protections. As I have set out before, we will consider legislation where necessary to ensure that those commitments are binding. To that end, in the coming days, we will have further talks with the trade unions and MPs across the House to flesh out exactly how we can ensure that their concerns on those fronts are met. My message to Britain’s workers, in factories, offices, warehouses and right across our country, is that you can rest assured that the Government will deliver for you.
Mr Dhesi
A clear and concise message needs to be given to the EU and to our nation. The Prime Minister does not want no deal, business in Slough and in the rest of the country do not want no deal, and the unions, which she has just mentioned, do not want no deal, so what is the problem in putting that down in black and white?
The Prime Minister
In order to deliver what the hon. Gentleman wants and ensure that we do not leave with no deal, we need to agree a deal. What we are doing today is looking at a series of amendments. I will come on shortly to an amendment that actually sets out a clear view from this House that we can take to the European Union and work to ensure that we can leave with a deal.
The third point that has become clear from discussions is that we must address the concerns of this House over the nature of the Northern Ireland backstop. The fundamental concern is that what is supposed to be a temporary arrangement could in fact become permanent. The message has been unequivocal: this House wants changes to the backstop before it will back a deal.
Mr Dhesi
I can see that I am very well liked here. Does my right hon. Friend agree that clear, close and collaborative describes the relationship proposed by his amendment? That is why we need a customs union. The unions, Labour members and others are telling us that we need a customs union with our neighbours.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and, of course, he is right. If we are to protect jobs and industries and maintain living standards, there has to be a customs union.
No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
Who has confidence in this Government’s ability to negotiate a future trade deal with the EU by December 2020 after the shambles that we have all witnessed over the past two years? This Frankenstein deal is now officially dead, and the Prime Minister is trying to blame absolutely everybody else.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In modern British history, when faced with a defeat even a fraction of the size of the titanic and calamitous margin that the Prime Minister faced yesterday, Prime Ministers have done the right and honourable thing and have resigned and called a general election. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister, in the pursuit of power and the trappings of office, has now forgotten what is right and honourable?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I made clear, all the precedents are that when a Government experiences a defeat like last night’s, it is time to resign and allow the people to elect a new Parliament to deal with the issues facing the country.
Let me be clear that the blame for this mess lies firmly at the feet of the Prime Minister and her Government, who have time after time made hollow demands and given what turned out to be false promises. They say that they want this Parliament to be sovereign. Yet when their plans have come up against scrutiny, they have done all they can to obstruct and evade. The Prime Minister’s original plan was to push through a deal without the appropriate approval of this Parliament, only to be forced into holding a meaningful vote by the courts and by Members of this House, to whom I pay tribute for ensuring that we actually had the meaningful vote last night.
The Prime Minister
What I am doing is setting out what the British people voted for in the referendum in 2016, and it is our duty as a Parliament to deliver on that.
The Prime Minister
Again, I will just make a little progress.
I know that to serve in government is a unique privilege. The people of this country put their trust in you and, in return, you have the opportunity to make this country a better place for them.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend refers to the fact that, obviously, there were various reasons why people voted to leave the European Union, but when they were doing so they did vote to ensure that we continue to have a good trading relationship with our nearest neighbours in the European Union and also to improve our trading relationships with others around the world. That is what we were searching for and that is what was in the political declaration for the future. That package was not voted through this House last night. I now will talk to parliamentarians across the House to determine where we can secure the support of the House.
Although delivering Brexit is an important and key element of government, it is also important that we build on the progress made since 2010 and lead this country towards the brighter, fairer, more prosperous future that it deserves.
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress before I take any further interventions.
I believe that this Government have a record to be proud of—a record that demonstrates that our policies and principles are more than words. In 2010, we inherited the gravest of economic situations: a recession in which almost three quarters of a million jobs were lost; a budget deficit of £1 borrowed for every £4 spent; and a welfare system that did not reward work. But in the nine years since, thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the British people, we have turned this country around. Our economy is growing; the deficit is down by four fifths; the national debt has begun its first sustained fall for a generation; and the financial burden left for our children and grandchildren is shrinking by the day. That is a record to be proud of.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Prime Minister for allowing me to intervene. Under her leadership, this Government have become the first in British history to be found in contempt of Parliament and the first in British history to lose by more than 200 votes on a primary policy matter. Homelessness has spiralled out of control; the use of food banks has risen exponentially, and much more besides. Surely it is now time to act with humility and to do the right and honourable thing: resign and call a general election.
The Prime Minister
May I say again that the whole point of this debate today is to determine whether this House has confidence in the Government or thinks that there should be a general election?
I say that our record is one that we should be proud of, but I know that that is not enough. A strong economy alone is no good, unless we use it to build a fairer society: one where, whoever you are, wherever you live, and at every stage of your life, you know that the Government are on your side; where growing up you will get the best possible education, not because your parents can afford to pay for it but because that is what every local school provides; where your parents have a secure job that pays a decent wage and where they get to keep more of the money they earn each month; where, when you finish school, you know that you can go to university, whether or not your parents went, or you can have an apprenticeship; where, when you want to buy your first home, enough houses are being built so that you can afford to get a foot on the housing ladder; where, when you want to get married, it does not matter whether you fall in love with someone of the same sex or opposite; where, when you have children of your own, you will be able to rely on our world-class NHS; where both parents can share their leave to look after their baby and where, when they are ready to go back to work, the Government will help with the costs of childcare; and where, when you have worked hard all your life, you will get a good pension and security and dignity in your old age. That is what this Government are delivering.
Televised Election Debates
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 228572 relating to an independent commission on televised election debates.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I start by thanking the petitioner, Jonathan Levy from Sky News, who began this petition as part of the Sky News “Make Debates Happen” campaign, and also the more than 130,000 members of the public who have signed the petition since September 2018, which has led to this debate today. The e-petition states:
“Genuine leaders’ debates took place in 2010, but in the next two elections didn’t happen.”
It calls for the electoral laws to be amended to make it mandatory for party leaders to take part in televised debates, and also proposes establishing an independent debates commission to set the rules and format of such debates, which the petition states
“would take decision making out of the politicians and broadcasters’ hands and ensure TV debates become a regular fixture of UK elections.”
It is worth noting that the Sky News “Make Debates Happen” campaign has received a fair amount of cross-party support from some prominent Members of the House, and I want to acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has been carrying out on his private Member’s Bill, which will be shortly coming before the House, to make general election leaders’ debates take place. I am sure we all look forward to hearing his contribution to this debate in due course.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I whole-heartedly commend Sky News and others for their initiative for an independent commission on televised election debates. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be an independent commission rather than this being left to the Prime Minister of the day’s political whims as to what is in their best interest, and that maybe we should also have deputy leaders’ debates within that framework?
Steve Double
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I will develop later. If we are to have regular leaders’ debates and formalise that process, it is absolutely right that that be managed by an independent commission—as he rightly says—to take it out of the hands of politicians and ensure that it is carried out in an orderly and fair manner. On extending this to deputy leaders, I am not sure I would go that far, but I believe that the deputy leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party is indeed keen for such a debate to take place.
We are here today to debate having debates, and I believe that this petition is very timely in its coming to the House, because there is no doubt that the nature of politics in this country has changed considerably in recent times. The growth of the 24-hour news cycle and the development of social media mean that what the public have come to expect of their political leaders has changed. We now generally expect our leaders to be much more visible and accessible than they were in previous generations. I believe that it is in this context that the matter of holding leaders’ debates must find its place.
Only last month we saw what can happen, when a debate was proposed between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the EU withdrawal vote. After various to-ings and fro-ings, it proved very difficult to find agreement on that debate and it ended up not happening. I am not sure that what we saw take place last month reflected very well on our democratic process.
It is also interesting and worth noting that the petition had at that time reached around 60,000 signatures, and the number of signatures it was attracting had really slowed up. After that debate was proposed and then failed to take place, there was a sudden surge of signatures that pushed the petition well over the 100,000 mark very quickly. That shows the interest among the public in televised leaders’ debates, but also perhaps demonstrates the frustration that many people felt—the to-ing and fro-ing and horse-trading that went on at that time did not materialise into a debate taking place. There is clear evidence of an appetite among a large part of the public to see our political leaders debate on TV.
Mr Bone
Under my Bill, there would have to be a minimum of three debates—two head to head between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and one with all party leaders. That is the minimum, but if the commission thought it was right to have more debates, it could have them. I want a minimum number of compulsory, not optional, debates—the leaders would have to turn up.
The make-up of the commission is where I move slightly away from Sky News’s suggestion. One commission member should be nominated by the Prime Minister and one by the Leader of the Opposition, two by broadcasters and three by the Speaker of the House of Commons, one of whom would be the chairman. The commission would serve for the whole Parliament, and a new commission would be set up depending on the election results. That is slightly different, but it would be funded entirely by the broadcasters. The object would be to have as much coverage as possible, and it would help to inform the debate.
We have a very good Minister and I know she will take our remarks on board. This is an opportunity for the Government to do something now that will benefit democracy when the general election comes around. The Prime Minister has said that she will not lead the Conservative party into the next general election. It is a great opportunity, as part of her legacy, to do this. I hope it will not be dismissed out of hand.
One of the great advantages of this debate is that on Second Reading in March, even if we have only limited time, I can point to this debate and say, “This is what Members said.” One reason I have not published the Bill yet is because I wanted to hear what Members said today, so that that could be incorporated into the Bill. I entirely take on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay about the two polling dates—the postal vote deadline and polling day. It is absolutely right that the leaders’ debate between all party leaders should be before the postal vote date, and at least one of the head-to-heads should be before the postal voting date. I will incorporate that into my draft Bill.
I hope Members here will find the time to serve on the Bill Committee when we move forward, so that all the details can be worked out. I hope this Minister will be on the Bill Committee, so we can get an Act of Parliament. Some people say I am being hopeful, but in this Parliament I have already managed to make one of my private Member’s Bills an Act of Parliament. As it happens, I have another on drone regulation, which seems to have some relevance. Through private Members’ Bills we can get what the electorate want.
Mr Dhesi
I agree that the proposal is entirely sensible and inevitable, but surely the fear is that the Government may kick the petition and the campaign into the long grass. Electoral laws are widely accepted as outdated, and in February 2016 the Law Commission published an interim report calling for current laws governing elections to be rationalised into a single consistent legislative framework governing all elections. Three years later, the Government have yet to respond, so what chance does the hon. Gentleman’s Bill have of seeing the light of day?
Mr Bone
I will park other electoral reform, but the public want this particular reform; the broadcasters want it, I argue most MPs want it and it is an opportunity for the Government to do the right thing. We need a bit of good will at the moment, so it would be a nice thing to do.
I thank Members who will come to support my Bill and those who will oppose it.