All 3 Debates between Andrew Percy and Nick Clegg

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Debate between Andrew Percy and Nick Clegg
Tuesday 17th May 2011

(12 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I spoke to the First Minister earlier today and explained to him in considerable detail what we are proposing, and we are both agreed that we will continue those discussions in the near future.

Andrew Percy Portrait Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I broadly welcome the proposals to elect our second Chamber and I shall certainly be supporting them. We have had some assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister on the incredibly long term in office of 15 years. Two weeks ago, the people of Brigg and Goole on the same day kicked out their Labour council and replaced it with a Conservative council, and voted by a margin of about 70% to reject a change in the electoral system. Is the electoral system also up for discussion along with the multi-Member constituencies? Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least listen to us on that?

Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I said, in the draft Bill we have proposed one system—the single transferable vote—primarily because it seems to be the system that gives the fullest individual mandate to elected Members rather than casting them in a party political light. It is the individual independence of spirit in the other place that everyone agrees should be preserved, but there are alternatives. In the White Paper—I know that Opposition Members feel particularly strongly about this—there is the alternative of a party list system, which we have said is available to us, as explained in the White Paper. If that is where the debate takes us, we are very open to those alternatives.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Andrew Percy and Nick Clegg
Tuesday 18th January 2011

(13 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman has read the provisions of the Bill correctly, and I think that his point was confirmed by the Minister on Report. On the point about the coincidence of elections, Northern Ireland Office Ministers are conducting separate discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, where the issues are slightly different. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome of those ongoing discussions. We will of course endeavour to keep colleagues on the Opposition Benches informed.

Andrew Percy Portrait Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend is entirely right that the judgment about how long a Parliament should last is not an exact science. During the debates in Committee, I opted for four years because I felt that that was more appropriate. It would avoid the clashes and mean that we would engage regularly with our electorate, which we should all be doing. It would be important in helping to keep us all in touch with our constituents. Would he say more on the thinking behind the decision to have five years rather than four?

Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I said before, that is the existing maximum and has been for a very long time. It has recently become the norm, as five of the past nine Parliaments stretched to five years, including the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman might disagree, but I hope that he will at least accept the legitimacy of the argument that a four-year Parliament, politics being what it is, would naturally incline parties in power to look towards the next election well ahead of that four-year deadline and that government would be arrested and suspended as the party in power positioned itself months or sometimes a year or so before an impending general election, which would curtail considerably the time in which Governments can do difficult and brave things. Five years, however, is clearly a period during which Governments can take difficult and bold decisions that from time to time, as we very well know now, are necessary.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Debate between Andrew Percy and Nick Clegg
Monday 5th July 2010

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I accept, of course, that we must all make efforts—as individual Members and, as I said earlier, in co-operation with local authorities—to encourage people to register to vote if they are not already registered. However, I cannot escape the fact that we are having to operate with tools which we inherited from the last Government, and which allowed the wholly unacceptable circumstances in which 3.5 million people are not on the electoral register to occur in the first place. We will do whatever we can in trying to remedy that, but I ask the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members what on earth they were doing for 13 years if they feel so strongly about the problem now.

Andrew Percy Portrait Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
- Hansard - -

If we move forward on House of Lords reform to an elected House, which I would support, will we then subject the poor voters of Brigg and Goole and other constituencies to a referendum on the electoral system for that House too?

Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In the Bill that we will publish before the end of the year, we will also propose the electoral system by which Members of the other place would be elected.