Royal Charter on Press Conduct
Charles Walker Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
This House is at its best when there is an element of tension in the debate, and I am concerned that there is not that tension today.
We have a pretty revolting press in this country; I realised that from about the age of 18 onwards. It is pretty unpleasant, to be perfectly honest; there is not much merit in much of its coverage. However, I am concerned that so many speakers are saying that we must have a free press, must respect that free press, and must enshrine the freedom of the press in some form or in some law, because I thought that a free press was simply part of the deal of living in this democracy. I also worry when we say that we are not enshrining these new laws in statute. We have amendments on the Order Paper and we talk about having to pass this into law both in this House and in the House of Lords. To me, that feels very much like statutory regulation and legislation.
I have the greatest sympathy for all the people who were turned over by the press. Although it is unfashionable to say so, I also have a great deal of sympathy for many of our former colleagues who were turned over the press; I think that many of them were very good men and women. The truth is that more than 50 journalists have been arrested and face a date in court.
The police seem to be getting their act together. They are rooting out the bad practice whereby police officers sell stories or are in the pockets of the media. We are getting to grips with that issue. Another part of the problem we are facing up to is that the leaders of the main political parties have been far too cosy with the media for far too long. We cannot separate those relationships from what is happening here today. As a political class, we have failed as well.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I understand why my hon. Friend is unhappy, but does he take any comfort from the fact that we have been able to argue that it is right to take the route of the royal charter, which was once a minority view, as opposed to other forms of regulation?
Mr Walker
I note my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I remain concerned about the royal charter. Even changing the royal charter requires the changes to be laid before both Houses and to secure a resolution by two thirds in both Houses. We do not do things by two thirds in this place; we do things by 50% plus one.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The two-thirds thing is obviously nonsense, because this House cannot bind its successors and a future Parliament can simply delete it.
Mr Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that the two-thirds provision is nonsense. It first appeared in this House as part of the fixed-term Parliament legislation. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
I have probably gone on for far too long. Many better speeches than mine will be made today, and already have been. All I would say is that we have to strike a note of caution. I am not sure that today is the wonderful day that everyone is portraying it to be; in fact, I think it is a very sad day. I hope that we do not live to regret this at some stage in the future.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Charles Walker Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
I am pleased to engage in that debate. I will come to it when I address the amendments tabled by the Opposition. At this early stage, I should say that in essence it is a question of the assurance provided to external partners as well as the operation of the courts themselves. I hear the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I hope he accepts that the proposal for an annual review or, in effect, an annual sunset clause in the first instance and then an annual renewal thereafter, does not leave a great deal of time for litigation, which is likely to span several years because of its nature and complexity. I am sure that we will hear more from the Opposition about why they have sought to advance this time period over anything else. There is a principle at stake as regards the assurance that we are seeking to provide through this mechanism. We have gone for the option of five-yearly reporting, with a proper examination of the operation of the Bill, to enable Parliament to be properly informed. It will then be for Parliament to consider what further steps may or may not be appropriate at that point.
We would expect such a review to take into account the views of special advocates, among others. We want to ensure that it will involve a proper examination of the operation of CMPs to consider efficiency, trends and types of cases, analysing the numbers provided in the annual reports to reflect on how CMPs are being used.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
How many CMPs does my hon. Friend anticipate there being in any one year?
James Brokenshire
Our latest estimate in October was that about 20 cases would fall within the scope of these proceedings, and the regulatory impact assessment indicates up to 15 cases annually. The point is to ensure that there is annual reporting of the forthcoming CMP applications and judgments so that Parliament is regularly updated. We will get a better sense of the situation on an annual basis than if we went for quarterly reporting. That would be too short a period given the nature of litigation and the length of time that these cases are likely to take to go through the courts.
Let me deal with the Opposition new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).
Mr Charles Walker
In addressing the new clauses, the Minister said it was important to maintain confidence in our legal system—not only for us to do so, but for our many thousands of constituents to do so. That is why it is so important constantly to review the impact of closed material proceedings. The Minister gave a figure of 15 or more cases a year going through this process, which is not an inconsequential number. Since entering this place, I have seen changes to our legal system that have worried me, such as the introduction of double jeopardy, and the fact that we now seem happy to imprison people for 20 years and when we discover that they did not commit the crime for which they were imprisoned we do not think that they should have much compensation, if any. We are now going down the route of secret courts, so reviewing the impact and consequences of secret proceedings is enormously important, because many thousands of my constituents and many millions of people across the length and breadth of this country are made very nervous by this change, coming on top of other changes. What happens in other EU countries that have proceedings similar to closed material proceedings? What happens in other liberal western democracies?
I conclude my comments by saying that over the weekend a number of Conservative colleagues whom I respect and admire immensely were talking about the UK leaving the European Court of Human Rights. I would support that, but I smile when I find that on the Monday we are talking about bringing in secret courts, as the two things do not make comfortable bedfellows. Thank you very much for allowing me a brief moment on my feet, Mr Speaker.
James Brokenshire
We have had an interesting debate on these new clauses. I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) described the Bill as complex, controversial and important and asked whether I would accept his analysis. I agree that it is complex, inasmuch as we are dealing with the need for closed material proceedings and the nature of sensitive material. It is controversial and it is clearly very important, as it relates to the assurances we are seeking to give to overseas partners and, obviously, to the nature of justice itself, which was very much a feature of the preceding debate. In the context of his description, I certainly recognise the need for an assurance to this House and to the public about how the powers and provisions in the Bill will be used in practice, as well as on the points that have been made about that.
In essence, that question was at the heart of our debate in Committee about the utility, effectiveness and proportionality of the use of closed material proceedings and the frequency of their use, which, in many ways, touches on the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We have given an indication of how many cases are expected per year, but clearly the reporting mechanism we envisage is intended to provide a sense of how many times the provisions will be used in that way.
I shall focus on a number of points raised during the debate and characterise some of the themes that emerged. The first is the question of whether there should be a formal renewal process. The Opposition have sought to interpose an annual renewal through new clause 4, but even if we accept the principle, that is simply too short a time period for the reasons given by many right hon. and hon. Members. The House would not be able to assess the effectiveness and operation of the provisions, given that we are talking about cases that are likely to run for an extended period of time.
When we considered the timing and effectiveness of a renewal provision, going back as far as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, we looked back at what happened under control orders, which is perhaps the closest parallel to an annual renewal debate on which we can draw. I recall the annual debates on control orders and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will agree that some of them were sub-optimal, to say the least. In many respects, they became—[Interruption.] They were not, perhaps, the kind of fully formed debate that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is seeking through new clause 4, because, in essence, they became a cursory discussion at the time for the annual renewal of the provision. The debates were often short, were not necessarily well attended and did not necessarily apply the level of scrutiny that he is looking for. It is difficult to see, if he is talking about a renewal 12 months after Royal Assent, what information would be available to inform consideration properly of whether the legislation was effective. If we put aside the detail of the principle, there is a clear issue with the timing.
Mr Charles Walker
I am sure I am pre-empting matters and that my hon. Friend was going to come on to this later in his speech. I asked what happens in other western European countries when it comes to reviewing closed court proceedings. Can he tell me what other European countries do on such matters?
James Brokenshire
It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend’s question. Parallels are difficult to draw in this respect. I can think of one European jurisdiction that is seeking to examine the appointment of an independent reviewer of its own terrorism legislation. We are unusual in having an individual who does such work. People are reflecting on the input from David Anderson, the current reviewer, and his predecessor, Lord Carlile, shining a light and having access to sensitive materials better to inform the debate on sensitive issues relating to terrorist legislation.
I am not seeking to avoid my hon. Friend’s question. It is genuinely difficult to draw parallels with the type of court processes and the review structure that we have in this country, and to say that another country deals with the issue by having an x year review or some sort of renewal system or independent reviewer. It is hard to make such an analysis, because countries and their systems are so different.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about the provision of information and the need for a database. On closed proceedings and closed judgments, there is a database which is held and managed by the Home Office and will be updated three times a year in relation to closed judgments, to ensure that special advocates are able to look at summaries of legal principles in particularly sensitive judgments. Those will be added on a less routine basis to reduce the risk of the summary being linked to a particular case, because of the sensitivity of some of the details. It is intended that summaries of all future closed judgments will be entered into the database to inform debates and discussions and the work of the special advocates.
Part of the debate has been on the principle of whether there should be an annual sunset or renewal—whatever language we choose—or whether the system should be on a five-year basis, which I know that others have suggested as an alternative, although that option is not before the House tonight. The choice that the House has is whether to accept the Government’s new clauses on the provision of information and the review, which I hope it will, recognising that this is an addition that seeks to improve the Bill and the scrutiny and analysis that it provides.
Ultimately, if we were to introduce some form of renewal, we would have to face up to the message that that gives to some of our external partners on the control principle and the sharing of intelligence, given that one of the principles behind the changes being introduced is to give assurance to our external partners, recognising the point that David Anderson and others have made that, in essence, our relationship with a number of external partners has been affected by some cases. If we were to provide an annual renewal, it would materially impact on that. Equally, if we were to provide a further formal five-year renewal in the Bill, our judgment is that that would not provide the assurance to our external partners that is anticipated for our intelligence relationships.
Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ‘, for’ in line 10 and insert—
‘(1) In section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (qualification for jury service)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (c) (but not the “and” after it),
(b) omit subsection (2), and
(c) in subsection (3), for “Part 2 of the Schedule” substitute “Schedule 1”.
(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (the title to which becomes “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”, with the title to Part 1 becoming “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and the title to Part 2 becoming “Other Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”)’.
My amendment would make a minor technical change to the amendments the Bill makes to the Juries Act 1974. It would remove the term “mentally disordered persons” from section 1 of the Act and tidy up the cross-referencing between section 1 and the list of those disqualified for jury service in schedule 1. The amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).
Specifically, the references to “Mentally disordered persons” in section 1 of the 1974 Act will be removed and further provisions made in section 1 consequential to that. That will leave the section so worded as to provide that those persons listed in schedule 1 to the 1974 Act will be disqualified from jury service. The title of schedule 1 to that Act will be amended to read “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”. The headings to parts I and II of schedule 1 are amended accordingly, from “Mentally disordered persons” to “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and from “Persons disqualified” to “Other persons disqualified for jury service” respectively. The substantive change that the Bill makes to the 1974 Act, which is to remove the disqualification on service as a juror from those who voluntarily receive treatment in the community for a mental health disorder, remains the same.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I support the amendment. It will not change the Bill’s original wording to a great extent, but the language implications are very important. We must ensure that we deal with people who suffer from mental illness without the stigma of titles, so this small amendment is important. Clause 2 is also very important. Since we started discussing the Bill, I have received numerous e-mails and correspondence about it. A solicitor wrote to me to say that although she practises in court every day, she cannot be a juror because she is currently undergoing treatment for a mental health condition. The amendment would make a small change to the language, but I think it is important for the wider debate and for the wider implications of the Bill to ensure that we end discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness.
Mr Charles Walker
I just want to express a few thanks. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for piloting the Bill so expertly through Parliament. What a fantastic job he has done! I thank Rowena Daw of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who has been a fantastic supporter of the Bill. I thank the officials. I suspect that there has been a true Horatio among them who has worked very hard to bring the Bill to fruition. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his sterling support from the Opposition Benches. He, too, has been a true hero.
This is great occasion for Parliament and I am glad to have had a small walk-on part in it.
Charitable Registration
Charles Walker Excerpts(11 years, 6 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
Fiona Bruce
Yes. Professor Rivers says that the law on the registration of religious charities
“is not completely clear and coherent… careful legal analysis and authoritative restatement would be helpful.”
One area of concern and confusion that he highlights is what we mean by the phrase “a section of the public” in relation to religious charities. If an organisation is to pass the test for charitable registration, a section of the public must benefit, but are not members of a denomination—the Methodists, for example—also members of the public? It has been suggested that the Charity Commission is trying to turn the question on its head by thinking of a class as restricted and therefore not consisting of members of the public, rather than as public because it is, on the face of it, open to all. The issue sounds complicated, but it is very important in the Plymouth Brethren case, in which it is clear that openness is a crucial factor in the Charity Commission’s thinking.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is it not the role of Parliament to protect the rights of minorities?
Fiona Bruce
Yes, and to ensure that when they need access to justice, they can get it expeditiously and inexpensively.
The net result of the Charity Commission’s decision is that the Plymouth Brethren have had to go to enormous lengths to demonstrate the public benefit of their organisation and charitable activities by shouting about them in a way that they would not ordinarily have done.
Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who gave a simply fantastic speech.
I have spoken frequently about mental health over the last six years, often supported by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It will not come as a surprise to you, Mr Speaker, to learn that I have very little left to say on the subject. I would say, however, that I am simply delighted at what is happening today. We serve in a simply fantastic Parliament. We have fabulous colleagues here and they are doing great things in the area of mental health. Today’s Bill will provide so much hope and reassurance to many millions of people out there. They may not be watching the Chamber—I imagine only 3 million or 4 million are watching this morning’s debate—but over time we will change the view that people have of mental health problems.
On the other side of the Chamber, I see the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who, with me, in June admitted to his own mental health problems. I do not think he was prepared—I certainly was not—for the tsunami of interest that that created. The media were calling us almost hourly, asking for interviews and asking us to comment on what we had said. What was totally overwhelming was sitting in a studio waiting to be interviewed and having the people doing the make-up say, “My husband”—or, “My son,” or, “My father,”—“suffers from mental health problems. Thank you.” Then we would go through to the next level and meet the producer, who would quietly say, “I’ve suffered from mental health problems for a number of years. Thank you for giving me a voice.” Then there would be the woman or the gentleman doing the interview, who would say, “My child has mental health problems. Thank you for giving him”—or her—“a voice.”
For years we felt that the media were not on our page. I think, in fact, the media were on our page, but did not know what to do because, mistakenly, they felt that the public were frightened about people with mental health problems. The media played up to that fear in the headlines, everybody nervously laughing along to the ridicule that was directed towards people suffering with an illness. I think the press now realise that many of their readers and viewers were made deeply uncomfortable by that approach, and that for the last 20 years they got it wrong. What we are seeing is a sea change in the reporting of mental health problems. There is still some distance to go, but things are improving, and they are improving quickly.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is doing today and what he is going to do over the next few months will probably be his most important achievement in political life. He will find it difficult to make more of a difference than he is going to make over the course of this year and the beginning of next. I am sure he will go on to hold great office—no doubt he will be a Secretary of State and perhaps go beyond—but what he is now doing is so important that it is unlikely that he will ever be able to top it.
I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Chamber today, because they are at the forefront of changing views and changing minds. They are to be celebrated, both in this House and in their constituencies. The two hon. Friends on either side of me today—my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Bracknell (Dr Lee)—spoke movingly and openly about their experiences, and when they did so, they had been in this House for little more than two years. I would not have had the bravery to do that after two years in this House, so I say this to them. I salute you for your honesty and integrity. No doubt your constituents recognise what you did that day in June.
I am going on a little and I did not want to go on too much, so I shall bring my few words to an end. I would like first, however, to pay tribute to Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. I have known him for about two and a half years now, and his energy, enthusiasm and dynamism are incredible. Indeed, I think I do my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central no disservice by saying that if it were not for Lord Stevenson’s enthusiasm for this Bill and his sheer determination, I doubt we would be here today. I would also like to thank—without naming them—the many civil servants who have promoted the Bill in their Departments. They, too, are to be lauded for their contribution.
That is really all I have to say. There are other discriminations out there that people with mental health problems continue to face—for example, a lack of advocacy when they are in crisis. That needs to be addressed. How we look after people in detention and the rights we give people in detention also need to be looked at. Then there are Criminal Records Bureau disclosures, where, under the question: “Is there any other relevant information?”, chief constables will too often write, “We are aware that this individual was detained under the Mental Health Act, but we don’t know whether they are a danger to children or adults. We don’t believe that they are.” All too often that is damning to the individual, so we need to look at that, too.
In the main, however, today is a day of celebration. It is a great day, and I am just so pleased to serve in such a wonderful national Parliament. We are rightly proud—and have the right to be proud—of what we are doing today. It is fabulous to be here. It is possibly the greatest day of my life. My wife and my three children may take exception to that, but it is certainly one of the greatest days of my life. Finally, I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. You are doing a fabulous thing. Thank you so much for taking this Bill forward.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important point. She is entirely right. It is a question not just of removing legislative barriers, but of encouraging a change in culture. Owing to a lack of understanding, frankly, far too many businesses and organisations still display that outdated and unfortunate response to those with mental health conditions.
Mr Charles Walker
Good practice needs to be recognised, and I am pleased to report that next week Legal and General is hosting a major conference in the City about mental health and tackling stigma. I believe that the company should be congratulated for doing that, particularly in the City, where there is a sort of macho culture in which people deny any weakness in case their colleagues think the worse of them.
Mr Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The equation of mental health problems with weakness is something we must destroy utterly. We all know about that culture in the City, and it exists elsewhere. Organisations such as Legal and General and Swindon’s Mindful Employer network, an excellent organisation that brings together companies large and small in my constituency to encourage and share best practice with regard to employees with stress or mental health and other related conditions, can demonstrate the way to go when it comes to dealing with these conditions.
Mr Buckland
My hon. Friend brings a great hero of mine to our attention: Field Marshal the Viscount Slim, leader of the forgotten army, a man who led an outstandingly courageous operation in the far east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that huge experience to bear in this debate, which allows me to make an important point. We must be very careful when we use words such as “vulnerable”, because many people I know who have mental health conditions—I am sure other Members of the House know such people—would not like to be described as vulnerable. Often they are very tough people indeed who have gone through the toughest of circumstances.
I make that point because a good-natured and well-intentioned approach that describes people with mental health conditions as vulnerable brings with it a danger that the vulnerability becomes the basis by which, rather than encouraging and enabling such people to engage fully in society and public life, we assume that they need to be looked after in a different way and separated from mainstream society. Such a view is only a short step away from the old thinking about institutionalisation—the thinking of previous generations, which did so much harm and damage to people with mental health conditions. Although it is undeniable that people with disabilities or mental health conditions can find themselves in vulnerable situations, that is very different from making glib assumptions about their vulnerability.
The Bill would be a straightforward and simple piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, it would also reduce and repeal legislation—something that I, as a Conservative, am always happy to support. In three particular respects it deals with provisions that are not only discriminatory, but wholly superfluous. The provision relating to Members of Parliament, as has already been noted, is not only dangerous, with the additional vice of potentially driving hon. Members to deny mental health problems, but in the light of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows for a person lacking capacity to be detained without losing their seat, section 141 is utterly redundant. On the principle that redundant legislation is bad law, we as legislators should act swiftly to remove such a provision.
It has been reported today that people with stressful jobs in which the ability to control events is limited—I most definitely include being a Member of Parliament in that category—are at a 23% greater risk of having a heart attack. We really would be idiots in this place if we denied the possibility that the mental health of hon. Members is not invulnerable. In my opinion the 2005 Act caters well for cases in which, sadly, detention for mental health reasons is the only alternative available but, importantly, it does not allow the automatic vacation of a seat because of the fact of a mental health condition. That is the important distinction that we must draw between the mere fact of a condition and the question of capacity. The two things are very different.
As you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had more than my fair share of experience of dealing with the great British jury, to quote the words of W. S. Gilbert, whether I have been sitting as a Crown court recorder or appearing as counsel in criminal cases. I say with all the experience that I can muster that the court system is perfectly capable of catering for and dealing with people with conditions—sometimes lifelong ones—that can be managed by the administration of medication.
When somebody with diabetes, or another type of physical condition managed by regular medication, comes to the court, the well adopted practice is for sittings and administrative arrangements to be adjusted so that the person’s needs can be accommodated, they can take their medication and can serve as a juror. In other words, no assumption is made that, just because a potential juror has a physical condition or disability, they cannot serve as a juror.
The assumption in the Juries Act 1974 about mental health is wholly wrong. The blanket ban serves not only to reinforce stigma, but devalues the contribution that people with mental health conditions make to society and can make as jurors. In my humble opinion, there is no more important public service for an individual than to serve on a jury in judgment over their fellow citizen. To drive underground necessary disclosure of some mental health conditions that could affect the capacity to serve is, in my view, what is happening now—inevitably, as result of the outdated provisions in the 1974 Act. That is why those provisions must go and why I particularly welcome the Bill.
Mr Charles Walker
May I take my hon. Friend back to his earlier comment that on occasions he felt a victim of events in this place? Today, with this excellent speech, as on so many other days, he is driving events and is to congratulated for it.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a friend indeed.
I turn to the final provision, which relates to company directors. The proposed removal of the provisions in the schedules to the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 has the function of removing not only discriminatory provisions but unnecessary ones. Why is that? It is because the model articles themselves already contain provision for the termination of a director’s appointment if a registered GP is of the opinion that that person has become physically or mentally incapable as a director and may be so for more than three months.
The provisions are a complete waste of time. They need to be removed for the sake of simplicity. Frankly, this is another example of removing unnecessary red tape and burdens when it comes to the setting up and creation of a business. From a practical point of view, the removal is effective and necessary. Let me also deal briefly with the existing provisions on orders made by the Court of Protection. Those orders are based on a lack of mental capacity, not the mere fact of a mental health condition.
I have mentioned that difference before, and I will say it again—I will keep saying it until everybody understands. Having a mental health condition does not mean that someone cannot play their full part in our society. That is why I warmly welcome the Bill as a real step forward, on a day of honour for the House.
Miss Smith
The hon. Gentleman is correct and I certainly recognise that work. Today is a day for recognising the work of successive Governments in many spheres of policy and human sympathy.
Turning back to today’s debate, tackling stigma and discrimination is at the heart of the Government’s mental health strategy. I join all Members here today, who have said many times that it cannot be right in the 21st century for somebody to be automatically expelled from this place because they have had a mental health illness. That sends out entirely the wrong message: that if one has mental health problems, one’s contribution is not welcome in public life. That has applied not only to the House of Commons, but to juries and directorships. In February last year, the Government announced that section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 would be repealed when a suitable legislative vehicle became available. This Bill is that vehicle, and we are glad to see that issue linked to similar amendments on company directors and jurors.
This issue goes well beyond the business of government and opposition. Shifting public attitudes and behaviour requires a major and substantial social movement. The Government are doing their bit within that. February last year saw the publication of the Government’s strategy on mental health entitled, “No health without mental health”. The strategy recognised that mental health is central to our quality of life and to our economic success, individually and collectively. It is interdependent with the success that any Government might hope for in improving training, education and employment, and in tackling the persistent problems that scar our society, from homelessness through to violence, substance abuse and other forms of crime.
The title of the strategy, “No health without mental health”, captures our ambition to mainstream mental health in this country. That concept has been referred to many times today. The Government expect parity of esteem between physical and mental health services. I know, from the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, that the Opposition also want that.
Mr Charles Walker
I mentioned a few moments ago that Legal and General is doing good work to address stigma. No doubt, as a former Treasury Minister, my hon. Friend will welcome that. Will she ensure that her colleagues in government work with employers to promote the agenda of “No health without mental health” and to celebrate those who take a lead?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend is, once more, absolutely correct. In this arena, as in so many others, it is vital for the Government to work with the private sector, the voluntary sector and anybody in any capacity to achieve our aims. We are talking about broad-scale cultural change. We need the private sector, whether in a macho or non-macho environment, to stand up and say that it cares about mental health and wants people to be well supported. I want that to happen in all walks of life.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend is right that we need to encourage cultural change across a number of organisations. I hope she will forgive me for not responding to that example, because I was not there to see it, but we need to ensure that such stigmatisation is not possible, is not the done thing and is frowned on whenever it is seen or experienced. We need to stand up and speak up for that view, and whenever we can we need to frown on that stigma from a front row seat. One of the six objectives in the mental health strategy was exactly that—that fewer people will experience stigma and discrimination. As the House will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central set out, the strategy has the full backing and endorsement of the whole Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has a long record of calling for the reform of mental health policy.
For negative attitudes and behaviour towards people with mental health issues to decrease, we need to improve public understanding of those issues and gain more sympathetic treatment of them in our mainstream media. Again, I refer to the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne did in June, has done since and will do in future.
I also pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), for the work that he has done. He has spoken passionately and often on these proposals, and he said in an interview with politics.co.uk in June 2009:
“Mental ill-health is still very much a taboo subject in Parliament as well as the work place and this must change. Mental ill-health affects as many as one in four of the working age population and it is crucial that Parliament leads the way in promoting a better understanding of mental health.”
That is still pertinent today, notwithstanding the steps that we are taking to ensure that the mental health taboo is well and truly broken. Momentum has been building behind the measures in the Bill for some time, as many hon. Members have shown in their comments today and their actions over time both inside and outside the House.
Mr Charles Walker
It is not for me to interfere in matters for the Government and Public Bill Committees, but may I make a plea that when the Bill goes into Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) is the Whip in charge? She has been a stalwart of the all-party mental health group, and we are sad to lose her to the Whips Office. I know that she will go on to do great things there and elsewhere, but we would like to see her again on occasion.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend’s attitude to the Whips Office is well documented and understood in the House. I pay tribute to him for his independence of spirit and his tenacity in pursuing not only mental health issues but a range of others, and for turning his face against the establishment whenever possible. If I may be so cheeky, I endorse his request for that particular member of the Whips Office to be on the Committee. It may be well without my powers to do so—I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or powers greater than any of us, will advise me about that shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has campaigned tirelessly on the matter and deserves recognition for doing so.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I will give way in a moment.
If the Lords amendments were accepted, the electorate would have no certainty as to how long the Parliament that they will elect on 7 May 2015 would last. Such certainty, and the principle behind the Bill, have been welcomed by many electoral administrators and by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could let us know which part of the amendment he is referring to.
Mr Harper
I would not characterise the relationship like that at all. A good case was made, and on this particular issue the Prime Minister has demonstrated tremendous leadership. He is the first Prime Minister to give up the power—a power that was his personally—to seek a Dissolution from Her Majesty the Queen. That improves our arrangements, because we now know the date of the election and so for the last year of this Parliament we will not have the “will he, won’t he” proposition, where everyone is trying to second-guess when the election will be and people are arguing about when the best time is for the party or parties in government. That is an incredibly powerful step forward and it is very welcome.
Mr Walker
The current system has served us pretty well for 350 years. The Minister cites other Parliaments around the world that have been established for perhaps 20 or 30 years at best. Perhaps they would be best advised to follow our example, as opposed to our following their example.
Mr Harper
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not believe that the general public support the exercise that we go through in the run-up to the end of a Parliament, where we enter the “will he, won’t he” argument. We all know—this came out clearly in the debate in the other place from some who had been close to these decisions—that the decision that is taken, perfectly honourably, is about how best the Prime Minister can choose the date to maximise the chance of their party being re-elected. I simply do not think that that is a good basis on which the decision should be made, and I think that our approach is an improvement.
Chris Bryant
No, I do not accept that, because the experience over the rather sad course of this Bill has been that there has been no consultation with the Opposition about a major constitutional change. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said earlier that the system has lasted for 300 years, but I do not think it has been a good system or that it has been perfect for the British constitution, because it has on occasion allowed too much power for a Prime Minister to call a general election at his or her—well, very rarely at her—convenience. In that regard, it is better that we should proceed in a different direction. For us the key issue is whether a term should be four or five years.
Mr Charles Walker
No system is perfect, but we have had a fairly dynamic democracy over the past 350 years and by fixing parliamentary terms we will lose some of that dynamism.
Chris Bryant
I have sympathy with that argument, but I also think that this is one of the changes towards a fixed-term Parliament that would assist in that and would be another part of the steady progress of parliamentary evolution to which he referred.
Mr Shepherd
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no way that I was going to rise to that fly. We will get back to the substance of the matter.
These are ridiculous proposals from the House of Lords—on that I agree. To that extent I am with the body of the House, which, I hope, feels that this is almost an impertinence. That impertinence is qualified, of course, by the fact that the Lords are the second Chamber, and that as it stands—other than in matters of money, as I understand it—they have all the rights of a second Chamber to make or change legislation. They are wrong to table the amendment, but they are right in the spirit of it. I hope that it is in order to suggest such a thing. My proposition is that they are right in the spirit of it because it is the only way in which they can attack this matter.
I hope that this cheerful Chamber will look askance at the Minister and his colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House, who are sitting on the Front Bench and trying to seduce us into thinking that there is some immaculate constitutional conception behind the Bill. There is not. It is the raw politics of “We want to be there for five years, in the hope that something turns up at the end of the fifth year”. That is what it is about, and we know it. I urge the House to vote for the Lords amendment, and damn them.
Mr Cash
This was not in our manifesto. The people who voted for us certainly did not vote for fixed-term Parliaments.
In 1940, as I have said, the Government won the vote in May, but the public would not countenance that Government remaining in power for another day. That was what got rid of Neville Chamberlain, and Leo Amery said:
“In the name of God, go.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1150.]
Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As one of the youngest Members of the 2010 intake, I remember sitting in the Members’ centre a few days after my election and listening to a young lady—much younger than me, surprisingly—who was speaking on the telephone and trying very hard to arrange accommodation for herself in London. She happened to be a member of the Opposition. Each time she spoke with an estate agent, it was clear that she could not do it, and after two hours she gave up. I quickly soused that—
Bob Stewart
Souse a herring—are we not moving on to that debate in a moment?
I quickly sussed that the expenses system was not working very well. I have spent most of my adult life in public service, but I have also been in business in the private sector. In those jobs, there was a very clear principle that if one spent money doing one’s job, one should be properly recompensed. It was simple and effective. It seems to me that IPSA makes difficulties when it should not do so. I am lucky, because my constituency is close to Westminster and I can travel home each night—22 minutes from Victoria station to Shortlands—except when we have an absurdly lengthy, late-night sitting, when I am told I am allowed to go to a hotel. Members should rest assured that on such occasions I do not cost the taxpayer any money, because I get out my army camp bed and kip in my office, illegally. It is a damn sight easier that trying to check into a hotel at 12.30 at night.
Mr Harper
Yes; I have said that several times and it is important. Although this House has many new Members, it is important that we remember why we got to this position. We have to ensure that we move things forward, and focus on independence and transparency. We have had debates recently on our pay, and the consideration of our pay will be moved across to IPSA in the not-too-distant future. Its independence is important so that people have confidence. The Committee, when it is set up, will have to remember that the recommendations it makes about the scheme and the operation of the scheme will be made to IPSA.
Mr Charles Walker
Does the Minister accept that when we legislate in haste, as we did in 2009, such legislation sometimes has to be revisited and amended with the benefit of hindsight?
Mr Harper
I made a distinction in my remarks. Clearly, if the Committee, or indeed the National Audit Office, makes recommendations about value for money and cost-effectiveness in the way IPSA operates, IPSA will pay attention to them, as with all its recommendations. It may be that the Committee makes recommendations about legislative change. However, we do not want to go back to a system in which the Government—heaven forbid—or the House start to micro-manage the details of the scheme. We have an independent system with transparency, and it is important that we stick with that. The Committee needs to bear that in mind. There will be two important audiences for what the Committee recommends. In the same way that we should not legislate in haste, we should not re-legislate in haste and change things further. The Committee needs to bear that in mind when it considers this matter, and should not immediately leap to the conclusion that we have to change the entire structure of the system.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I will be happy to take interventions when I have made a little more progress. I think that the House would expect me to do that in a time-limited debate.
We have also amended the Bill to provide that the boundary commissions must publish all the responses to their initial consultation and allow an additional period during which people will be able to make further representations or counter-representations related to the arguments put forward by others. This is the second area where we thought that some good points had been made in the debate, and we acted in response to an amendment tabled by Lord Lipsey on the Opposition Benches. We think that this amendment, in combination with the public hearing proposals, will deliver a consultation process that represents a real improvement not only on the one that was in the Bill originally, but on that in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
We have made other significant amendments to part 2. We have tabled amendments explicitly to empower the boundary commissions to use wards as the building blocks for constituencies—the other place got very exercised about that—and to give the commissions discretion to take account of existing parliamentary boundaries. The amendments respond to concerns about the degree of explicit guidance given to the commissions on what they could take into account. We have accepted an amendment expressly enabling the Boundary Commission for England to take account of the boundaries of the City of London.
In response to an amendment from Lord Williamson, a Cross Bencher, we will require that a review is established after implementation of the new constituencies at the next election to consider the impact of the reduction in the number of seats in this place to 600. There was extensive debate about that in the other place, where we heard all about the fears, largely of those who had been Members of Parliament, that slightly fewer—7.6% fewer—Members of Parliament in this place may place constraints on their ability to do the job. We thought that Lord Williamson’s suggestion of a review in the next Parliament to consider the effect of that reduction to see whether there were some lessons that could be learned was very sensible, and we were happy to accept it.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems strange to many Members across the House that we are reducing this House to 600 Members while increasing the size of the unelected House of Lords by 150 peers?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes what would be a good point if it were not for the coalition Government’s clear commitment to bring forward a draft Bill in the near future—early this year—to reform the other place. If we were not doing that, he would have a solid case, but given that we are proposing to do that, his case falls away and there is just a timing difference.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There are about 11 minutes left, so brief speeches would be welcome.
Mr Walker
I will be extremely brief, because I come here naked, without a formal speech to give. All I would say in response to the two Front-Bench speeches that we have heard is that I think that the Lords did an absolutely magnificent job. The Bill has been rushed through this House in haste, and the Lords did exactly what they are meant to do, which is to act as a reforming and revising House. We will ignore some of their recommendations this evening at our peril.
The Prime Minister is not one for taking revenge against those who disagree with him, or perhaps delay his ambitions. I therefore disagreed with the shadow Minister when he quoted Sky News and said that the Prime Minister was gearing up great armies to swoop down on the House of Lords and duff them up a bit. However, I am concerned about the vague promises made by those on my side of the House about setting up a commission to review whether reducing the number of Members of Parliament to 600 is a good idea. This really should have been done by now, as part of the work of a far wider cross-party commission, bringing together all parts of the House to look at the proposals, because we are talking about fundamental constitutional reform. If such reform is to be successful, it will need to carry the support not just of Members of Parliament but of our constituents.
Our constituents will be concerned about what they are seeing, because in essence we propose to reduce the size of the House of Commons by roughly 10%. We do not propose to reduce the number of Ministers, and we are increasing the number of peers by 150. I am sure that some proposal or other will be made to address the question of the House of Lords—there might be a proposal for an elected upper House—but that could be kicked into the long grass and become a third-term aspiration for this coalition Government.
Mr Harper
I will be brief in my intervention, given the time limit. As my hon. Friend has said that he thought that the House of Lords did a good job, he should know that the proposal for a review after the next election was made by Lord Williamson, a Cross Bencher. It is a proposal that we agree with, and it had broad appeal in the House of Lords, not just for those who take a party Whip, but for Cross Benchers. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will welcome the proposal, which the Government accepted, and which we propose to accept in this House.
Mr Walker
I would say to the Minister that we should have shown more foresight in this House, and addressed those issues here before passing them over to the House of Lords.
I conclude by saying that I support any movement and organisation in this House that is difficult, and makes some attempt to resist the will of the Executive.
Ian Lucas
Of all the appalling aspects of this piece of legislation, for me the abolition of local public inquiries is quite the worst. No party ever proposed to abolish them before the general election. If the parties now in government had a particular concern about public inquiries, I would have expected them to express it in manifesto commitments on which the electorate could have given their verdict in the general election. However, it is only since the general election that the issue has been raised.
When the idea was raised, I was anxious to obtain the views of local people in my constituency. I highlighted to community councils—the equivalent of parish councils in my constituency—the fact that the right to deliver oral representations to a public inquiry was about to be abolished. My letter to those community councils was considered at the same time as a report from a boundary commission relating to local councils. Representations had been made by councillors of all political parties objecting to boundary commission proposals for local councils. The community councils were most concerned about the local council provisions. They then saw my letter, and became aware that the right to make representations about a parliamentary boundary change was to be taken away from them.
In Wales, public inquiries will continue to be held on matters relating to local councils and Assembly seats, but they will be removed for matters relating to parliamentary seats. The only reason why they are being removed is the electoral deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who want to remove those public inquiries because they need to get the changes through by the next general election. That is why this huge constitutional Bill was not delivered in draft; it is also why many of us on both the Opposition and the Government Benches had our right to make speeches on important issues removed through the use of the guillotine when these matters were considered before Christmas.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Money) (No. 2)
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). My Broxbourne constituents are horrified at the cost of this referendum, which some commentators have said could be as high as £250 million. I dare to say that this money would be far better spent on employing doctors, nurses, teachers and soldiers.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman is cunning, as ever. Unfortunately, in almost all his interventions in this debate—and in any other—he tends to argue that this House represents the sovereign will of the people, so it is a bit rich for him to shift ground and suddenly say that if something was not discussed in an election campaign, it did not receive the endorsement of the people. We are sufficient and entire unto ourselves, capable of representing the will of the people. If we decide, as I believe and hope we will, that we want to adopt this Bill, and if the gentlemen and ladies in the other place decide that they would prefer to have slightly more sleep and approve the Bill, we will have decided—we are the will of the people—that this is how we want our constitution to operate in future. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s ingenious objection.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend briefly explain why he feels that the change of a Prime Minister should trigger a general election within six months?
Nick Boles
The question that has been asked does not relate to the clause or the amendments and I defer always to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether my comments would be relevant, although of course I want to be courteous to my hon. Friend.
Nick Boles
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the bottom of my heart.
As I hear in the distance the light pop of the second bottle being opened in No. 10 Downing street, I shall move on to other amendments in the group. The hon. Member for Rhondda has talked about tidying up. “Tidy” is a great word, particularly when spoken in the inimitable accent not of the valets, but of the valleys. I rather share his love of the word, but not the concept. It is an entirely classic Labour reaction to try to make everything neat and tidy. His further amendments would tidy up and specify when Parliament would return after a general election, but he has not told us why or when this has been a problem in the past. He never said, “There was that famous time when something happened in the country and we were not able to discuss it because we had not returned,” or, “There was that famous time when the Prime Minister did not want to do PMQs and avoided them because she or he was so terrified.” He has not given any reasons to explain why things are not working at the moment, so this is one of the rare occasions on which I shall associate myself with the deep instinct of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that we should not change things unless they are demonstrably broken.
Mr Charles Walker
Is not my hon. Friend making a good argument for retaining the current system and doing away with the Bill altogether?
Nick Boles
That is an even more ingenious attempt, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is harder for me to appeal to you for succour on this point, but I reject my hon. Friend’s point because I believe that the Bill is one of principle. I believe that the idea of Prime Ministers picking the dates of elections is wholly outrageous in a modern democracy and that we must have fixed-term Parliaments. I happen to know that this argument has been raging inside the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties for years, so it is a cause of high principle.
The history of the British constitution is that changes of high principle happen only when the parties in power see political advantage in such change; that is how democracy works. Britain has been reformed when the great causes have been aligned with low party interest and I thank—I am not sure if I am allowed to say what I was going to say—the stars that in this Parliament at this time that alliance of high principle and low politics has come together and that we are putting through Parliament a Bill that will establish fixed-term elections and remove the Prime Minister’s right to choose a date that is to his or her advantage.
Mr Charles Walker
If we support the notion of a fixed-term Parliament, which I do not, surely we have to accept that risk. If we support the idea of a fixed date in the calendar, it is just tough if there happens to be a royal wedding at the same time. We cannot have it both ways.
Mark Durkan
That sums up my view on royal weddings, but that is my own prejudice.
Another argument that has been made is that the Bill is about removing a prerogative from a Prime Minister and giving powers to the House. If that is what we are saying—not just that the Prime Minister is giving up some powers, but that the House is getting some—my amendment would ensure that the House gets more powers. The House should be equipped, not just to pass a motion calling for an early general election, but to specify the date—instead of leaving it to the Prime Minister to recommend to the monarch when that date should be—and there should be provision for Parliament to do so sensibly in advance. The amendments that we all debated in Committee all presumed that it would be in a matter of weeks, similar to the debate that we have just had about 17 days and 25 days’ Prorogation—in other words, in fairly close calendar quarters. I believe that we should make provision in clause 2(1) to allow the House to set a date, as amendment 14 would allow. It would provide a fourth point that could be covered by a Speaker’s certificate: whether or not a date was specified and what the date was. Amendment 15 would amend clause 2(6), so that the date could be specified.
Dan Byles
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. The entire issue of fixed-term Parliaments, sadly, is in danger of becoming yet another political football to be kicked around the House, as Members seek to manufacture objections to reform, and to posture and grandstand. I fear that the new clause and amendments for the most part would not add to the Bill in any meaningful way. The issue is really very simple. I believe that the Bill will strengthen the power of the House over a key constitutional issue and diminish the Prime Minister’s power.
Before coming to the detail of the new clause and amendments, let us remember exactly what this historic Bill is about. Previously, the Prime Minister had the power to ask for an early Dissolution of Parliament at any time. Historically, that extraordinary degree of power has been used solely to the political advantage of the party in power.
Mr Charles Walker
Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have had a fairly settled democracy for the past 350 years? So there are aspects of the system that he can recommend to the House as well.
Dan Byles
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alluding to an argument that I have heard time and again, when people suggest, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” but I shall come to the problems with the current situation in a moment. He also alludes to the interesting idea that we have a democratic system that works, so we should not amend or tinker with it. I have heard Opposition Members support that idea before. I have heard it suggested that, somehow, the Bill is undemocratic. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, I find that an extraordinary argument. That line of reasoning seems to suggest that the only truly democratic system is the one that has evolved in this country—the one that we currently use. Such reasoning suggests that it is not possible to amend our system without somehow making it less democratic, even though it concentrates power in the Prime Minister’s hands. The Bill will devolve the power to call a general election to the House, which is surely where it belongs.
If one were to follow that line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion, it would suggest that other western nations are somehow less democratic than ours, simply because they have democratic systems different from the one that we enjoy. In the United States Congressmen and women serve a two-year fixed term. The President serves a four-year fixed term. Senators serve six-year fixed terms. Clearly, that does not make the United States less democratic than we are simply because its system is different from ours. In France Members of the National Assembly are elected for five-year terms—the period that the Bill recommends. The President is also elected for a five-year term. The Senate is selected for a six-year term.
Dan Byles
I will have to agree to disagree with hon. Members about this, but I do not think that a Government going into a general election would want to see headlines on the front pages of The Sun and other tabloids screaming, “Government falls after losing confidence vote in the House”.
Mr Charles Walker
Surely any legislation could be avoided if Prime Ministers were to say at the start of their term whether they intended to run a five-year Parliament. If they backed out of that arrangement with the electorate after two and a half years, they would be judged accordingly, so why on earth do we need legislation?
Dan Byles
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. One problem sometimes cited in relation to a democratic system such as ours is the tendency for Governments to take the short-term approach to fixing problems. If five years became the norm, that would help to create slightly more stable government, because Governments could look to the longer term when considering some of the difficult decisions that they might have to make, and not always be worried that they were only a few years from a general election.
It seems that five-year Parliaments are not a problem for Labour Members when it is their party that is clinging to power in the dying days of a Government, as was the case in 2009 and 2010. True to form, their principles changed the moment they found themselves in opposition. Now, sadly, they stand as obstacles to reform.
May I conclude the point about whether the term should be four years or five, and move on with my speech?
Mr Charles Walker
Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the prorogation of Parliament? Will he address that matter when he has finished his opening remarks?
Dan Byles
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am extremely concerned about that point, and very eager to get on to the part of my speech in which I shall address it. However, I want to conclude the point, which I was pulled on to by interventions, about whether the term should be fixed at four years or five. I turn again to the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the Bill produced by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has already been quoted today by Labour Members. Recommendation 5 clearly states:
“Precedent gives no clear answer as to whether Parliaments should last four years or five.”
In recommendation 6 the report acknowledges the views expressed by some witnesses that four years might be better than five. Nevertheless, the recommendation clearly states that that
“is an important point, but not one that we would wish to see obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House.”
That is important, and I hope that Labour Members will take note of it.
Before moving on to the subject of the amendments before the House, I would like briefly to—
Dan Byles
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I shall move on to new clause 4, which sets out new rules for the Prorogation—I have as much trouble as the hon. Member for Rhondda with that word—of Parliament. It would repeal the Prorogation Act 1867, which provides the power for Her Majesty to issue a proclamation for the Prorogation of Parliament. I think I got that right.
As the House is aware, Prorogation marks the end of a parliamentary Session and is the formal name given to the period between the end of one Session of Parliament and the state opening of Parliament, which begins the next Session. The parliamentary Session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved and a general election called.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the term “prorogation” is derived from the Roman concept of prorogatio. In the constitution of ancient Rome, prorogatio was the extension of a commander’s imperium beyond the one-year term of his magistracy. Prorogatio developed as a legal procedure in response to Roman expansionism and militarisation.
In the context of the Westminster system, Prorogation or Dissolution of Parliament on the final day of the Session originally, according to the House of Lords Library, comprised four principal elements. First, the Speaker made a speech mainly concerned with the Subsidy Bill, which he had brought up from the Commons. This was followed by a speech from the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper replying to the points made by the Speaker and expressing thanks for the Subsidy Bill. Royal Assent was then given to the Bills passed by both Houses. Finally, the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to the sovereign’s instructions, either prorogued or dissolved Parliament. The sovereign was customarily present on those occasions, and from the 17th century onwards, usually made the speech before Prorogation or Dissolution.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, be fascinated to learn from the Library’s excellent note that
“In the early nineteenth century the prorogation was still accompanied with considerable ceremony. Thus in 1815 the Prince Regent rode in the State Coach with a cavalry escort through St James’s Park to the Palace of Westminster, and on his arrival was announced with a salute of cannon.”
Mr Walker
A lot of Labour Members are muttering at the history lesson that my hon. Friend is giving us, but is he not demonstrating how important it is in this matter to set the scene in an historical context, bearing in mind the fact that we are overturning 350 years of constitutional precedent?
Dan Byles
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is exactly the point that I would have made.
The Bill is truly historic. That fact has been mentioned by numerous Members on both sides of the House, and to consider it in isolation—what it means to us now, rather than its place within the sweep of the history of our nation—would be wrong.
Thomas Docherty
I shall keep my remarks brief as I understand that the Prime Minister might be rushing back to make a statement to the House about the commercialisation of Downing street following the revelations from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) earlier this evening. I understand that the Liberal Democrats have a large campaign debt to pay off from Oldham East and Saddleworth.
May I gently tease colleagues on the Government Benches about the importance of referring to the United Kingdom when speaking about our nation state? I am sure all colleagues are aware that we are not just England or Britain; we are the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) helpfully referred to an earlier edition of “Erskine May” with reference to the shouting of the phrase “Shame!” from a sedentary position. It might help the House if I clarify that that applied up to the 19th edition of “Erskine May”. Since then, I am advised, the term has been removed from “Erskine May” and is therefore, I imagine, legitimate.
Addressing new clause 4 and the associated amendments which, as “Erskine May” says, is the purpose of the debate, I shall tackle head-on the question whether the Opposition support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. It is well known that we did not oppose Second Reading because we support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. Our specific objections have been not just to the length—four or five years—but to some of the technical issues, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have tabled a series of tidying-up amendments, as we would describe them, although I understand that not every hon. Member supports that principle.
Mr Charles Walker
As a matter of interest, how will the hon. Gentleman vote on Third Reading tonight?
Thomas Docherty
I do not like to leave the House in suspense, but on this one occasion hon. Members will have to wait and see how many of our amendments the Government are prepared to accept. Clearly, if the Minister accepts all the considered amendments that we have offered, we would be more than happy to give strong consideration to supporting Third Reading. I look forward to the Minister’s reply shortly.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman makes a completely sensible point that goes to the heart of some of our arguments tonight. I will give a specific example, because there has been some discussion of the fact that none of those cases was the direct result of a no-confidence vote. I remind the House that in 1940 the Government of the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, fell on what is largely accepted to have effectively been a vote of no confidence. It was a no-confidence vote by any other name. As the Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Leader of the House have accepted, under their proposals there could be a no-confidence motion that is not officially stamped as such. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1940 the House did not prorogue. There was simply a change of Administration, and a short time later a coalition Government were formed involving all three parties. In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Chamberlain Government, there was no coalition, and nor was the House prorogued.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I have no rancour against the coalition. I think that it is doing some wonderful things: in deficit reduction, welfare reform and education. We are lucky to have two very fine young men at the head of this coalition—they know who they are, and they do not need to be named. However, I feel that they have got this one wrong. This Bill is a mistake. We have had 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy. We have had no despots ruling—and ruining—this country. We have a great deal to be proud of. I have listened to the arguments closely from the outset. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and I had hoped to be persuaded in the intervening weeks that somehow I was wrong and that many of my colleagues were right. However, I am afraid that I was right and they are wrong. This remains an extremely bad Bill.
Some wonderful arguments have been put forward. We have been told that the British public do not like general elections—that we must have fewer of them; that the last thing that my constituents want is a general election every three or four years, because they are so bored of them. However, in the same breath, we are told that we should have elections for mayors and police commissioners; and yet somehow, the most important election of all—a general election—is relegated to something that we would rather not have, and if we must have them, we should have them every five years.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
My constituents cannot wait for the next general election.
Mr Walker
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be standing for his constituency at the next general election and that the reason his constituents cannot wait is that they want once again to affirm his brilliance.
We have had 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy, and we are now turning our backs on that a little hastily. Of course, we can draw on the European model. Europe is a great place—I think it is absolutely wonderful—but there is not a great deal that it can teach us about democracy. Democracy is an innovation across most of Europe, arriving in 1945 and 1946 in some places, and in the late 1990s in others. So, although many good things are happening in Europe, our parliamentary democracy is something that we should be proud of.
I do not want to stray outside the bounds of this Third Reading debate, so I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I think this coalition is going to last for five years. It is led by two honourable and right hon. Gentlemen, and if they want it to last for five years, they will take their parliamentary parties with them. But it should not be the duty of Parliament to do the heavy lifting for the coalition. That is the duty of the coalition partners. The Bill is a grave mistake, and I am afraid that there is only one thing I can do from now on: I must work tirelessly for the rest of my parliamentary career to become Prime Minister so that I can do away with what I regard as this rather dangerous piece of nonsense.