Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am a sinner and I embrace sin. In the previous Parliament, I used the expenses system almost to its fullest. So I am no angel and I accept that I have to take my share of responsibility for what went before—but that is then and this is now. I fully appreciate that IPSA was set an impossible task by this Chamber in July 2009. We legislated in haste and are now repenting at leisure. The Chancellor said last week that “I told you so” is not a policy, but in July 2009 I did say that we were going to regret the haste with which we were introducing the plans for IPSA and we are now regretting them bitterly. The “problem” we have in this place—it is part of its richness and is not necessarily a problem—is that all 650 individuals do their jobs differently, and trying to shoehorn them into a one-size-fits-all solution was always going to end in tears.

I fully appreciate and acknowledge the public anger at what went before, because it was unforgivable. However, we should recall that by July/August 2009 the Fees Office had got its act together and for that final nine months things improved dramatically. They improved at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £2 million a year. That is a significant sum, but it is not as significant as the £6.5 million a year that IPSA is costing the taxpayer. This must not be about taking revenge on Members of Parliament; it must be about value for money. In six months, IPSA will publish its first year’s figures and they may well show that the cost to this country of Members of Parliament has reduced. However, we should treat those figures with great caution, because if the cost to this country has gone down because Members of Parliament are not claiming legitimate expenses or are funding them out of their own pockets, that is no victory at all.

Over the past decade we have talked about improving the diversity of representation in this place—diversity of race, creed and colour—and we have moved forward immensely. However, there is no diversity if everyone here ends up being rich—wealthy; having family money or independent means. Of course, the make-up of this Chamber is not going to change overnight—it is not going to change at the next general election—but over time it will change. This place will become the preserve of the better-off, whether they sit on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches. There are many things to recommend the US political model, but one thing that does not recommend it is the fact that most people who sit there have significant private means.

Let us talk further about diversity, because we now have a great diversity of ages here. We have people in their 20s and one person in their 80s. That is healthy. People of all age groups need to be represented in this place, but how can we have a diverse system when some Members—perhaps in their late 60s or 70s—are expected to travel an hour and a half to two hours home every night? We deposit them on a platform somewhere in the far-flung parts of the home counties at midnight. That is not going to encourage diversity. It will not encourage women to come to this place either, if we expect them to go home at midnight. They have not been out for a night on the town; they have been working on behalf of their constituents.

I did a quick and dirty survey of Conservative Members of Parliament, to which I received 173 responses. I want to share the following five, anonymous, responses with the House:

“I’m too scared to claim”;

“IPSA shows no interest or desire to keep families together”;

“Regular nights spent sleeping on the office floor”;

“IPSA is anti-family and favours richer Members”;

and:

“People won’t claim and only wealthy people will come here as MPs”.

Is that really what we want a 21st-century democracy in this country to look like? Do we really want Members of Parliament sleeping on their floors? Do we really want young parents separated from their children for huge amounts of time? Do we really want people to be paying legitimate expenses out of their own pockets, or the pockets of their partners or parents? That is simply a ridiculous place to be.

I have to say that I was disappointed in The Times newspaper yesterday. I have a great amount of time for The Times. I read it avidly and I thought that its reporting of the expenses scandal was fair and balanced. However, when it says in a headline: “MPs are already flouting new rules on expenses”, it really does worsen the situation, deteriorating it even further. The article continued:

“The list of rejected claims…reveals how MPs were caught submitting duplicate claims, failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to back up their demands and, in dozens of cases, flouted the new rules. One MP was refused £338 for a shredder”.

That was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have dealt with cases that involved murder, rape and child abuse, and my God, we had better be shredding that stuff! As much as I respect The Times as a newspaper, if it wants to be responsible for heralding in the age of the rich, privileged Member of Parliament, what I have quoted is just the sort of stuff that will bring that about.

I want to say one more thing—this is not an attack on the Whips Office, but a statement of fact. Members have heard me talk repeatedly in this place about the creeping power of the Executive, and I will say this: if we worsen the financial situation of Back Benchers, we will inevitably increase the power of the Executive, because the attraction of becoming a Minister will be even greater. It will not just be about the ministerial car or the red box; it will start being about the money as well.

If the expenses scandal taught us anything, it was that what our constituents want most is independent-minded Members of Parliament who do what they say and mean what they say. I have grave concerns about IPSA and what it is doing to this place. Things must change because if they do not we, our democracy and our constituents will all be worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I can answer only for how Ministers and I deal with parliamentary questions. I endeavour to answer mine promptly and within the time limits, and I would have thought that others should do so too. However, thankfully, the Government are not responsible for IPSA’s ability to answer questions.

[Mr Charles Walker]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has a key role in the process, can help the House.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is right to be annoyed at having to wait so long for the answer. I signed it off yesterday as the SCIPSA member. The hon. Gentleman should get it next week.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for that intervention. I shall now try to make some progress, as I want to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members who wish to get in.

I said that the Prime Minister would be listening closely to this debate. In July, during Prime Minister’s questions, he said that:

“what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 946.]

That is what all Members have said today. They want IPSA’s system to be transparent, straightforward, not bureaucratic and not costly. IPSA should get on with that.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

Even short of the matter getting to the courts, we are already potentially compromising the Speaker. He will constantly be hostage to inquiries as to whether a particular motion could be treated as a motion of no confidence, and his ruling could at any time be upstaged from the Treasury Bench.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My children once asked me, “What does a heffalump look like?” I said, “You’ll know one when you see one.” Has that not been the case with confidence motions throughout history? The House has known one when it has seen one, and we are in danger of over-complicating the process in the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, and that was why I indicated my support for earlier amendments that would have narrowed the ambiguity and reduced the possibility of political and procedural chicanery, with which the Bill is riddled.

[Mark Durkan]

I accept that point fully.

[Mr Walker]

I shall admonish my children for not being better read.

[Mark Durkan]

I will acknowledge these interventions no further.

To return to the matter at hand, let us be clear that the Bill’s provisions are open to all sorts of contests, questions and controversies. As I have said, I believe that the Minister was wrong to say that the House will know in all circumstances when something is a vote of confidence. If he wanted to make that incontrovertibly so, he would need to provide either in Standing Orders or in the Bill for a formal indication by the Speaker that a certificate could be issued prior to the period set out in the Bill, which starts 14 days after a motion. That, in turn, would bring the Speaker into areas of political controversy and intervention. Amendment 6 is clearly aimed at ensuring that those difficulties do not make the issuing of a certificate, or possibly the failure to issue one, a matter of controversy that can be brought to the courts.

In discussing previous amendments, Members alluded to affairs currently in Oireachtas Éireann and in the Dail. Those affairs may be relevant this week, because an opposition party there has indicated that it might take to the courts the question whether, under the constitution, the agreement that the Irish Government have entered into has to be subject to a vote of the Dail. Let us not rule out circumstances in which a party here, possibly a party of Opposition, could feel that the Speaker had wrongly declined to issue a certificate, or that the Government were using all sorts of procedural chicanery to prevent certificates being issued and to reset the clock. That party might then feel obliged to take the matter to court if it felt that it faced dead ends and chicanery in Parliament. That is exactly the situation that was threatened in Dublin this week given what the Irish Labour party justice spokesman said. Let us not join the Minister in completely dismissing all such possibilities.

I do not want to move from Dublin to Northern Ireland affairs, but I have some experience of what happens in practice. I was involved in negotiating and implementing the Good Friday agreement, including as a Minister and Deputy First Minister. Ministers told this House that procedures would follow their own course and that political matters would not end up in the courts, but then I found that my election as Deputy First Minister was taken to court—when I was jointly elected with David Trimble—because all sorts of rules were bent and twisted and the clock was reset by Secretaries of State and others.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set a clear six-week period, but Secretaries of State discovered that if they suspended things for 24 hours, there would be a new six-week period. Whenever there is a facility to contrive a completely new situation and dispose of a statutory deadline, it is used—whenever Ministers are told that in case of emergency they can smash the glass, they do so. Completely contrary to the assurances and explanations given to the House when we debated the 1998 Act, a number of Secretaries of State found themselves doing that. In addition, Assembly Members redesignated to pass particular votes, even though they said that they would not, and so on.

In the context of the Bill, people have said that a Government would never put themselves in the embarrassing position of activating a vote of no confidence in themselves or cutting corners, ignoring rules or resetting clocks so that they can bypass dates and deadlines, but the Northern Ireland experience shows that that is not so. The exigencies of the moment, and the demands for stability and good governance, can be used as circumstantial excuses. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we are trying to provide for fixed-term Parliaments with clear, fixed and guaranteed arrangements, we must go further than the Bill does. It leaves too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Executive when there has been a motion of no confidence, and in respect of their influence over the decision of whether a motion is one of no confidence or otherwise.

I therefore ask the Minister to acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the Bill. Some of the amendments have their own shortcomings, but they do not diminish the serious problems with the Bill. If he will not accept amendments 6 and 23, will he agree to work in another place and in the House at another time to make his own amendments, so that the Bill does not create those difficulties and controversies?

Under the Bill, the Speaker could be the subject of controversy. What if there are differences between the Speaker and Deputy Speakers on the question whether to indicate in advance that a motion is certifiable? More importantly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, I believe that such matters could find themselves before a court, not only because somebody might want to contest the fact or content of a certificate, but more importantly because people might want to contest the failure to issue a certificate or the fairly questionable proceedings in advance of it. We do not want the Speaker of the House of Commons to be caught in the same position as Scottish football referees. They have been accused of taking and changing decisions in relation to subsequent arguments and events. Let us protect the office of the Speaker and this House.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman might shake his head and dismiss the idea of people making written representations, but they will not end up in the bin. They are an effective means by which people can make their views heard, and I am sure he will take up that opportunity if he wishes to.

Combined with our other reforms—fixed-term Parliaments, a new power of recall, and reform of the other place—the Bill will help us close the gap between people and politics, ensuring that our institutions meet expectations and are fit for a modern 21st-century democracy.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I do not doubt the Deputy Prime Minister’s sincerity, but he used to be very keen on reducing the number of Ministers in this place. Why is he not so keen on that measure now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

There may well be a case for looking at the number of Ministers when the size of the House of Commons is reduced, but that is not happening now. It would happen only in the next Parliament. We would need to keep it under constant review, and—dare I say it?—future Governments might wish to act upon that idea. I do not dispute at all the principle that as the Commons is reduced in size, so should the number of Ministers be reduced.

I understand that some Members continue to have specific concerns about the detail of the Bill. That was clear, for example, during the thorough debate on the date of the referendum. I know that Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in particular continue to worry about the implications of combining different polls on 5 May, but I believe that our decision is right and that voters are able to distinguish between elections to local government or devolved institutions and a straightforward yes or no question on a completely different issue. However, the Government remain alive to the concerns and will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and administrators across the UK to help ensure that combined elections run smoothly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I could have just about brought myself to vote for the Bill, but for the fact that once again it plays into the hands of the Executive. Once again, we see the Executive seizing more powers at the expense of Parliament. The House will be reduced to 600 Members of Parliament, while the Executive will remain as large as it is now.

I really did think that we had learned our lesson in the last Parliament. I really thought that, after 100 years of giving powers away, we might do things differently in this Parliament. I now wonder what on earth is the point of being a Member of Parliament in this place. Only three hours ago, we were informed that prisoners would be given the vote. We would not have a say in it; it would be done over our heads.

Tonight, my constituents have every right to ask, “What is the point of Charles Walker? What is the point of having elected representatives?” This is an appalling state of affairs. Once again, we are increasing the powers of the Executive at the cost of Parliament, and we deserve absolutely no sympathy. Whatever befalls us over the next four years as Back Benchers, we will have brought it on ourselves. However, I say to new parliamentary colleagues in particular that it is very difficult to vote against this Bill, because their political virility will be measured by whether or not they become a Minister, and if they do not become a Minister they do not get the extra money, the car or the red box, and when they leave this place as a humble Back Bencher there will not be people queuing up to offer them jobs because companies want only politicians who have had the red box to serve on their boards. I therefore say to any Back Bencher who votes against this Bill tonight, “You are extremely brave, and if you do vote against the Bill you, like me, won’t have a career going forward, but you will have my undying admiration.”

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts show that those who rebel against their own party are more likely to become junior Ministers than those who do not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, but it was not a point of order. Have you finished Mr Walker?

[Mr Walker]

I think I have, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Many Members want to speak, and I want to call as many of them as possible. If Members are as brief as Mr Walker was, I am sure we will hear from a lot of colleagues.

Prisoners’ Right to Vote

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

In respect of what the hon. Lady said in the first part of her question, she is leaping ahead. Ministers are considering how to deal with the judgment in the Hirst case. I should also explain that one of the problems with the previous Government’s inaction is that if they had implemented the judgment based on the decision in the Hirst case, we might well have been in a stronger position. As she will know—I am sure she follows this issue closely—case law has moved on. Ministers are considering these issues and, as I have said, when we have taken the decisions we will come and announce them to the House.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

We in this place have a duty to represent the people who elect us and, almost to a man and woman, they will be saying, “No, no, no.” What is the point of having a sovereign Parliament if we have to bend down to the European Court on this? Surely we can help the Minister by having a vote and sending a strong message that we do not want this, and then he can go and negotiate it away.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that we do have a sovereign Parliament but that about 60 years ago it signed up to the European convention on human rights and effectively made that part of our law and our legal obligations. The Government are following the judgment of the Court in implementing our legal obligations—nothing more and nothing less.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that she is pleased to have put the record straight.

New Clause 7

Variation in limit of number of holders of Ministerial offices

‘(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 2(1) substitute—

“(1) The number of holders of offices specified in Schedule 2 to this Act (in this section referred to as Ministerial offices) entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time, whether paid or unpaid, must not exceed 95 if the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is 650.”.

(3) After section 2(1) insert—

“(1A) If the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom decreases below 650, the limit on the number of holders of Ministerial offices entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons referred to in section 2(1) must be decreased by at least a proportionate amount.”.

(4) In subsection (2), after “subsection (1)”, insert “or subsection (1A)”.’.—(Mr Charles Walker.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 7 would amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which currently sets the maximum number of Ministers allowed in this place at 95. As you know, Mr Streeter, part of this Bill, if passed, will bring about a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. My new clause is very modest in its scope. All I am seeking to do is to amend the 1975 Act to ensure that the ceiling for the number of Ministers is pushed down from 95 to 87, which directly reflects the percentage reduction in the number of Members of Parliament.

My new clause is very moderate. Many colleagues urged me to go further and to make a real assault on the patronage of the Executive, but I thought that that would be unreasonable and unreasonably ambitious. There might be voices of self-interest, largely residing on the Front Bench, who argue that we have the right amount of Ministers. They might even argue that we need more Ministers. I hope that I do not hear those arguments tonight.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Might there not be even more Back Benchers interested in increasing the number from 95 to about 195?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes his usual sparky intervention.

Rafts of leading academics and political commentators have recognised for a long time that there are far too many Ministers in this place. Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, has argued that we could easily do as well with a reduction of 25% to 30%. Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary, told the Select Committee on Public Administration earlier this year that the number of Ministers could be cut by 50%. Professor Anthony King has argued the same, as has Lord Norton of Louth.

Of course, those academics and political commentators are in good company. Our own Deputy Prime Minister argued in January that the number of Ministers should be reduced.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Has the hon. Gentleman spoken more recently to the Deputy Prime Minister, because it is my impression that he is not likely to say today the things he said in January?

[Mr Walker]

The Deputy Prime Minister is a man of great integrity. I recognise that this is his Bill, and once he has heard the force of my argument he will rush here and demand a rethink from his Front Benchers.

Speaking at the Institute for Government in January, the Deputy Prime Minister called for the House of Commons to be reduced to 500 and for the number of Ministers across both Houses to be cut to 73. The Government’s demands are much more moderate. They are talking about reducing the size of the House to 600, but if we reduce it to 600, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s logic, we should reduce the number of Ministers by 15. That would tally with his mathematics, but, as I said, my new clause is modest. I am not calling for a reduction in the number of Ministers by 15. I know that many Members are demanding that I do that, but I shall not hear it. I am simply demanding a reduction in the number of Ministers by eight.

Many people here have argued privately in the corridors that there is no link between the size of the House of Commons and the number of Ministers. That is total nonsense. We know that as far back as the Bill of Rights of 1689 this House expressed concerns about the Crown having a presence here in the form of Ministers. The 1701 Act of Settlement tried extremely hard to remove Ministers from this place, because the politicians of that time wondered how one could serve the Crown as well as one’s constituents. Unfortunately, that never saw the light of day because the Executive got their way in 1706. As recently as 1926, if someone became a Minister of the Crown, he was required, in between general election periods, to resign his seat so that his constituents could decide whether their Member of Parliament could serve two masters—the interests of the constituents and the interests of the Crown.

That is where I am coming from. I am arguing for a modest reduction in the number of Ministers. We have had enormous ministerial inflation since 1983. Margaret Thatcher—we all remember her, that great lady—had 81 Ministers to run this country in 1983. We now require 95. Is the world so much more complex? I say to those who argue that it is that since 1983 we have privatised a large number of previously Government-owned industries and we have allowed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own devolved Assemblies. The number of Ministers has still risen inexorably.

I do not want to try your patience, Mr Streeter, by straying off new clause 7 and talking about inflation in the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but we are now seeing 50 PPSs adding to an already burgeoning payroll. Although these people are not even paid, they are called the payroll vote. As far back as the 1960s, one could be a PPS and vote against the Government without danger of losing that role, but that is not the case today. The civil service code of conduct says that a PPS is required always to support their Government.

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

I am mystified as to what the role of a PPS has to do with the civil service code.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to correct me. It is the ministerial code, which is similar to the civil service code.

Those on the Front Bench might well argue that they have made progress in reducing the cost of the ministerial payroll. They will argue—it is a bit of a red herring—that on taking the seals of office, Ministers took a 5% pay cut. In reality, they did not take a pay cut, because they went from being in opposition to being in government and took a 25% to 50% pay rise. It just was not as large a pay rise as it could have been.

The savings to the ministerial payroll are about £500,000, not an insignificant sum. Lord Turnbull said to the Public Administration Committee that the average cost of maintaining a Minister, with private offices, cars and private secretaries, is £500,000 per Minister. By reducing the ministerial payroll by eight in 2015, we will save the taxpayer a further £4 million. While we are at it, we might like to consider the 10 unpaid Ministers we have across the two Houses, because if we got rid of them we could save another £5 million. However, that is an argument for another time and another place.

Mr Streeter, you know better than anyone that we live in an age of austerity. Things are changing. We are dismissing senior permanent secretaries from across the civil service. We are removing chief executives of councils and their directors. We are attacking senior and middle management across the country, yet there is one group of senior management that is completely immune to these cuts and that is the ministerial corps. Yes, we are all in it together, but not quite if one is a Minister. I do not think that any good argument could be presented from those on the Front Bench for not reducing the ministerial head count.

I am an enormous fan of the coalition and the Prime Minister, and I think that the coalition is what the country needs at this time. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have talked about new politics, a new way of doing things and a new optimism. New clause 7 is the litmus test for new politics, because I do not understand how we can have new politics and oppose reducing the Government’s patronage at the same time. I hope that Front Benchers can respond to that point.

To colleagues who are, perhaps, being leaned on by the Whips, I say that this is our chance to take ownership of new politics, which cannot be driven by Front Benchers and the Executive because the Executive are all about taking and retaining power and extending the tentacles of patronage even further. We as Back Benchers will take ownership of new politics tonight; we will do the heavy lifting for the Executive. By going into the Lobby and supporting new clause 7, we will be able to look our constituents in the eye when we go for reselection after the boundary review or the general election and say, “I was different.” When they challenge us with that worn cliché, “You’re just the same as the rest of them. You’re only in it for yourself,” we can say, “You are wrong. I was one of those Members of Parliament in 2010 who voted to reduce the number of Ministers.”

I have spoken for too long. In conclusion, new clause 7 is the very essence of new politics. The House and my colleagues have the chance to do the right thing tonight and I hope that they take that chance, because they will be respected for it if they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the Committee straight on that.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported the new clause. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the important point that the oversupply of Ministers was not best addressed by their being put in the House of Lords. I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex expressed a contrary view, saying that he rather liked having Ministers in the House of Lords, but I am not sure that I agree with him.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not like the idea of lots of Ministers being in the House of Lords, but the fact is that there are currently eight unpaid Ministers there. If the hon. Gentleman does not want them to be there, why on earth are the Government putting them there?

[Mr Heath]

I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I am not the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who makes appointments. I am simply saying that I do not think we would improve the present position by putting more Ministers in the House of Lords. In the last Parliament, members of the Cabinet—Secretaries of State in charge of Departments—were in the House of Lords, and we had no way of holding them to account. That was an affront to this elected House, and I am pleased that we have put it right.

Let me explain why I cannot support the new clause, although I have a degree of sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Without rehearsing arguments from other parts of the Bill—we must not do that—I can say that the interesting thing is that the proposal to reduce the number of Members and equalise constituencies seeks to make some Members who represent very many fewer constituents than others have the same work load as those of us who represent larger constituencies; we comprise about a third of the House.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The Deputy Leader of the House questioned whether it is wise to put an arithmetical limit on the number of Ministers, but an arithmetical limit of 95 is already in place. Is he suggesting that we remove that and just have a free-for-all in this place?

[Mr Heath]

No, I am not. I am suggesting that a slightly more complicated relationship is involved than perhaps the simple solution suggests; I have already mentioned one of the factors, which is that this solution does not take into account the position of the House of Lords and the reform of that House in which we are engaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

No.

Let me go on to the next point, which is the timing of what is being suggested. This is not the hoary old chestnut that used to be described by the former Member for Cambridge, Mr David Howarth, as the doctrine of unripe time—everything was always for the best possible purposes, but the time was never ripe for it to happen. I am not saying that. I am simply saying that various elements of our proposals for reform of the constitutional arrangements and for the politics of this country are moving forward in various pieces of legislation and at various times. By the end of this Parliament, they will be in place, but this is not the right time for this measure.

Let me try to make some progress. The Government are committed—as the fairer Members who have contributed to the debate have already recognised—to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee created by this Government, will, I hope, recognise that that is the case—

[Mr Charles Walker]

To which hon. Gentleman was he referring?

[Mr Heath]

To the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Walker]

No, I am not a member of the—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot have two people on their feet at the same time. The Deputy Leader of the House should give way to Mr Walker.

[Mr Walker]

I should like to point out to the Deputy Leader of the House that I am not a member of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Heath]

I apologise; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was. I apologise to him and to the House. I hope that it will not prove to be a resigning matter that I mistook him for a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man I know that he will attest to the fact that this House has already moved the control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members through the Committee. We have also seen the election of Select Committee Members and Chairs, to which we have already drawn attention in this debate.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing. I think it is clear that the Government are not looking to extend their own influence, but believe on principle that power should be dispersed. Indeed, we will bring forward legislation very soon to disperse more power to local communities and local authorities, enabling them to do their job more effectively.

I have difficulty in accepting that there is a need to put this new clause into this Bill at this time. It is now October of 2010—[Hon. Members: “Well done!”] It is good to know that Opposition Members are engaged in serious constitutional debate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of this Bill will take effect—[Hon. Members: “No.”] There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill on the boundary reviews and the reduction in the size of this House take effect. It does not result in an immediate change to the size of this House. We are legislating at speed to allow sufficient time for boundary reviews to be conducted nationally on the basis of a smaller House, but when we have time to reflect, we should use that time.

[Mr Heath]

Yes, it would, but my point is that new clause 7 does not perfectly encapsulate the purpose that the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I might share of making government fit for purpose in that new Parliament. Given that we do not have to pass this new clause as part of the Bill, it seems sensible to take our time, listen to representations and people’s views, and see whether we can come up with something better.

We have heard very clearly that the issue at stake is the size of the Government’s payroll vote. The proposition we have heard is that the Bill will give the Executive undue numerical dominance in the House and that we must therefore legislate now to reduce the number of Ministers here. It is a numerical fact that if the Bill becomes law, and unless we legislate to the contrary at some stage, the Government elected in 2015 will be entitled to make Ministers out of a higher proportion of the Members of the House. They will not be compelled to do so, but they will be entitled to, and recent Governments have tended to appoint as many Ministers as they can, or very close to that number. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have acknowledged before that this issue deserves consideration, and it would not take a great detective to find the number of occasions on which I have said precisely that. On the face of it, it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will consider how to address this issue and we will do so.

We are told that Governments legislate too much, and the new clause concerns an issue that might be better resolved without legislation. Governments are capable of reducing the number of Ministers without being compelled to do so through legislation. More importantly, perhaps, the payroll vote is often taken to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are not covered by current legislation and who would not be covered by the new clause. It is only by self-denying ordinance that those numbers are limited. Governments have clearly been capable of self-restraint, and that self-restraint would still be necessary if the new clause were accepted. As I have said, under the previous Government we had not only Ministers and PPSs, but tsars, envoys, special representatives, Regional Ministers and assistants to Regional Ministers. A lot of them have been removed but they were all elements of patronage within the House. If it is patronage we are seeking to address, then we have to address all those appointments, not just the ministerial ranks.

Let me repeat a point that was made earlier. Legislation would not cover the number of Opposition Front Benchers, which is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back Benches. I accept the principle of legislation on ministerial numbers as a back-stop, but surely the number of Ministers must be a function of need, which is not necessarily related to the number of MPs. When previous statutes increased the number of Ministers in the House, they were unrelated to any changes in the number of MPs: there has never been a clear link or a set ratio. At the moment, there can be one Minister for every 6.842 Members of Parliament or thereabouts. The new clause would enshrine that ratio in law in perpetuity. If it were to become law, the Government could appoint as Ministers no more than 87.692307 Members of the Chamber. That would be the relationship. I merely make the point that I do not believe that a simple arithmetic relationship is necessarily the right one to address.

We should not forget the purpose of having a ministerial presence in the House: we need sufficient Ministers to attend to the business in the House, to make statements, to answer questions, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. The House rightly expects the highest standards of accountability from its Ministers and we strive to meet those standards. Indeed, it is often complained that Ministers are too rarely seen when the House discusses issues for which they do not have direct responsibility. That reflects the reality that we demand a lot of our Ministers in this country, both to govern and to legislate.

The question of how many Ministers should sit in the House of Commons is bound up with other questions—for example, considering the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing a Committee on reform of the House of Lords. The Committee comprises Members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rhondda asks, “What’s that got to do with it?” as though reform of the House of Lords—the thing for which we have been arguing for 100 years—has nothing to do with the constitutional arrangements of this country.

The cross-party Committee is discussing all issues pertinent to reform, including size and composition, and whether the second Chamber is wholly or mainly elected. It will also discuss the position of Ministers in the reformed Second Chamber. Currently, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons, but we will need to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers may be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber, or by the introduction of elected Members.

The Committee is charged with producing a draft Bill early next year, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is possible that arguments may then be made for either a greater or smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber. We should wait to hear the views of the Committee.

There is also an argument that the limit on Ministers in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is arcane in other respects. For example, it makes no provision for Ministers who might fill the role on a part-time basis or a job share. It is expressed in terms of numbers of individuals rather than full-time equivalents. That should perhaps be part of any consideration.

For all those reasons, although I welcome the debate, the Government are not minded to accept the new clause. We shall reflect on the arguments made today and set out plans once we have achieved some consensus on the composition of the second Chamber, including the number of Ministers there. If it still appears—[Interruption.] I think it is important for the House to hear this. If it still appears necessary, there will be plenty of time at that stage to legislate before 2015. I urge the hon. Member for Broxbourne to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that we shall very carefully consider the arguments he has made.

[Mr Walker]

I say to new colleagues who were not here in 2009 that it was the most awful experience. We were led up the garden path by a powerful Executive and had our legs cut from underneath us. We vowed that we would never, ever let that happen again. We vowed that we would take control of this place back from the Executive.

I wish I was being braver in my new clause. All I am asking is that when the House of Commons reduces by a mere 50, we reduce the number of Ministers by a mere eight, yet in this age of new politics those on the Front Bench cannot even give us that. Colleagues, this is the night when the new politics will be born, or it will die. Please support new clause 7 tonight, to give new politics some meaning, because it will be driven by Back Benchers—it can never be driven from the Front Bench.

I call for a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brady]

I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be commendably consistent. I hoped that that would be evidenced this evening, should he be called upon to enter the Division Lobby on these matters. My optimism is not bounded even by the shadow Minister’s words of caution, because my hon. Friend the Minister also appears to endorse the sentiments that I have expressed.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

He is a good man, although he is a bit wayward on occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel]

I shall indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for urging me to push the amendment to a vote. I shall seek to catch your eye later, Mr Gale, to divide the Committee.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Lady will know that the Liberal Democrat Benches are full of independent-minded people and I am sure that some of them will demonstrate an independence of mind and support her in the Division Lobby.

[Natascha Engel]

I hope so too, and I hope to see the hon. Gentleman there as well. I would be delighted if as many people as possible joined us in the Aye Lobby—I am just getting used to being on the wrong side.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, is very straightforward: it grants every child and young person the right to express their views “freely” and to have those views “given due weight” in “all matters affecting” them. That goes to the crux of the matter. Our 16-year-olds will be excluded by what we do here tonight unless the amendment is accepted. Their voices will not be given due weight regarding something that will fundamentally affect their democratic rights two years after the referendum. Anybody who is aged 16 on the day of the referendum will be 18 at the general election and eligible to vote. We need to be careful about contravening people’s human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on providing us with the amendment to debate this evening, and on the manner in which she presented her case. It showed that one can make a forceful case with a considerable degree of humour, and I think that we all enjoyed it. Indeed, it was one of the most enjoyable speeches that I have heard in the House for many a long year.

I was going to say that I was once a 16-year-old, but I am not entirely convinced that I ever really was; I think that I am going back to my childhood now. Several hon. Members referred to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I know that hon. Members in the Liberal Democrat party are trying to find reasons why they do not have to vote against the Whip this evening, but I honestly say to them, “You’re either in favour of votes at 16 and 17 or you’re not, and if you are you should be voting in favour of votes at 16 and 17 in the next election, which may be held next May.”

Otherwise, it seems to me that the Liberal Democrats really are taking to heart the words of Homer Simpson, when he said:

“Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals—except the weasels.”

I know that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) is not a weasel, and I know that none of the honourable people currently sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches is either, so I hope that they will stick with their manifesto commitment, which was to vote in favour of votes at 16 and 17. The most recent vote on the matter, held before the general election, was a free vote for Labour Members, and the Labour party will have a free vote again this evening.

I happen to support votes at 16 and 17, simply because we ask young people to do many things in modern society, and they are aged in many ways. We now expect them to take on significant levels of debt, and to consider doing so before they go to university, and I honestly believe that if they can make decisions about whether they can parent, about whether they have children, I think that they should also be able to decide who governs the country. That is not the precise proposal in the amendment before us, because it relates merely to the referendum, but I think that general election votes should also apply to that age group.

I am afraid that I find the amendment that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) tabled quite disturbing and unpleasant.

[Mr Charles Walker]

You’re over-egging it.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not over-egging it. Remarkably few people have migrated to my constituency of the Rhondda over the past 80 years, except from Ireland and England, so this is not an issue about who is and is not able to vote in my constituency. However, I rather like the fact that some elements of our law on citizenship are slightly fudged. I like the fact that we still emphasise the bonds of the Commonwealth sufficiently to be able to say that if an Australian works in this country in a bar as part of their gap year, is resident here, pays their taxes and is working, by virtue of their citizenship of Australia they are allowed to vote.

Let us refer to the Republic of Cyprus. Many north London Conservative MPs would reckon that it was not without the Cypriot vote in the general election that they were elected. In addition, if we were to disfranchise the large number of Greek Cypriots in north London and, for that matter, south Wales, we would be saying to them, “Please don’t engage in the British political system,” and doing so at a time when their engagement with the British political system enables us to engage better with the problem in Cyprus, which is still a divided island, with a divided capital city and all the problems about which this Committee knows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That is quite interesting, because rather bizarrely I spent a lot of the general election in Spain, trying to help British people get home during the ash cloud problem. Indeed, it was as difficult to get to Spain as it was to get back, so it was a slightly complex mission. I am conscious that about 1 million British people live in Spain, and that about 800,000 live in France, and many exercise a right to vote because they have a second home either in the UK, Spain or wherever. However, when they no longer participate in British society, it is difficult to see why, after 15 years, they should continue to have the right to vote as an overseas voter. In actual fact, the number who use their vote is infinitesimal. That is partly because of the difficulty of voting by post. I suppose that arrangements could be made for voting in embassies, consulates-general and so on around the country, but I am not sure that it is worth the effort. After 15 years, there is a good argument to say that if someone has no direct investment in the future of the United Kingdom, then it does not apply.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I am trying to follow the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that rugby league players from Papua New Guinea playing in the north of England should have a right to vote in a referendum on the future voting system in the United Kingdom?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West—a man who just described himself as an eternal optimist. They are both so optimistic that they are still referring to me as a Minister, which is a delight. Of course, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) knows perfectly well that that is not the argument I am making; I know that because he did that little shrivel-up of his nose that he sometimes does when he is about to make a mischievous contribution in debate.

The basis of my argument is that the bonds of the Commonwealth are important, and I have given a couple of instances of that. We have significant numbers of people from these various communities in the UK. Many of them have been resident for some time, pay taxes and contribute to British political life, and I would like them to be able to remain in the same situation. The situation is not broken, and so, to use an old Conservative principle, I do not see the need to fix it. Particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland, it would be a step completely in the wrong direction to try to unpick the relationship that we have managed to maintain over the past few years.

Another issue that has been touched on only slightly relates to the overseas territories. We should consider, not directly in relation to this referendum, but certainly in relation to the future, how overseas territories are represented in the context of the British Government. There is an degree to which we still decide matters for the overseas territories. For instance, in recent weeks the Government have decided to overturn the decision on borrowing in the Cayman Islands and allowed the Cayman Islands to remain as a tax haven. I believe that that is entirely a mistake, and that the finances of Cayman are unsustainable. It is therefore important that we find some means of ensuring that the overseas territories have some form of representation.

I want to ask the Minister a couple of other questions about why the Government have introduced the clause precisely as it is. I presume that we will not have a clause stand part debate, so I will mention these points now, if that is all right, Ms Primarolo. I do not understand why peers should be allowed to vote in a referendum on elections to the House of Commons. That seems slightly odd, because all the other provisions relate to those who are able to vote in elections to the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. In particular—this may be down to my personal stupidity and inability to read legislation—[Interruption.] Undoubtedly it is, yes. I see that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) has swapped sides and decided to join the ranks of the Labour party: he is very welcome.

I asked the Minister about clause 2(2) earlier, so by now he might have had some inspiration from the officials. No, I see that he is not going to get any inspiration from them because they are all shaking their heads furiously. The clause makes provision for peers whose only right to vote will be by virtue of being able to do so through the City of London—for instance, as an alderman—and therefore not by virtue of their residence. Precisely how many people does he think that that catches?

Can the Minister tell us about the position of the bishops? As he will know, some bishops arrive in the House of Lords automatically and some arrive on a sort of episcopal escalator that takes them up there once they are among the longest-standing bishops of the Church of England, as long as they are diocesan, not suffragan or area bishops. What happens to bishops once they are no longer taking their ex officio seat? Will they be allowed to vote? What provisions does he think should be made for the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I should like to speak to amendment 332, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I am grateful to her for doing so, because this is about something that I passionately believe in. Like other Members, I too was 16 once, so I should like to join that club.

This is a unique and momentous moment, as it could open the door to votes for 16-year-olds in all elections. I would welcome that. We are in danger of marginalising young people, and we have to give considerable thought to which way we vote on this proposal, because we do not want to send out the wrong message to them. When I look around at young people, I see that they are growing up faster, certainly in my area. We have a more diverse economy and young people have different career prospects: they expect to change jobs several times, and they are more interested in the future than they ever have been. A more uncertain future gives them more interest in the changing job situation. In my constituency, 15, 16 and 17-year-olds want to be involved in that debate. We see it in the schools and colleges where all the young people are involved in debating—more so than I can ever remember in my lifetime, and perhaps before that on the basis of what I hear from other people.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not mean to disparage 16 and 17-year-olds, but most of them want to be on the Xbox, not putting the X in the box. Since the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament, how many 16 and 17-year-olds have written to him demanding the franchise at 16?

[Graham Jones]

That is a very cynical and jaundiced view to take towards 16 and 17-year-olds. The hon. Gentleman will not get many votes from 16 and 17-year-olds in his constituency, and he is probably in desperate need of some election training. However, I will leave that to his constituency: if he is going to lose it to 16 and 17-year-olds, I am quite happy about that.

Young people in general want to be involved in politics and take more interest in it. With issues such as climate change, politics has jumped a generational gap to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds, who are very interested in that because it is their planet that is being polluted. It is not just about climate change or jobs, but a series of issues that people of an increasingly young age seem to be gravitating towards. For example, there are big issues of teenage pregnancy. Decisions are being made about them in their formative adult years, and they want to be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

I enjoyed that intervention. It is good to hear that young people are joining trade unions; Labour Members certainly welcome that. The TV debates encourage us to extend the franchise—I think that we all agree that young people in our constituencies were energised by them. The medium and the mode meant that young people could see politics in a different light, and there was an increase in interest and participation. I went around the polling stations in Hyndburn when I was elected, and many more young people were in the polling booths. I think that that contributed to the higher turnout at the election.

Let me extend the argument about extending the franchise, because I believe that it should apply to all elections. We have a by-election in Baxenden on 18 November, and our candidate, if I can plug him, David Hartley, was 18 only days before nomination. He cannot suddenly have become politically aware; he has built up to that. We should encourage young people into politics, and it is good that a young person has come forward. We must be clear that to be politically aware at 18 requires a build-up of knowledge, and 16 and 17-year-olds should participate.

Although the amendment is about the AV referendum, the principle is clearly broad. It is a watershed moment because if we give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for the referendum, it opens up the argument for the future. Let us consider tuition fees, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That assists the argument for extending the franchise. Parliament is discussing the differential charging of students. We could go back to the old debate about taxation without representation, but if we intend to subject young people to differential charging based on background, not ability to pay, we should extend the franchise to them. Today could be the day we start extending it.

The major argument against extending the franchise is lack of knowledge and experience among young people, but that is ageist and not based on young people’s cognitive processes.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a heartfelt plea, and I quite like children—I have three of my own. Why cannot we leave them alone to let them get on with being children? They are not obsessed with getting the franchise. Sixteen and 17-year-olds want to chase girls, drink beer and have a good time. Let us stop accelerating the ageing process.

[Graham Jones]

Given that the hon. Gentleman is now encouraging his constituents aged 17 and under to vote against the Conservative party, I hope that he has more children.

It is claimed that young people do not have the experience and knowledge to vote. When my grandmother was 95, she had serious Alzheimer’s, yet she still held the right to vote. Nearly all young people are far more informed than my grandma was in her later years, but we never thought about taking the vote from her. Saying that young people are not experienced or knowledgeable enough is not a strong enough argument. It does not reflect real life or how people experience it. Indeed, I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds are often in a better position to make an informed judgment. There is no principled or consistent argument that justifies denying the vote to young people.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

The way in which people—normal people who are not interested in the finer detail of political machinations—make up their minds is by getting glancing reactions from the 10 o’clock news. They turn on their television sets to watch “The X Factor”, but it is not quite time, so they have to watch some boring programme in which someone is talking about something. In other cases, they have read the sports pages, or their wait for a meeting is dragging on and on, so they read a bit of political coverage. Then they make up their minds relatively quickly. That is not to suggest, as some have suggested, that people are unsophisticated; far from it. Unlike us, who require five hours to churn endlessly through these issues before making up our minds and voting in the Lobbies, they make up their minds quickly. They make judgments about our character, our motives and our arguments quickly. They do not need four weeks separately for all of us to go round and round the issues. They do not need more than four minutes to make up their minds.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents elect us to use our considered judgments on the big issues of the day, and if we are to have a referendum, let us do it in a way that ensures that we get it right?

[Nick Boles]

I always defer to my hon. Friend, and in particular on the question whether we are right, here and now, to deliberate the issues. I cannot say that it is my idea of fun, but it is what we are here to do, and it is right that we should do it. However, does that mean that we should therefore expect the people to go through a similar process in answering a simple question about a voting system? I do not think that we should.

It is revealing when some Opposition Members talk about the lack of consultation in the other nations of the United Kingdom. They never refer to the opinions of their people. They talk about—I quote the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)—there having been no consultation with the stakeholders and about political opinion. To me, that sounds as though we are talking about elites.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister is being very generous, but bearing in mind that there will not be a general election until 2015, surely there is not that much of a rush to get this measure through the House.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right that the coalition Government are strong and that there will not be an election until 7 May 2015, as set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear, however, that we want the referendum to take place next year in order to make progress, and we also need to kick off the boundary review, ensuring that it reports in good time before the next election. That will allow parties across the House to select their candidates. We have secured a balance between moving at a reasonable pace, while also allowing adequate time for proper parliamentary debate. I think that we have done so.

[Mr Walker]

But why must we have the referendum in May next year?

[Mr Harper]

We made a commitment in the coalition agreement to have the referendum, and the Government believe that we should arrange to have it at an early opportunity, putting the question to the electors so that they can decide what voting system they want to use in the next election. That is the decision that the Government have made, and that is the view with which I will ask the Committee to agree later today. The House has already agreed with it in principle.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

No. If I may, I shall make some progress.

We left the Conservative laws in place. To deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we never sought, and would never have sought, to change the laws relating to boundaries without broad cross-party agreement. The insinuation that we somehow contrived to secure a large gap between the average size of Labour seats and Conservative seats is wholly ill-founded. Six of 10 of the largest constituencies are now Labour, and only three of the 10 smallest are. As I say, we would have been happy to discuss with the Deputy Prime Minister sensible and fair ways of speeding up the timetable for drawing boundaries, just as we did in 1992. Unfortunately, he has put political self-interest way ahead of democratic principles. That is especially evident in his proposals to reduce the size of this House to 600 Members.

The justification for that proposal, which we heard yet again today, is that the House is allegedly too large. That claim does not withstand examination. Our ratio of elected parliamentary representatives per head of population is roughly the same as that in France and Italy; the ratio is much smaller for other EU partners such as Ireland, Sweden, Greece and Poland. Of course, our House is larger than theirs because the population is greater here, and we are not a federal state. That said, we have only 20 more Members than the Bundestag in Germany.

In any event, a more sensible basis on which to decide is to ask what level of representation is right for the United Kingdom, and to examine how the electorate and the House of Commons have changed over time. If the number of Members of Parliament had grown out of all proportion to the size of the electorate, there would clearly be a problem, but that is not the case. Today, there are 650 Members, an increase of less than 4% in 60 years. Over the same period, the electorate have grown by 25%, and the work load of Members on both sides of the House has increased exponentially; that is both the work that arises from constituents, and the work that arises from responsibilities in the House.

Perhaps that is why, in 2003, the man who today is Prime Minister argued to preserve the boundaries of his west Oxfordshire seat and made a strong plea for the size of the House of Commons to stay as it was. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, said in his oral evidence to an independent local public inquiry, which existed then and existed under us, but which will no longer exist:

“Somebody might take the view that at 659 there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster. They may take the view . . . that Westminster has less to do, with less MPs—I certainly hope that is not the case.”

I quote from the Boundary Commission for England: Transcript of Oxfordshire Boundary Inquiry, 2003.

The Deputy Prime Minister—this was another error by him—said that the number of Members in the House had crept inexorably up. That is not the case. If he had bothered to examine the House of Commons Library research note on the Bill, he would have seen that on the back. The numbers went up to 659 under the Conservatives. They were put at 659 in 1992. They were at 659 in the 1997 election. They are now down to 650. Of course we would have been happy to discuss sensible and agreed reductions in the total size, as indeed we did when we were in office.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Is it not the case that we have 650 Members of Parliament because we draw the Executive from Parliament? At any given time there are at least 300 Members of Parliament serving in the Executive or the shadow Executive. That leaves only 350 Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account.

[Mr Straw]

I had not thought of that before, but I commend the strength of that point. It is why the banal comparisons that the Deputy Prime Minister makes are so false.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

When introducing this Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister dressed it up as the beginning of new politics. Well, this is not new politics; it is old politics exercised at its very best or its very worst, according to one’s disposition. It is about the Executive—the Government of the day—seizing more power for themselves. Let us not be coy about this. That is what Governments do. Let us not be afraid of admitting that.

The arguments for reducing the size of the House of Commons by 50 are nothing more than very flimsy. We are told that cutting 50 Members of Parliament will save £12 million. Well, colleagues, that is what 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy adds up to—we are going to save £12 million. Why stop there? Let us get rid of 300 Members of Parliament and save £72 million. There may be many good reasons for reducing the size of the House of Commons, but saving £12 million is not one of them. We trot out this ridiculous figure to appease the headline writers in the Daily Mail and the tabloid press, and those journalists who work for The Daily Telegraph, which is just a tabloid in a bow tie.

What really concerns me about this Bill is the fact that the Government talk about reducing the number of MPs to 600, but there is no mention of reducing the number of Ministers. What the Bill does, then, is to increase the patronage of the Executive. There will be yet more incentive for my colleagues to be good little boys and good little girls. That is what drives the public mad—seeing MPs say one thing in their constituency and doing another thing here in the hope of securing ministerial preferment.

I would personally like to see 450 MPs in the House of Commons, but only as part of the separation of powers where we remove the Executive from Parliament. The reason we have 650 Members of Parliament, colleagues, is so that at any given time—in the last Parliament, for example—300 of our number have either Front-Bench or shadow Front-Bench duties. As three hundred of our colleagues were taking their orders either from the Prime Minister or from the leader of their party, it left a mere 300 to 350 of us to hold the Government to account. I am all for reducing the number of MPs, but only as part of a far wider package of proper political reform.

To colleagues on all sides of the House, but particularly to my colleagues on the Government Benches, I say that there is a danger of politicising the issue of boundaries, as this reduction in the number of MPs so nakedly favours my party. I know that the system up to now, by an accident of design, has favoured the Labour party, but if this reform is to carry weight and legitimacy, it must be seen to be fair to all parties, not to the naked advantage of one party.

I have already mentioned what the public hate. They hate patronage; they hate politicians doing deals in smoke-filled rooms. Now, I support the coalition because it was the least worst of the options before us after the May general election, but let us be in no doubt that the coalition was agreed in a smoke-filled room by a few very powerful politicians at the head of two parties. I did not have a great deal of say in the formation of that coalition. I had no say in what policies were included or what policies were discarded. What happened actually transferred power further into the hands of a political elite.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman must make it clear to the House that he is speaking for his own party. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, the coalition was approved by a vote of the parliamentary party and the federal executive, and then by democratic vote of the representatives of every local party in conference assembled—and by a large majority.

[Mr Walker]

I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats had such a frank and open discussion and perhaps we can learn from that, as we are in the age of lessons learned.

[Mr Jenkin]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, let me say, with the greatest respect to the Liberal party, that members of the Liberal party and Liberal MPs are not the people. I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the people of this country as being those who were excluded from the coalition deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

What I am saying to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is that under the AV system, party negotiating teams will more often decide the outcome of a general election than will the public or the electorate, which will not increase confidence in democracy, but further erode confidence in it. “Are we to believe these manifestos?” is what people will say, as they see politicians saying one thing in the manifesto and then doing something different among themselves in a smoke-filled room.

Let us remind ourselves, colleagues, that the second part of the Bill, which is concerned with AV, is purely there to appease less than 10% of the House. That is the future of permanent coalition Government—deals to appease minority parties. I am extremely nervous about this Bill, which I do not think has been properly thought through. It has been presented, brought forward and debated in haste.

I will say this, however. I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) is the Prime Minister. I could not think of a better one. That is why on this one occasion—I say this particularly to my Whip—out of loyalty to the Prime Minister and for no other reason, I shall support this Bill on Second Reading. After that, however, every vote that I enter into, for the rest of the Parliament, will be a free vote. The Whip need not concern himself too much, because I am a Conservative to my core. Every fibre in me is Conservative. On most occasions, therefore, I will happily walk through the Division Lobby with my party. However, there will be occasions when I exercise my right, as the elected representative of Broxbourne, to disagree with my party. In essence, that is what I am, and it is what we all are: representatives coming from constituencies, to use our judgment on the great issues of the day.

I am representative of neither the Whips Office nor No. 10. More than anything, people in this country are crying out for independent-minded, honest, brave Members of Parliament, who put being a legislator and sitting in this place above all else. Too often, we are viewed as coming to this place with an aspiration to become a Minister. I say to my constituents that there is no greater honour than being the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne; there is no greater honour than being a Member of Parliament. If we begin to focus on our constituencies and remember why we are put here, we restore confidence in politics.

We have had a difficult few years, but if colleagues genuinely feel that they do not have the character to represent their constituents bravely in this place, they should stand down now and let someone else take their place.

Debate on the Address

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me to speak on this first day of the Queen’s Speech. It is fantastic to see you in the Chair.

There are so many new things going on: this is the first time that I have been on the Government side of the House and I am getting a new perspective on the Chamber; and it is the first time that I have been in the House with a Conservative Prime Minister, and I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). He spent four long, hard years getting us to this position. He made huge personal sacrifices in his life, and I wish him the very best as he leads this country through some difficult times. He has it in him to be an outstanding young Prime Minister. I also welcome the Liberal Democrats to this side of the House. I have many friends among the party—I like them very much—but it will take me some time to get used to them being in government with us. I will get used to it, I promise, but it will not happen over night. However, I have a great deal of time, particularly for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), the Deputy Leader of the House, whom I know has a great love and passion for this Chamber.

I have been very disturbed by today’s maiden speeches, because they have been awfully good. My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Watford (Richard Harrington) have been dangerously erudite. They are either geniuses or total creeps, but I think that they are geniuses, because I have never heard such good speeches in this Chamber from new Members—I certainly did not hear them in my first six months, and I doubt that we will hear much better in the months ahead. They were fabulous speeches, and I am sure that their families are extremely proud of them. I bet that their constituents are very grateful that they have them as their Members of Parliament.

I am enormously excited by the number of new colleagues on the Government and Opposition Benches. They are a very self-confident and vibrant bunch, but what excites me most is that they are independent-minded. I am sure that that does not excite the Whips on the Front Bench so much, but I think it is a great asset to this place to have independent-minded Members of Parliament who will go on to be brave and courageous, because if our constituents want anything, they want people who say something in their constituency and then go down and do it in the House of Commons. They want consistency. They want their Members of Parliament to deliver on their promises.

We in this House will be faced with an enormous number of challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead. We will have to make some enormously difficult decisions—decisions that will cause us personal pain and, I am sure, personal pain for our constituents, but decisions that need to be made. They need to be made for the sake of our children and grandchildren. We need to rebuild our economy. We need to have a strong and vibrant economy that can support high levels of employment. It does not matter if we represent a Labour seat, a Conservative seat, a Lib Dem seat or, now, even a Green seat; the most important thing to the majority of our constituents is having a job, because with a job comes self-respect and the ability to put a roof over their families’ heads and food on the table. We in this House have a duty to ensure that we have a vibrant economy that can continue to generate high levels of wealth. I and others will be working to achieve that.

We also have to deliver on our promises. All of us—or almost all of us—said that immigration was a concern that needed to be addressed. My constituents in Broxbourne are fair-minded, decent and compassionate people. They want skilled workers coming to this country who can add to the wealth of this country and pay taxes that help to support hospitals, schools and infrastructure. My constituents also want to provide genuine sanctuary to those who are in genuine fear for their lives. However, we have to recognise in this place that uncontrolled immigration is not an unalloyed good for everyone.

Immigration tends to work very well for the middle and upper classes, but many of my constituents are competing for scarce public resources, such as education, health, transport and housing. That has created a level of concern and bad feeling which has caused me a great deal of concern, because in my constituency and others we still see the British National party getting a foothold and gaining traction. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) had such fantastic results against the British National party, not only turning back Nick Griffin, the leader of that party, but ensuring that night that many BNP councillors lost their seats. We need to continue that progress, but if we are to do so, our constituents need to know that we are serious about addressing their concerns.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend when he is in full flow, but may I just point out two things? First, I come from an immigrant family—I am third generation—and the thing that made it work was that my ancestors came to this country because they admired it and wanted to be part of it, to learn the language and to integrate. That is an essential component to which he might give some attention. The second thing is that if we were unwise enough to have changed the voting system, we might have BNP MPs in this place right now.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes two powerful points. Of course we want to enable people to integrate into our wonderful society. It has many benefits—freedom of association; freedom to hang out with who we want to hang out with; freedom to marry who we want to marry; freedom to go to a polling station and vote for the person who we want to represent us, for better or for worse—so I agree with him: there are many, many things that need to be done.

While I have the attention of the House, let me say that it is so nice to speak to such a packed House. Many new Members will smile at that, but let me tell them that there will be evenings when they are speaking to no more than three or four people, so this is a good outcome for those who have made their maiden speeches today.

Within the Government’s priorities, of which there are many, they have paid great attention to the issue of health and the provision of health care to our constituents. I would make one plea to them. I see my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) in the Chamber; he has played a great part in raising in this place the profile and status of mental health. Nevertheless, mental health remains a very unfashionable subject, and that is a great shame. Many of our constituents live daily with terrible conditions that impact on their lives, on their happiness and that of their families, and, collectively, on their families’ prospects.

I know that tough decisions will need to be taken on the allocation of scarce resources, but, for too many decades, mental health has been left behind. It has been at the back of the queue. It would be churlish if I were not to pay tribute to the previous Government, because they did start to address the shortcomings in funding and to ensure that the mentally ill got the care that they deserved. I have every confidence that my Government—this Conservative Government supported by my Liberal Democrat friends—will pay the same attention to mental health and elevate it further up the list of priorities in the NHS.

There is nothing more rewarding, having made a speech in this place raising an issue of great concern, than to have someone come up to you very quietly in your constituency, take you by the arm and thank you in a private, understated way. That is when you know that you are making a difference and giving people a voice who would otherwise not have one.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Mental health issues affect almost a quarter of people at some stage in their lives. During the last Parliament, I was surprised to discover how many people on incapacity benefit had mental health problems. They have particular difficulty in getting back into work, and they need special packages. This is a key issue, and my hon. Friend is perfectly right to raise it.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The longer people are out of work and not socialising with people in the workplace, the worse they feel about themselves. They disengage from society, which has an impact on their mental health and on their ability to lead fulfilled lives. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that people who are not in the workplace and not actively involved in the economy are given every chance to take part in the world of work again, and to make a useful contribution to society—a contribution in which they can take great pride. This is not just about the amount of money they earn; it is about giving them a sense of self-worth. My hon. Friend has made a very good point.

[Mr Syms]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. A key point is that many of those people were persuaded to take jobs on the basis that they would receive support packages—perhaps to do with travel or other forms of support—that have not necessarily turned out to be as good as they expected. The difficulty is that, once someone comes off benefit, they find it very difficult to get back into the benefits system if a job does not work out. The transition from benefit to work is an important stage at which to ensure that they get the support that they need to undertake a fulfilling job.

[Mr Walker]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point.

In concluding my remarks on mental health, I must point out that there are far too many initiatives. There are also far too many different groups and professional set-ups providing support services to people with mental health problems. We need to streamline all that. People with mental health problems do not want to have to relate to seven, eight, nine or 10 teams; they want to relate to one team that can give them the support that they need in order to manage their illness, recover from it—if that is possible; it is not always so—and get back into work to lead a fulfilling professional life.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Speaker! I see that you are back in your Chair! How exciting! I have waffled on for far too long, but I should like to conclude with these few slightly rebellious remarks. There is a great tension in this place between Parliament and the Executive. For 100 years, the Executive have cleverly taken powers out of the hands of Parliament, taken them on board and used them for themselves. I hope that in the years ahead we will start to take some powers back from the Executive, find our collective voice on behalf of this nation and restore people’s confidence in us.

I say to new Members, “Do not look towards any Government to raise the status of the House of Commons.” That is not the responsibility of the Government and I assure new Members that if the Government try to do it they will not do a particularly good job. It is our responsibility to raise the status of the House of Commons, and I am very much up for the challenge, just as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who wants to intervene, is up for it.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I intend this to be an intervention rather than a subsequent speech. Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I say that should he be successful in becoming a vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee—a matter that I know he is far too modest to raise himself on the Floor of the House; it is being voted on tomorrow—I am sure that he will put into practice the very message that he is preaching to us tonight.

[Mr Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend for doing that advertisement for me.

Let me conclude by saying that a self-confident Government and a self-confident Opposition will tolerate and encourage independent-minded Members of Parliament. They will actually derive great strength from such independence of mind. I am delighted that there are so many new and able colleagues on both sides of the House. We have said goodbye to some very talented individuals who until six weeks ago were respected Members of Parliament for their constituencies. What I have seen over the last few days quite frightens me, as we have seen some enormously talented people here and the Whips are going to have their job cut out for the next five years—if it is five years. I wish new colleagues every success. This is a great place to be; it is the mother of all Parliaments; new Members have done fantastically well in getting themselves here.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.