Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That is not an analogy I would make with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. When this House made decisions about setting up those bodies, we did not think it appropriate to give them the power to pick and choose their term of office. We set it out in the legislation that set the bodies up.

I am curious to know what the supporters of the Lords amendment think would happen if the next Parliament decided that it did not want a fixed term. It is not very clear from the amendments, how exactly the mechanisms would work. I shall take Members through the Lords amendments shortly and explain how I think they would work.

It has been suggested that a sunset clause would ensure that the issue of fixed-term Parliaments and the merits of this particular Bill would be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. That is not necessary, however. This legislation has already been scrutinised by four Select Committees: the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that any one of those Select Committees or another Select Committee will subject the Bill to some form of post-legislative scrutiny, which is something that the Government would welcome. I do not think that these sunset clauses, however, would lead to that type of sensible scrutiny.

I said that I would look at the effect of the Lords amendments on the working of the Bill. Lords amendment 9 talks about a resolution having to be

“approved by each House of Parliament”.

That is fairly straightforward. The most unclear provisions relate to clause 7(4), stating that a number of parts of the Bill will have effect

“only until the first meeting of the… Parliament”,

which would then decide whether to bring those provisions in. The provisions on early elections and confidence votes would not be clear and it would not be clear how Parliament would be dissolved. The schedule, which has a number of consequential amendments, would also not be in force. The schedule, which repeals the Septennial Act and a whole load of other provisions, would effectively cease to be in force and, presumably, all the repeals and amendments would be unrepealed and unamended. We would then end up with a very complicated constitutional proposition.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Unless I misheard the Minister, he referred to clause 7(4) of the Bill. I cannot find a clause 7(4).

[Mr Harper]

I am looking at the copy of the Bill as amended on Report from the House of Lords, which does have a clause 7. It is the final provision clause. It is the bit that is dealt with by one of the Lords amendments that we are debating. I think that the amendment will be confusing. It will make many of our constitutional provisions unclear. I do not believe that those who tabled the amendments and voted for them in the other place have fully thought through how they would work in practice.

Another important issue is the relationship that would be created between this House and the other place if the amendments stay in the Bill. The importance of establishing the primacy of this House came out clearly in our debate on the Government’s proposals on House of Lords reform. The amendments would give the House and the other place the ability to vote on whether we have a fixed-term Parliament, without going through the normal legislative process. That could lead to an unfortunate scenario in which this House voted overwhelmingly in favour of the motion that we have a fixed-term Parliament and that the provisions of the Bill, if passed, come into force, while the currently unelected House failed to vote for the motion, so we would not have a fixed-term Parliament. Important decisions about elections in this country, fixed-term Parliaments, the confidence procedures and the ability to trigger early general elections would effectively be made by the unelected House, and that would diminish the power of elected Members.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister’s example is completely wrong. If this House voted—on the basis of the Government’s and, therefore, the Prime Minister’s majority—for a fixed-term Parliament, and the other place did not vote for a fixed-term Parliament, whether there would be an early election would be in the hands of the Prime Minister. The will of this House would always have carried.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman confuses the will of the House and the will of the Prime Minister. The scenario that I set out stands. If the other place had chosen not to vote for fixed-term Parliaments, we would not have a fixed-term Parliament, despite this House having voted in favour, and that would give back to the Prime Minister the ability solely to decide whether there should be an election. We would have taken powers away from Members of this House who had voted, perhaps overwhelmingly, to ensure that the Bill was in force. We would have been thwarted by their lordships. Given the importance to Members of the primacy of this House, that effectively moves power in the opposite direction, which Members will find unwelcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said, when this House decided to legislate to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it did not think that it was right to have variable terms; it decided that it was sensible to have fixed terms. If this House thought that that was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Let me finish by reading out the following quote from the right hon. Member for Blackburn. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central rightly says that I have already read out the quote, but I wanted to set out the conclusion that the Labour party should draw from it. The right hon. Gentleman said that

“parties in opposition that are in favour of fixed terms go off the boil on them when they come into government.” —[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 645.]

The Labour party is in danger of doing the opposite. It is in danger of being committed to this proposition when it was in government and then going off the boil on it when in opposition. The party should reconsider. In the time before the House is asked to make a decision on this, I hope that the Labour party will decide that we should disagree with their lordships on this group of amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that the Minister did not impress me with his arguments. In particular, he referred to the fact that the Conservative manifesto did not contain anything about introducing fixed-term Parliaments and then said that when good arguments come along people should bow to them. As far as I can see, the only good argument that came along was that the Liberal Democrats would not support the Government unless there was a fixed-term Parliament element in the coalition agreement. So the only reason why we have this Bill, particularly in its current form, is because of the attempt to create the coalition and then to keep it going for five years.

The Minister then tried to tease me a little with the idea that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said that he wanted people who voted for Labour to be voting for fixed-term Parliaments. This amendment would allow us to vote in every Parliament for fixed-term Parliaments, so it gives more opportunities for people to vote for them, rather than fewer.

[Mr Cash]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the Bill has all the elements of an attempt to achieve a sort of permanent coalition arrangement? In fact, if one were to look at the current state of affairs, one might feel some sympathy for those on our side of the House who have found as a result of the mistakes that have been made by them and by others that they are now low in the polls and that the 56 seats that they won at the last general election might by all accounts be fewer than 20 if those opinion polls were to be believed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think I agree with that, but I am not entirely sure. The bit I agreed with was in feeling sympathy for those on the Government side of the House.

The three amendments we are discussing come as a package. In essence, they are all there to do the same thing: to say that the present arrangements will remain, so that the coalition gets to hold itself together until 2015, but that after the next general election and at any subsequent creation of a new Parliament, unless other legislation is brought in, there would have to be a vote in both Houses for that system to remain in place. I shall come to the issue of both Houses in a moment.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I was going to come to that matter in a few moments, but if the Minister wants me to come to it now I will of course give way.

[Mr Harper]

I wanted to question something the hon. Gentleman said. He says that at the start of each Parliament there would have to be such a motion, but that is not what the amendments say. They leave it completely open for that to happen at any point during the Parliament, and I think that would be deeply unsatisfactory.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is absolutely right. That was a small slip of mine and the vote could happen at any time. Any Government worth their salt would without a doubt table such a motion at the beginning of the Parliament so that there was clarity.

We should also know that Lords amendment 1 was not tabled by the Labour party. It was tabled by Lord Pannick with the support of Lady Boothroyd, Lord Butler and Lord Armstrong. Their arguments carried quite a lot of weight with the House—clearly, they carried enough weight to win the vote. Lord Pannick said when moving the amendment:

“The purpose of the amendments is to address the deep unease on all sides of the House, as expressed at Second Reading and in Committee, as to whether it is appropriate to confine the circumstances in which a general election may be called within a five-year term.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2011; Vol. 727, c. 822.]

There has been that level of discomfort and unease in this House, too, although it was more marked down the other end. Lord Pannick also referred to the “constitutional damage” that all this might create and called the whole Bill an “unhappy Bill”. I have some sympathy with him.

It is true that I have previously commented—and I stand by those comments—that the Labour party is committed to fixed-term Parliaments. However, we think the right way to introduce legislation on something as constitutionally significant as changing the way in which a general election is called is to engage in consultation with all the parties in this House before tabling a Bill and to introduce pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill. If the Minister had chosen to go down that route, he would have had a great deal of co-operation from Opposition Members and we would have ended up with a better piece of legislation. One issue that we might have been able to address in such circumstances is whether it is right to make the change through legislation or Standing Order, which might well have saved us from the danger of the question of calling a general election at any time being justiciable in the courts. Lord Pannick also made that point. He said that, as there had been no pre-legislative scrutiny, it was important that after a future general election there was an opportunity for each House to consider the matter again.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

One definition of “fix” is:

“To place securely; make stable or firm”.

Surely the Lords amendment does the reverse on two counts, in that it neither makes it the fixed position that there will be fixed-term Parliament nor sets in stone the time at which that decision would be taken by future Parliaments. What it creates is the opposite of “fixed”; it creates an insecure situation.

[Chris Bryant]

My contention and, I think, Lord Pannick’s contention is that this is a fix in a different way, because it is essentially rigging the constitution so as to make it possible for the coalition to remain in government until 2015—against the manifesto commitment.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Naomi Long]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Let me finish my point. Lord Pannick also cited the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, which said:

“the origins and content of this Bill owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand.”

I think their lordships were right. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is slightly my hon. Friend.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Earlier, he indicated to the Minister that he assumed that the resolution provided for under the amendment would be moved at the start of a Parliament on the basis that any Government worth their salt would do it then. Can he tell us what he believes any Opposition worth their salt would do in relation to such a resolution? Would not the scenario that he is arguing for, of a Government doing that at the start of a Parliament, mean that the very unedifying spectacle that we have seen in this Parliament of a Government fixing the term to suit themselves would happen in every Parliament?

[Chris Bryant]

I suppose it is true that every Opposition will always want to take an opportunity to have an early general election. The nature of opposition means wanting to become the Government, so the Opposition would want the chance to have a general election. I think that is the drift of what my hon. Friend said. As I have said, I think we would have a better piece of legislation if we had had pre-legislative scrutiny and had been able to sit around a table, not just with the main parties but with the smaller, minority parties too.

[Naomi Long]

On the issue of fixing, would it not appear to be more of a fix if the Bill affected only one Parliament in which we happen to have a coalition and then fell into abeyance and had to be resurrected for future Parliaments than if the system were changed to introduce fixed-term Parliaments on a permanent basis, thereby requiring future Governments to rescind that decision if they wanted to change it?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are really interesting historical analogies? I am thinking of the vote of 311 to 310 that led to Lady Thatcher’s becoming Prime Minister and of the debate after Munich on 10 May 1940. If we had had fixed-term Parliaments at those times, the whole thing would have been completely undermined despite the fact that the country was in uproar and wanted change. That would have been the case with a fixed-term Parliament of the kind that he wants as well as with one of five years.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I disagree, but we will come to that issue when we debate the second set of amendments about the measures concerning early general election. We have some disagreements with the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but that is a matter for us to debate later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am keen to conclude my remarks.

The Minister asked whether both Houses should decide. That goes to the heart of the matter. Yes, we believe that both Houses should decide, but if the Minister had wanted to change that, he could have tabled an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, which could have said that just as in the provisions on an early general election, there would be a vote in one House—this House. There could have been a vote in this House on whether it was a fixed-term Parliament. The Government’s response tries to bind a future Parliament in an inappropriate way. I think that is a mistake, so we will support the Lords amendment.

[Mr Syms]

It is this House that determines who the Government are. This is the majority House. As we know, the upper House is a hereditary or semi-hereditary Chamber. Even under the proposals for election, it will not be the majority House. It is therefore proper and responsible that this Chamber should determine whether there should be a fixed-term Parliament. That is not the business of the upper House. The decision has to be made in this House.

The only question to debate is whether it is the Prime Minister who makes the decision or the House. Historically, it has been the Prime Minister. We have had a constitutional change. I am a conservative with a small c and I do not generally like change, but one has to acknowledge the fact that in order to command a majority in the House, the measure is part of the deal. That is a good reason for doing it. If that was not part of the deal, one would not necessarily be in government and doing many other good things for the country under our programme.

We all know that Prime Ministers lose the confidence of the House. There are occasions when Prime Ministers are challenged, and one of the things that bolsters unpopular Prime Ministers is the threat of Dissolution. It is up to them. They can throw the cards up in the air and call a Dissolution, even if they lose the confidence of their own party. That has always been one reason why Prime Ministers have stayed in Downing street when there was good reason for moving them out and having a vote of no confidence in a political party.

The other factor, which is one of the different features of modern politics, is that there are now more parties in the House—we have the Greens in this Parliament—more of a fracture in the current political system and more regional parties. It will probably be more difficult in the longer term for a party always to be confident of a majority in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is right. Coalitions may be more a part of the future than some of us who prefer majority government would like to think.

The Government’s position is tailored to that situation, so I will support what they are doing today. Circumstances have changed, and if one has to make a decision, it is better that political parties and the usual channels in the House determine a Dissolution than an unpopular Prime Minister who may have a different agenda from others in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I recognise that. The Government set out our reasons for disagreeing with that view, and I believe that their case was accepted by Members of both Houses. We have already debated the matter at length, and I do not think that there is a feeling that we should resurrect that debate now.

In Northern Ireland, there will be consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive and all the political parties, which will begin when the Northern Ireland Office has received reports from both the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission on the May 2011 polls, which involved three combined elections. The chief electoral officer’s report has just been received and is being examined by officials, and the report of the Electoral Commission is expected to be received shortly.

Given that the amendments were accepted in the other place and there was a fair degree of consensus, I urge Members to agree with the Lords.

[Chris Bryant]

I broadly agree with what the Government have said. I would point out, however, that the Government, and the Minister himself, have developed a rather irritating habit of opposing measures at this end of the building and then agreeing with them at the other end. That is bad for the way in which we conduct our business in this House. It applies particularly to the replacement for clause 2, in Lords amendment 6. All the changes in these amendments were contained in amendments that we tabled at this end of the building—

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the Minister, I am afraid.

The Minister chose to oppose the amendments in this House, and then accept them in the other Chamber.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the Minister. He has spoken plenty.

This is the second occasion on which the Minister has done that today. This morning he tabled a written ministerial statement that basically consisted of an amendment that he voted against during our debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I wish he would stop doing it.

All I will say to the Minister about the improved clause 2 is that part of it, the “two-thirds majority” provision, remains foolhardy. Requiring a special majority to secure something constitutes a complete change in the practices of the House. It is also completely unnecessary, because it is almost inconceivable that on any occasion on which the Government tabled a motion for an early general election, the Opposition would not agree with it. There would always be a two-thirds majority. Let me say to Liberal Democrat Members who may think that that would protect them if the Prime Minister opted for an early general election before the planned date for the next general election, that it will do no such thing.

Lords amendment 4 agreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 8 agreed to.

Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments;

That Mr Mark Harper, Mr Philip Dunne, Chris Bryant, Jonathan Reynolds and Mr Mark Williams be members of the Committee;

That Mr Mark Harper be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question—this is a subject on which she is pursuing Ministers relentlessly both in the House and in written questions. The Prime Minister was asked a similar question at Prime Minister’s questions, and I can do no better than to say that the Government do not want to enfranchise prisoners, but there has been a clear decision by a court to which we have signed up. The Prime Minister said that the Government will ensure that any legislative proposals are as close as possible to the House’s decision earlier this year.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On 26 October last year, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister how he was going to ensure that everyone forced to move out of central London because of the changes to housing benefit would be enfranchised and end up on the register. He pooh-poohed that at the time, saying it was not going to happen. Now we know that the Department for Communities and Local Government believes that up to 40,000 people are going to have to move. How are Ministers going to ensure that those people are enfranchised?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department does not say that at all—it is not what is stated in the impact assessment that Ministers have signed up to. I do not believe either that that is what the article in the newspaper said. On enfranchisement, we are very clear: our proposals will make it easier for people who are entitled to be registered to be registered. He will know that we are carrying out data-matching pilots across the country, and we will take forward and roll out any lessons from that to make it easier for people who are eligible to be registered.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly share my hon. Friend’s—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Well, do something about it!

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We cannot just do something about it. [Hon. Members: “He didn’t!”] No, the hon. Gentleman did not, for 13 years.

I totally accept—I have spoken publicly about this—that it seems a little anachronistic that we have rules of succession that appear to discriminate against women, and that clearly should be looked at, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) rightly pointed out, this affects many other Governments as well, and it would be wrong of us to act in haste when we need to act in a way that is open and following discussions—not negotiations, but discussions—between ourselves and other Commonwealth Governments.

European Council

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As on many previous occasions, I had a very interesting meeting with President Klaus in Prague, at which he made that interesting point. However, dissolving a monetary union between the Czech Republic and Slovakia is very different from changing arrangements within Europe, where there are some very serious issues of equilibrium. The other point I would make is about those of us who do not want to join the euro, would never join the euro, and think that countries should maintain their own flexibilities. I have always held that view, but those of us who do hold that view should not misunderstand the fact that there would clearly be very big consequences for Britain were there to be a disorderly situation in Europe. To put it another way, it is much easier to stay out of the euro than to leave it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many of us worry about not only the direct consequences for Britain, but the possible indirect consequences, such as for the people of Cyprus, with which many British people have a direct connection. What analysis have the Government done of what the effects for the people of Cyprus would be, and is there any opportunity of reinvigorating the peace process so that there might no longer be a divided capital city of Nicosia?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that disorder in the eurozone will have knock-on consequences for other countries—he mentioned Cyprus—as well as for the country that is directly affected. Obviously, we are looking at all potential eventualities and all possible problems, and doing contingency planning for them. That is what we would expect the Treasury to do, and that is exactly what the Treasury—and the Bank of England and others—are doing. On getting the Cyprus peace process started, Alexander Downer, the special representative, worked extremely hard, but we have a lot more hard work to do to convince both sides that there needs to be a deal, and a deal soon.

House of Lords Reform

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald]

I welcome that intervention, and I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, when we came to the votes in 1997, an unclear picture emerged.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is 10 years out—I think he means 2007, not 1997. Is not the most bizarre element in the argument against any form of election the fact that 70% of the present House of Lords take a party Whip, and 85% of those who attend on a daily basis take a party Whip? Surely those people at least should be elected.

[Oliver Heald]

Yes, the case for election is this: it would give the appointment mechanism for the political element of the other place an added respectability. I agree passionately that we do not want to set up a rival Chamber. It is important that we do not run the risk of two people, both in Parliament, representing the same area, and one interfering with the work of the other. I do not think that would be satisfactory. I am gradually coming round to the idea of a national list system: a voter would decide at a general election whether they were Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, and the lists would be devised in proportion to the votes cast. However, I am quite happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West that we should consider a range of options. Some people say that we could improve selection.

[Oliver Heald]

It depends how we view the people appointed under the current system. I happen to believe that the current system works pretty well but needs some maintenance. Those who think that the people appointed to the other place have been the wrong people, or that it has not worked well, might take a different view, but the benefits of a national list system are that it gives us elections, it does not create constituency rivalries and it recreates what we have now but in a way that has an elected element to it. It therefore answers one of the problems. It is just a thought, but it might be something to look at.

When we voted last time, in 2007, there was no clear outcome. There was actually a lot of support among Conservative Members for the status quo, and quite a lot of support among Conservative Members for 80:20. Then, at the end of the day, everybody—apart from me—voted for 100%. I am not sure why, but it was curious—

[Chris Bryant]

It was because of my speech.

[Oliver Heald]

It might have been, but I think it unlikely. I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman the credit because he mentioned 1997—or perhaps I did. What was I thinking? It was a terrible year.

I think that the Committee will do useful work. There are a lot of options to be considered, and I think we should show respect for the work of the other place, and the fact that it does an excellent job and has saved us when we needed it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should focus on the issues that matter to our voters. I return to the original point: we are here today to debate the future of another place. Fundamentally, we should be asking ourselves what we want it to do. What is it there for? Fundamentally, it is there to improve the legislation that we put before it. It is there to polish—I remember the phrase, “You can’t polish”—[Interruption.] I cannot remember the end to that phrase. The House of Lords is there to improve the legislation that we send to it. It is a revising Chamber. It is there to scrutinise the work that we do.

Among all the people in this debate, both for and against—those in the other place, Ministers and experts—absolutely nobody has suggested that the other place does not do a good job in scrutinising the legislation that is put before it. To repeat the saying that has been used so often, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” One of the reasons why the other place works so well is the experts contained within it. We have heard from some people who suggest that perhaps that point is out of date, but when I look at the quality and the level of the debate that takes place in another place—

[Chris Bryant]

Have you been there?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I have indeed, on many occasions, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines the quality of some of the debates that take place there.

[Chris Bryant]

Sometimes the Lords have excellent debates, but quite often they do not. I remember a debate on the Communications Act 2003 in which several hon. Members down that end of the building spent all their time talking about black and white television licences. Honestly, sometimes their expertise is rather out of date.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender in this Chamber. If he can honestly say that he has never heard anyone make a spurious speech or move away from the point in any of the debates that he has attended, he has obviously not been to some of the debates that I have sat through in the past 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend knows that in political parties there are quite often issues that divide. One such issue is Europe, although he and I are on the same side on that. When it comes to the House of Lords, this policy was not devised without reference to party members; it went to a national policy forum, which increased the percentage from 80% to 100%. Until such time as our policy changes, that is our policy.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

It is not our policy, and my hon. Friend would do well to realise it. He replied to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) about debates in the other place. I will write to my hon. Friend, so he can read last week’s debate and the statement made by Baroness Royall, which said that the Labour party is divided on this issue. Whatever forum made an agreement, it does not bind the party until we come out with a new set of policy commitments, which will not take place before the end of this year. I can tell my hon. Friend now that if he wants the Labour party to go down the road of having a 100% elected Senate, he will not have my support.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

We have to be careful about free votes, because one does not know where they will end up. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has made a series of remarks from a sedentary position, which I heard and which I will not forget.

[Chris Bryant]

What?

[Sir Stuart Bell]

My hon. Friend knows what they were, and I will not forget them.

[Chris Bryant]

I did not say anything.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

Yes, you did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

That is absolutely right. Perhaps we have spent too much time, even this afternoon, talking about methods of election rather than about the sort of men and women whom we want in the second Chamber and what sort of job we want them to do. Apparently, the sort of men and women we want are people of expertise who are good at revising legislation, and I submit that we have very large numbers of dedicated Members of the second Chamber who do precisely that. Of course, there are some who are lazy, corrupt or bad—and some are good, some are old and some are young—but there are scores of people up there who do their job as men and women of expertise in revising and improving legislation. Let us concentrate on the sort of people we want up there rather than being absolutely obsessed by the methods of election.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that one of the most important things in the second Chamber is having a number of people of independent mind. Is it his experience that party leaders, when recommending people to go into the second Chamber, primarily think about their independence and their voting record in this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

That is an interesting point that I did not know, but it helps to support my argument. As someone who lives in a democracy, I think it is absolutely right that I should have the opportunity to stand for any elected Assembly in that country. As someone from this country, I should have the right to stand for election to the House of Lords. It is completely wrong that membership can be determined by a person’s religion. Interestingly, there have been comments about the Church of England, but as a member of the Church of Scotland I take a slightly different view.

[Chris Bryant]

But it is also established.

[John Stevenson]

It is established, but not represented in the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are appointed by Prime Ministers past and present, and there is still the hereditary element. The composition of the House of Lords has also been mentioned. It is interesting to note that the average age of a peer is 69 and that the vast majority live in the south-east of England. I am not ageist, and I have nothing against people who live in the south of England, but that demonstrates that there are pluses and minuses to the composition of the House of Lords. Ultimately, it is right and proper that the House of Lords should be democratically elected because, quite simply, we live in a democracy.

Secondly, there is a lot of talk about the experience, expertise and, indeed, wisdom of Members of the House of Lords. I fully accept that there are some very able people in the House of Lords, far more able than myself, but they would not lose their expertise by being excluded. They could still be members of commissions and produce reports for the Government. Lord Hutton recently produced a report on pension reform, but he did not need to be a Member of the other House to do that, so I am not so sure about that argument. More importantly, we forget that this Chamber, too, has expertise. We do this Chamber a disservice when we talk about the expertise in the other Chamber, because the same expertise exists here. Indeed, Members develop that expertise over the years they are here, and I see no reason why that would not be replicated in an elected House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), although that was the most casuistical argument based on party manifestos, and I completely disagree with him.

My central argument in favour of reform of the second Chamber is that the current system is unsustainable, in particular because of its effect on this House. At the moment, that House infantilises this House, because all too often Ministers stand up in this Chamber and refuse to give way or to agree to a perfectly sensible amendment, and then the Government go down the corridor and give way in another House.

Quite often, civil servants—whom we all love—say to their Minister, “What are you going to give away when you get down to the other end of the building?”, and that means that we do not do a proper job of scrutiny in this House. We will never do a better job of scrutiny in this House until we reform the other House, and that is why it needs to be changed.

[Jesse Norman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because he has only just spoken. Some 34 Back Benchers spoke, and I want to reply to as much of the debate as possible.

The current system is also unsustainable simply because of the numbers. There are already more than 800 Members down the other end, and if we do not make reforms towards an elected second Chamber, we will end up with another 269.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Reduce the number!

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the hon. Gentleman say, in a rather Tudor way, “Let’s just reduce the number.” What? A kind of cull? Beheadings? We should have Acts of Attainder, perhaps, down this end just to get rid of particular named Members down the other. I am not sure that that is right, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who said that there are too many Members and we need to ensure that there are fewer. The proposals are right in that regard.

A system that is based on appointment always leads to patronage. It was ever thus, and surprise, surprise, whoever we get to appoint people, they end up appointing people who are rather like them. When Lord Home of the Hirsel announced that women were to be introduced to the House of Lords, he rather bizarrely said that

“taking women into a Parliamentary embrace would seem to be only a modest extension of the normal… privileges of a Peer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1957; Vol. 205, c. 590.]

People did not quite understand what he meant, but the following year, when the first four women peers were introduced, one was the wife of a viceroy, another was a daughter of a viceroy and a third was already a Dame of the British Empire.

It was exactly the same in 1997, when the Labour Government decided to ask somebody to draw up a new system of appointments. We asked Herman Ouseley to do so, and he came forward with the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which we now enjoy. Guess who was on the first list of people whom the commission appointed—Herman Ouseley, now Baron Ouseley. To recite an old Robin Cook joke, there is of course Elspeth Howe, who became a Lady when her husband became Sir Geoffrey Howe, a Lady when her husband became a Member of the House of Lords and was then, herself, made a people’s peer, so she was “Once, twice, three times a lady”—[Interruption.] Sorry!

Appointment for life is also, in the end, reactionary. It often means that the wisdom and experience that goes into the House of Lords sits there for 20, 30 or 40 years and then becomes out of date and refers to a society of many years before. It was suggested earlier that the House of Lords should be a place of debate for an older generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said that that is effectively the Saga version of the House of Lords. We need a far better system to ensure that what it does reflects the will of the whole country. One of the other problems about appointment is that over the past few years the vast majority of appointments have come from London and the south-east of England. It is almost inevitable that those who end up doing the appointing end up appointing in their own likeness.

The system of by-elections for hereditaries is unsustainable, as is reflected by the elections that take place when one of them dies. As I am sure that all hon. Members know, earlier this year, on 11 May, there was a by-election following the death of the 11th Baron Monson. Fourteen hereditaries stood; seven got no votes at all; five—the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Drogheda, Lord Cromwell and Viscount Colville of Culross—were eliminated because the single transferable vote is already used for the House of Lords; and the Earl of Lytton beat the Duke of Somerset by 15 votes to nine. I have to say that my favourite is still the 2005 by-election in which there were 28 electors, 26 stood, 19 got no votes at all, and in the sixth and final round Viscount Montgomery of Alamein defeated the Earl of Effingham—you couldn’t make it up, could you?—by 11 votes to eight. It was pure “Blackadder”. I am delighted, however, that in the other by-election that took place this May, a Labour candidate, the third Viscount Hanworth, stood against a Liberal Democrat, the Earl of Carlisle, and the Labour man got 233 votes while the Liberal Democrat got only 26. Interestingly, it is sometimes said that people will not stand for election to a second Chamber, but the Earl of Carlisle has not had much luck, as he also stood for the Commons in 1987 and 1992.

Incidentally, it is inappropriate that we still combine the peerage with the legislature. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) wants to be a baron, a viscount, an earl or whatever, it would make far more sense for him to make his bid and start to get a bit less rebellious, because the Government will not be doling it out to him, and I am sure that Her Majesty will end up giving him a suitable honour.

Several hon. Members referred to experience and expertise. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has said, we should not undervalue the expertise and experience in this House. Many of us look to people such as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who have a degree of experience in certain fields, to bring that to this House. It is true that there are not many generals here, but there are majors and people who served in the ranks. One of the best speeches on the military covenant that I have read or heard in either House was made by a Member who has never been a member of the armed forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby)—as I think that a lot of hon. Members who heard it would agree. As regards the NHS, we have GPs and a gynaecologist, who is in the Chamber now. We have teachers, people who have run their own businesses, people who have built their own businesses and people from the shop floor—we even have a vicar and a former Member of the House of Lords. We should not undervalue the experience that people like to see getting elected to this House.

On the bishops, it is inappropriate that they should represent only the people of England. For me, one of the great moments of the debate was hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is a well-known papal knight and a respected Roman Catholic, acknowledge that the bishops of the Church of England are actually bishops—so the job of the Reformation is done. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who served with distinction as one of the Church Commissioners, that the bishops were originally here because they were one of the major land tenants in the country, then because we took into Parliament the business of deciding on religious matters such as transubstantiation and now because people argue, as we have heard, that we need them for spiritual support.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, neither the spirit of the land nor the Churches have collapsed because no bishops represent those areas in Parliament. Although some of my best friends are bishops, I honestly think that the time has come for them to depart the House of Lords. That would not signal the disestablishment of the Church of England, just as the fact that there are no representatives of the Church of Scotland in the House of Lords does not prevent it from being established. I say to my bishop friends that they can make a far more effective contribution to society by editing the New Statesman. If that has not helped Conservative Members join my cause to take bishops out of the House of Lords, I do not know what will. I hope that we will see an end to bishops in the House of Lords.

There are some problems with the legislation, as hon. Members have said. First, the powers of the House of Lords must be addressed. I do not think that clause 2 will stand the test. The Salisbury-Addison convention, to all intents and purposes, is now non-existent. It cannot hold water when there are more than two political parties in Parliament. It is frankly not worth the paper that it was not written on.

I think that 15 years is too long for somebody to be elected for. It is very difficult to see how somebody can be genuinely representative and accountable when they sit for fully 15 years. As the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) have said, it is important that we have a system of recall. If somebody is elected and hardly ever turns up, abuses their position or gets into some kind of trouble, there should be some system of recall, just as there should be for this House.

Many Members have said that this issue is not a priority and that we should not deal with it, but I profoundly disagree with them. In the end, it is about how we use power. All the other issues that my constituents of course talk far more about, such as jobs, unemployment, benefits, creating a successful economy, transport, teachers and hospitals, depend on whether we distribute power properly. That is why it is important to have change. Having just a system of appointments is reactionary. It means that we always reflect the past and do not offer a greater future, and it also creates the problem of patronage.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough hopes that the radical left and the radical right will combine to see off the proposals. I hope that everyone unites to improve the proposals, because they certainly need improvement. If the Government are too intractable, the measures will die. However, let us not lose sight of the unsustainability of the present arrangements. Surely, if one wants to tell other people how to live their lives, which is in essence what a Member of a legislature does, the least one can do is to put oneself up for election.

Ninetieth Birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to repeat all that has been said by other Members, but I will mention one further capacity that His Royal Highness has: the ability to put MPs in their place.

Parmjit Dhanda, when he was the Member for Gloucester, was invited in 2001, as I think was the current Prime Minister and others elected that year—it was our 10th anniversary yesterday—to Buckingham palace, and the Duke of Edinburgh went up to Parmjit and said, “So, what did you do before you got this job?” Parmjit said, “I worked in a trade union.” The Duke immediately replied, “Bugger all, then.” Parmjit, somewhat offended and thinking that he would retaliate with force, asked, “Well, what did you do before you got this job?”, to which the Duke replied, “Fought in the second world war.”

So, notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I think that there are occasions when a little humility from this House towards His Royal Highness is entirely appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am the first to acknowledge that, whether it is the West Lothian question or reform of the House of Lords, these are of course not matters that are raised by our constituents or on the doorsteps as we campaign at election time, but it does not mean that they are unimportant. We discuss many things in this House, from local government finance to world trade rules and all sorts of things that are not raised from day to day in our local communities, but that are none the less important. That is why we as a country have been struggling with this dilemma for more than 100 years and why all three parties have a manifesto commitment finally to make progress on reforming the other place.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords

“with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”

There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords.

Counter-terrorism

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that is very much what I was discussing with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). Many in that minority of the Muslim community take the view that bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11. That does not mean that they actively back bin Laden; it just means that they have bought in to a narrative of Israeli plots and the rest of it. We must challenge that narrative. We cannot have young people growing up in our country believing that nonsense, and it is incumbent on all of us in the work we do in our constituencies—in mosques, community centres and so on—to challenge that thinking whenever it comes up. We should not believe that we are challenging cultural sensitivities in doing so—we are not. We are making a very clear point about what it means to be part of a modern democracy.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

A lot of the coverage of Osama bin Laden’s death has referred to him as “evil”, and although we all hate the man, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on, I think, deliberately avoiding that sort of religious language? Osama bin Laden was not engaged in a holy war or crusade, and do we not need to hear a lot more Muslim clerics make that absolutely clear?

West Lothian Question

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I cannot resist starting my contribution by responding to the extraordinary revelation by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) that the Prime Minister has not yet been to Northern Ireland. Perhaps that pays tribute and is testimony to the excellent work done by my former right hon. Friend Tony Blair in securing a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Of course, many hon. Members worked over many years, if not generations, to secure that.

The debate on this question has run long in the House. I arrived only 10 months ago but, as a Welsh Member and historian, the debate was familiar and dear to my heart. However, I did not imagine that the debate would raise its head again so quickly, and would gather this degree of momentum, within a few short months of my arrival. The phrase “the West Lothian question”, coined by Tam Dalyell, has been around since the 1970s, but the question has been around a lot longer. It was inherent in Gladstone’s first Home Rule Bill in 1886. The lack of representation for Irish Members addressed by that Bill was effectively the first instance that the West Lothian question was raised in legislative terms. That prompts the question why it has not been satisfactorily addressed. We can all see that there are issues relating to representation across the nations and regions of the UK.

Why has it not been addressed? Why has it been placed so often in the “too difficult” box? Is it that those issues are so fiendishly difficult that we cannot possibly address them, or that they are insoluble? I think it is not a cop-out that it has not been addressed. In some respects it is a reflection of the intelligence of this legislature, this House, in realising that certain things—given our unwritten constitution and the historical evolution of our Parliament and representation—will be imperfect, asymmetrical and untidy. To interfere with those things and seek a perfect solution is, in my view, misguided, unrepresentative of the historical evolution of our country and fundamentally problematic. I believe many hon. Members would share the view that an undesirable consequence would be the break-up, the disaggregation of Britain.

As we have heard, asymmetry is a key feature of our settlement in the UK. That should not unduly concern us, as it has been a feature of our country and others for a long period. All of our nation states in pre-modern Europe were fundamentally asymmetrical, in the nature of the division of power between legislatures, Churches and other aspects of the state. Post-Union in 1707 there has always been asymmetry. The first representation from Scotland after the Act of Union was fundamentally asymmetrical and predicated not on populations but on the relative contribution to the Exchequer of the Scots versus the English. We have subsequently moved to a position based more on relativities in respect of population, and have now taken it to its conclusion in the partisan Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. After the next election it will be based on relative population size, and that solves lots of the issues.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It will be based not on population but on the number of registered electors. We will be the only country in the world doing it on that basis.

[Owen Smith]

That is of course right. I was using shorthand and have fallen into the trap set by the Minister in so many of those debates, even when we did not get to the Welsh clauses.

Asymmetry also exists in other countries. Canada has an asymmetrical system of devolution, as has Spain. One could argue that de facto we have a federal system of sorts, a unique British federal system, but it is certainly asymmetrical. Why is the issue raising its head? Why are we so worried about it now? It has never been true that any individual Government have held a majority purely predicated on the basis of Scottish and Welsh votes. There can be no concern that political imbalances arrive by virtue of there being more Scottish Members, or having misrepresentation from Wales and Scotland. That issue has ostensibly been dealt with by the Government. I fear the headlong rush is due to opportunity, momentum and a partisan view from the Government. There is a sense that the iron is hot, the moment is right for the Tories to strike and secure electoral advantage. That underpins the decisions taken in respect of the constituencies Bill, and I fear it is driving the considerations we are looking at today.

It would be foolhardy to pursue that. History tells us that inevitably not just in this country but others, when constitutional reforms are pursued for electoral reasons and the partisan politics of one party, they fail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on securing this debate.

It is particularly interesting that the West Lothian question is being debated without the benefit of advice from Scottish Members of Parliament. The Liberal Democrats were here briefly, and three Conservative Members joined the debate briefly and then left. The level of passion and excitement that some Conservative Members say that there is on the subject is not quite as evident as they suggest. It is interesting that it took a Welsh Member of Parliament to bring the matter before the House. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), for Caerphilly (Mr David), and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on their important contributions to the debate.

Although many people think that Welsh MPs have been attending Parliament since 1542, it is worth bearing in mind that Wales had representation before then—but only in the shape of four bishops, who attended from the very first Parliament. In 1327, 24 Members of Parliament from north Wales were invited to attend, but only from the north. They were to attend the Parliament that was meant to depose Edward II, but because Isabella thought that they might vote the wrong way, half of them were arrested and kept in captivity. They were not allowed to attend Parliament, which seems to be rather the sort of attitude that the Government now hope to advance. As we have heard, Scottish MPs arrived in 1707 and Irish MPs in 1801, although with the creation of the Irish Free State the number changed.

Two contradictory political forces are at work, not only in British politics but elsewhere in the world. The first is globalisation, in that every street has the same sort of shops, we all see the same images on television and, broadly speaking, everyone has similar experiences. As a result, people regularly say that they do not want a postcode lottery. They resent the fact that one town may be able to get a drug on the NHS that is not available in other parts of the country. We were reminded earlier that tuition fees are not being imposed in Wales because of the decision by Welsh Assembly Government, but that they are being hiked up to £9,000 in England. The second is this: people resent the postcode lottery, but at the same time a passionate desire is pulling in the other direction; people want much more local decision making, and want to be able to decide what happens to the configuration of local services. In the end, one of the biggest problems is the pushmi-pullyu force that we are seeing in British politics.

I admit that there is concern in England about what seems to be the unfairness of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Members being able to vote on matters that substantially affect England, but English Members not being able to vote on matters that affect only Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. I say to those who want to go down the route of change that that is a meretricious argument. In this context, all that glisters is not gold. For a start, it is difficult to decide precisely what is England-only legislation.

The Minister will know that I have used this example before, but it is an important one. The Health Act 2006 was going to introduce a ban on smoking in public places, among other things. When it was being debated, I remember saying to a Welsh group of Labour MPs and then in the Chamber that if we voted in a particular way it would mean that clubs and pubs in Wales would not have the opportunity to make special rooms available for smokers. Everybody disagreed with me; the Clerks disagreed, and the Speaker disagreed, but in the end I was proved right. That is a problem when trying to advance legislation; all too often, the complexity with which it is drafted means that it may seem to be an England-only matter when, in truth, there is a real debate to be had. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, if the Speaker decided what was England-only legislation, there would be a danger of bringing the Speaker into party political debate—into debating the substance of how to advance the legislation.

We could instead choose another route, and multiply the number of Bills. However, when drafting, we would have to be rigorous in ensuring that we never allowed a single clause that related to Wales or Scotland, or that had financial implications of any kind. To take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, any financial implication is an implication for the whole of the UK, so any legislation with financial implications must by definition be UK legislation. If we wanted to draft legislation solely for England, we would have to have extra Bills that were Wales-only, Scotland-only and Northern Ireland-only. The multiplication in that process would be a real problem.

[Mr Mark Field]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be quick.

[Mr Field]

The core concern for many English voters is this: the hon. Gentleman referred to health, but he does not speak for any of his constituents in Rhondda on the subject because health is a devolved matter, yet he is able to influence decisions that are made throughout England. Health, of course, is a particularly incendiary problem because of the whole idea of a national health service. The concern of many English voters is not so much that people in Wales have the opportunity for a broader range of services and free prescriptions, but the perception that English taxpayers are footing the bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair man, so I hope that he will explain to his constituents that it is not quite as simple as that. I know that the vast majority of our constituents could not describe the present constitutional settlement. As a result of devolution, they could not say who is in charge of policing, or who is in charge of this, that or the other element of environmental policy. A case in point is that the terms and conditions of GPs are not a devolved responsibility. When decisions are made about what GPs do in England, Welsh Members have to be able to vote because implications for Wales will follow from them. If the Speaker had to decide that Welsh Members could not speak in a debate, there would be a terrible row. That would be a problem.

[Ian Lucas]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have a few more points to make. We could see a vast multiplication in the number of Bills, with many more Second Readings of minor Bills that affected only specific parts of the country. I suppose one could then say that if a piece of legislation was not on a devolved matter but affected only Wales, only Welsh MPs should be able to vote on it. That is the logic of the argument of those who say that English legislation should be voted on only by English MPs. The danger is the effect on Government; a complicated Venn diagram would be needed to show who are the Government on any particular subject. We would have England-only legislation; England and Wales-only legislation; England, Wales and Scotland legislation; and England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland legislation, and a different set of people would be voting on each sort. There would be at least five versions of the Government of the United Kingdom. That is potentially problematic and could be dangerous.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen wisely referred to Welsh peers. Would one suddenly decide that Welsh peers should not be able to vote? How does one decide what constitutes a Welsh peer? It is difficult enough deciding what nationality the Secretary of State for Wales is. At a recent reception held at the Foreign Office, I gather that the Secretary of State for Wales made a little speech. As the Bahraini ambassador was saying thank you, he said, “It’s great finally to discover, Cheryl, after all the years that I’ve known you, that you’re Welsh”—and he is a diplomat.

[Mr Harper]

She is Welsh.

[Chris Bryant]

She was not clear about it until she became Secretary of State for Wales. The final point is the effect on Parliament. There have been times when there have been different categories of Members of Parliament. In particular, the burgesses and knights of the 13th century occasionally sat separately because they were able to secure different grants from the Crown. However, that has not happened since the 13th century. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said—others have alluded to this—no other country in the world has different categories of Members of Parliament. The confusion and difficulty that such a system would lead to would be very dramatic.

The Government have said that they will set up a commission to consider the issue. I hope that that commission will be as interesting as the one that was set up in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998. Many of us would like to buy tickets to sit in and watch those meetings, as there are people on it with completely and utterly diametrically opposed views. When the Minister clarifies what he is doing about the commission, which the Secretary of State for Wales has said will be in place by the end of this year, I hope that he will assure us that people with diametrically opposed views will be on it, so that we see absolutely no progress on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

How do you know?

[Mr Harper]

I hear reports of his excellent chairmanship. The right hon. Member for Torfaen talked about the commission, and I will come to that at the end of my remarks. A number of Members talked about the settlement that we reached in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. As I have said many times, it was not partisan; it was about treating every single part of the United Kingdom in the same way to ensure that each had the exact number of seats for the number of electors they have. There were many who said that because of devolution, we should ensure that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had fewer seats in this House per head of the electorate, but that was something that the Government did not want to do; we wanted to ensure that we treated each part of the United Kingdom—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—in exactly the same way, and that is what we have done in legislation. We have been very fair and even-handed.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Welsh Grand Committee. He should be aware that the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that the Welsh Grand Committee is a Welsh grandstanding Committee. When we were debating the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill in the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Rhondda said:

“The truth is that, all too often, the Welsh Grand Committee has been a pretty futile body.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 638.]

Given that that is the view of Labour’s official spokesman, I am amazed that hon. Members made so much fuss about whether the Welsh Grand Committee could discuss the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. I drew the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda to the attention of the Secretary of State, and very interesting she found them.

[Mr Harper]

I sat through all the debates on the 2011 Act, and of the 40 MPs who spoke on Second Reading, a large number were Welsh Members of Parliament. Although we did not have as long to spend on the groups of amendments as we would have liked, we spent a long time talking about the Bill and its effects on Wales. Welsh MPs spoke for a great deal of time, and I had tremendous pleasure in listening to the arguments that they put forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) drew our attention to the over-representation of Wales. That is something that many people in England—not Conservative Members of Parliament but members of the public in England—resented, and we sorted that out in the 2011 Act. We have dealt with every member of the United Kingdom in exactly the same way and treated every part fairly.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Chris Evans]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

In my experience as a constituency MP, the protocol does not work well. The cross-border issues, which, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen said, are much more important between England and Wales than they are between England and Scotland because of the way in which the population is distributed, were not very well thought through when the devolution settlement was arrived at. Many things do not work very well across borders. The experience of my constituents is that the English-Welsh border has become more of a real barrier since devolution than it was before. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) referred to that issue when he asked whether English MPs knew what they were voting for. I am not sure that they did, because the cross-border issues were not very well thought through.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen asked—at least he was fair enough to ask the question; one or two other Members put it as a statement—whether the Conservative party was still a Unionist party. It absolutely is; it is the Conservative and Unionist party. We were the only party that contested seats in all four parts of the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that our experience of contesting seats in Northern Ireland did not go as well as we had hoped, but we did contest seats in all four parts. We are a Unionist party, and we want to keep the Union together. Indeed, that is why we want to tackle the West Lothian question. Some commentators believe that any threat or damage to the United Kingdom would stem from the resentment of English voters—not MPs—so it is important to deal with the issues to keep the United Kingdom together.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out what would happen if we had a United Kingdom Government who did not have a majority in England but insisted on governing as if they did. Given that we have a devolution settlement in Wales and Scotland, the resentment that would ensue could have the effect that the right hon. Member for Torfaen fears.

This debate shows the complexity of the issue. A number of Members leapt into potential solutions, mainly focusing on what the Conservative party had set out before the election. Of course, the two coalition parties come at the issue from different angles. Unusually, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster may find the Liberal Democrat federal solution more to his liking. The Conservative party had a different approach. Our agreed solution is to get the commission to examine the issue so that we can try to reach a thoughtful and sensible conclusion. We are thinking about the composition, scope and remit of that commission. Once we have finished setting that out, we will announce it to the House.

[Chris Bryant]

This year?

[Mr Harper]

Yes, this year. I have experience of setting up such a commission; in a written statement, I announced the very excellent commission on a Bill of Rights, which has a very well-qualified team of people. It will make considerable progress on that issue and on reform of the European Court.

We will announce the composition of the commission. The right hon. Member for Torfaen referred to the importance of the House of Lords; we will shortly publish our proposals and a draft Bill on House of Lords reform. Once they are published, we will set out our plans for the commission on the West Lothian question. This was an important debate that highlighted the complexities and challenges of the problem, and for that the right hon. Gentleman should be thanked.

Libya/European Council

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I would disagree with anyone who says that destroying a Gaddafi arms dump is not in the terms of the resolution, and for the following reason. We can see very clearly what Gaddafi’s regime is doing in Misrata, in Zintan and in other places. He is using munitions to kill people—to murder his own citizens—so depriving him of weapons is not only in the letter of the resolution but in its spirit, too.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), I am sure that there will have been an official note of the conversations between the former Chancellor and the present Chancellor. Will the Prime Minister publish that note so that we can decide for ourselves whether he or the former Chancellor is providing the more accurate report?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at the suggestion because I am absolutely clear about what the conversation was and that the current Chancellor did not support the action being taken by the previous Chancellor.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Okay.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

He wants to be on it too!

[Chris Bryant]

No, this is an application not to be on the Bill Committee. I have heard these arguments so many times that I have no desire to hear them all over again, even if it would give us an opportunity to hear the whole of the Minister’s speech on the subject. May I point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that greed is a sin? Taking so many private Members’ Bills on one day might be thought somewhat greedy.

[Mr Chope]

I have been accused of many things, but not greed. People who are frustrated legislators and willing to spend a couple of nights sleeping in the Palace of Westminster to queue up for their tickets may have the opportunity of having their Bills brought before the House. I hope that some of my other Bills on the Order Paper will be debated, not least my Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. When I first put that title down last June, I had not anticipated that I would read in my local paper last Friday that the Hampshire county council health and safety people had interfered in the Beaulieu pancake race, so that it is now the Beaulieu pancake walk rather than race. I had not realised that my third Bill would be so relevant to a local story, but now it has a relevance above all else. I hope that we get a chance to discuss it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am little surprised to be called so early in the debate, not least because I have dilated on this subject on many occasions. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Protests will not put me off doing so again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on introducing the Bill, not only because this is such an auspicious time, given that we are now in the midst of debating the European Union Bill, which is still in the other place, but because of the continuing flow of, I have to say, clearly deliberate attempts by the coalition Government to throw doubt on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, some of which have been diverted by the European Scrutiny Committee report. I am extremely glad to note that the explanatory notes to the European Union Bill have been changed, something that has not been mentioned publicly by the Government or the media. The explanatory notes on clause 18, or the so-called sovereignty clause, which we were able to demonstrate it was not, have been revised in the light of the European Scrutiny Committee report. I am glad that they have been changed to get rid of some of the Committee’s gravest objections to how the Government were seeking to apply what is known as the common law principle. I do not need to go into all the detail because we debated it at great length.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to clause 18 of the European Union Bill, the so-called sovereignty clause. He will recall that amendments not passed in this House would have gone in the direction of this Bill. Would it not be bizarre if this House were to send two Bills to the House of Lords at the same time that were mutually contradictory?

[Mr Cash]

It would be highly desirable. This Bill would in fact succeed the European Union Bill in order. We know that any Act of Parliament that is subsequent to a previous Act and is inconsistent with it, particularly in the context of sovereignty issues, overrides the previous Act. Therefore, if this Bill were enacted—if it followed the European Union Bill—it would supersede it. It would thereby also have the great advantage of overriding the manifestly absurd and, I believe, completely unlawful motion—unlawful in constitutional terms—that was passed, which said that this House did not reaffirm the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. When I use the word “unlawful” in this context, I simply mean that the European Union Bill is still under consideration by both Houses. I am using that expression with regard to the constitutionality of the matter, but it is a very important question and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because it is important that we get it straightened out.

I come back to the explanatory notes. The report that the European Scrutiny Committee produced, which was unanimous, particularly on clause 18, was based on evidence from pretty well all the pre-eminent constitutional experts on what sovereignty meant in the context of the European Union Bill and in general. There was complete unanimity that the Bill did not contain what was on the tin, that it did not confer sovereignty and that the provision was not needed. However, read in the context of the explanatory notes, the invocation of the common law principle, which is a very profound question that has been raging in academic circles and the establishment for a long time, has the effect of reinforcing the view expressed in certain quarters, particularly in certain parts of the Supreme Court, that the sovereignty of Parliament is qualified by the ultimate authority of the courts, which is not something that the public at large would agree with, to say the least, or, for that matter, that they even knew was happening. The expression “common-law principle” has now been taken out of the explanatory notes, which is a great victory for the European Scrutiny Committee and will help substantially to alter the position in the right direction.

I am not convinced that the argument has been completely resolved, but the discussions of the kind that we are having today are helpful in further removing any doubt about the question of the sovereignty of Parliament. That is because the sovereignty of Parliament is not a purely theoretical abstraction; it is to do with the practical application of law passed in this House and in the other place for the purpose of implementing legislative proposals emanating from the Government or other sources to reflect the views of the electorate. In other words, this is essentially a democratic question.

In cases in which European Union law, European Court of Human Rights law and European convention law contradict the wishes of the electorate, it must be made clear that the sovereignty of Parliament will override such provisions in a way that ensures that the wishes of the electorate are complied with, consistently with general election and manifesto pledges, irrespective of coalition agreements, and in a manner that guarantees that the electorate’s views are not only understood but put into effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is completely right, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not only his intervention but his notable contribution to the European Scrutiny Committee, of which he is a member.

The question of amending the Bill gives me an opportunity to set out another short clause that might be added to it.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Cash]

I would just like to get this out of the way, if I may, because it is quite a useful and explicit affirmation of what we could do in practice to ensure that there is no doubt about what is being done. The new clause in question could be phrased in this way: “Any Act of Parliament or legal instrument expressly stating that that Act or instrument shall be ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’ or ‘notwithstanding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998’ shall be construed by the courts of the United Kingdom as having the effect of disapplying and overriding any Act or legal instrument to which it refers.” That would put the position completely on all fours with the evidence that we have received from the constitutional experts.

For many years, I have said that we need a way to get round the problem of provisions emanating from the European Communities Act 1972, and the treaties and legal instruments made under it, being inconsistent with our national interests. To achieve that—in line with cases such as Macarthys v. Smith under Lord Denning and Garland v. British Rail Engineering under Lord Diplock, which remain good law despite what the Supreme Court has said recently—we need, precedent to an Act of Parliament and in relation to European Union legislation, to use the expression “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” to make it clear that we are legislating subsequent to an existing enactment and expressly inconsistently with it. That would oblige the courts to give effect to the later legislation. There are occasions when it is clear that the Government would want to do that but cannot do it, or do not want to do it, or would prefer the whole subject to go away. I am looking closely at the Minister at this point. There is nobody who wants this subject to go away more than the Prime Minister does.

It is a problem. I recognise the dilemma, and I have to say, in all fairness, that I have absolutely no doubt about the need for the remedy. I understand that there are inconveniences in having the European Union producing legislation that this country does not want, which might have been thought to be a good idea in the past. Some thought that the working time directive was a good idea, but it has turned out to have all kinds of unfortunate consequences. The same could be said of other matters such as the over-regulation of business.

When we were in opposition in 2006, I tabled an amendment to the then Government’s Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, based on the “notwithstanding” formula, in order to improve the opportunities for British business, helping it to grow and get away from unnecessary burdens imposed by the European Union. During the afternoon that I proposed that amendment, a series of Whips’ meetings took place. The Whips came to me and said, “Bill, would you be good enough to allow us to adopt your amendment and to put in Tellers?” When the vote took place on the words

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

teams of the present Government walked through the Lobbies to support my amendment, which they had adopted—and six weeks later on a whipped vote in the House of Lords, they reconfirmed it. There was no doubt about the intention there. The principle is thus established by the European Scrutiny Committee report, by the evidence we received and by the conduct of the Prime Minister who was then the Leader of the Opposition.