Oral Answers to Questions
Christopher Chope Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Heath
Let us make a comparison on dithering. We have brought before the House, within 18 months, firm proposals in a consultation paper with draft clauses. In 13 years, the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported did nothing whatsoever, despite being asked several times by Committees of the House to bring forward a statutory register of lobbyists. I think that we are making progress where his Government did not.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Why have the Government not been able to provide a concise definition of a lobbyist?
Mr Heath
Because, believe it or not, it is rather a difficult thing to define, which is why the consultation paper invites responses on precisely that issue. Some people would take an all-encompassing definition, which would require every one of our constituents who comes to see us in an advice surgery to register as a lobbyist before attending. I think that that would be an over-extensive definition.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I have to say that that is not a matter for the Government—it is a matter for the party—and it would not be appropriate for me to respond to that question at this Dispatch Box.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When my right hon. Friend had his conversations in January with the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was he conducting them wearing his hat as Leader of the House of Commons—in other words, on behalf of Parliament—or as a member of the Government? May we have an early debate on the issue of the separation of powers and how that fits in with the operation of IPSA?
Sir George Young
I cannot promise a debate along the lines that my hon. Friend has requested. However, as Leader of the House, I have regular discussions with the chief executive and the chairman of IPSA, as it would be appropriate for me to do, given the responsibilities that I hold.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I believe e-petitions have been a success in building a bridge between people and Parliament and in ensuring that the House’s diet reflects the interests of those outside. I welcome what the hon. Lady’s Committee has been able to do so far in finding time to debate e-petitions and I recognise that the success of e-petitions has increased pressure on it. We are committed to a review of the Backbench Business Committee, and concurrently there is a review of the calendar of the House. That is the right context in which to visit the issue she rightly raises of the increased pressure on her Committee to find time for debates.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have a statement on the rate of interest we will be charging on the first tranche of the loan to Ireland? Some £400 million was paid to Ireland on 14 October. In an answer to a parliamentary question, I have been told that we have not yet agreed on the rate of interest, but that it will be significantly lower than it was at the time we discussed the matter in the House, earlier in the year, despite the fact the Irish Government bond rate is still well over 8%.
Sir George Young
I point out to my hon. Friend that we are debating related issues—the International Monetary Fund and the eurozone crisis—in Westminster Hall next Tuesday, when I expect a Treasury Minister to be responding. There will an opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise that question in that debate, which I am sure he will want to attend. I will ensure that the Treasury Minister is forewarned about where he is coming from.
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
Christopher Chope Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
If I may, I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggests that the parts of the motion relating to the Hutton review should be removed. Its implication is that our scheme should not be treated the same as other public sector schemes, and I do not think our constituents would welcome such an interpretation.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On what basis does my right hon. Friend think that is a fair assessment of my amendment, which seeks to put in the motion the fact that IPSA is independent and should reach its own judgment? That is the effect of my amendment and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend seeks to misrepresent its purpose.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend’s amendment would delete the following words:
“and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”
It is perfectly legitimate to say that one can deduce that he does not want Members’ pension schemes to reflect other public service schemes.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My amendment effectively separates the two distinct issues in the motion and says that the first of those—whether the issue of pensions should be referred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is something that we should support today. Indeed, it might not have been necessary to have a debate, because the Government could have dealt with it, and done so earlier, by laying an order under subordinate legislation.
The second part of the motion was described by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as declaratory, in that we do not expect to be treated any better or any worse than other public sector employees. If that is what it actually said, I am sure that there would not be any dispute. Certainly, I would not have tabled an amendment, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) would have been as troubled as he, too, is about this issue.
My right hon. Friend said that the essence is that we are handing over to IPSA the responsibility for looking at our whole remuneration package, including salary, allowances and pensions, and ensuring that it should be able to do that independently. As he and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, once IPSA has that responsibility, it will make proposals or issue a consultation paper and invite comments from you, Mr Speaker, from the Government, from Members of Parliament, from members of the public, and from other so-called stakeholders. The Government seem to be pre-empting that consultation process by saying, “Irrespective of whether IPSA asks us any questions, we’re going to volunteer some answers before we’ve been asked the questions.”
The hon. Member for Wallasey raised a number of key issues that she thinks IPSA should take into account when it considers parliamentary pensions. It was not an exhaustive list, but it contained a number of points that are not included in the second part of the motion. The second part of the motion therefore invites colleagues to sign up to a selective list of propositions, including that there should be an increase in contribution rates from 1 April next year
“in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”
However, no standard formula affects all other public service schemes, which vary from one to another. The Government have said that any increases in contributions should be made in progressively and in stages. That is not included in the motion.
The motion states that the House
“supports the approach to public service pension reform”.
I do not think that is a controversial issue, but it is important that we do nothing to undermine our commitment to the belief that this is now the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. We should not give it authority with one hand while putting constraints on it with the other. That is where the Government have got it wrong; they are seeking to interfere in the process.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I see no discrepancy in the Government seeking to apply the principles of public sector reform to the decisions that IPSA will ultimately take, as is stated in the motion. That does not preclude IPSA from consulting on the finer details, as my hon. Friend said. It is important that it is explicit in the motion that the principles of the wider public sector reforms should be applicable to MPs’ pensions. It is imperative that the message goes out that that is what we are voting for.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. That may well be imperative, but it is also imperative that interventions from now on are brief, because a number of people wish to speak. I remind the House that a debate of exceptional importance is to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I do not think that I am alone in hoping that that debate will not be delayed unduly.
Mr Chope
I will make a brief response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), Mr Speaker. What she says about perceptions is important. That is why it is essential that the Government do not bring forward motions that seem to be designed to appeal to an outside audience, while at the same time leaving things rather vague and open to the accusation that they are trying to tie the hands of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Stephen Phillips
Surely all that the second part of the motion does is establish that we should be treated in precisely the same way as other public servants.
Mr Chope
It does not say that, actually, because if it did, it would be worded in that way. That is how it is being interpreted. If nothing else comes from this debate, something will have been achieved if that is how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority interprets the motion. My concern and the concern of many colleagues is that it seems as though the Government have picked a few items and put them in the motion.
To take one public service scheme as an example, the Government have made it quite clear that they do not think that the principles we are talking about today should apply to the armed forces scheme. I support the Government in that, but it is a completely separate issue from trying to tie the hands of IPSA at this stage. IPSA will come forward with its proposals and they will go out to consultation, at which point the Government will have a chance to express a view, as will everybody else.
Mr Redwood
Am I right in remembering that the idea of the Hutton proposals was that they should be negotiated between the representatives of the employees and the employers? Does my hon. Friend think that that is the idea in this case as well?
Mr Chope
My right hon. Friend is, as almost always, absolutely right. The hon. Member for Blaydon made the point that in the public sector, proper negotiations are going on based upon information about specific schemes and about employment issues overall. It seems that for some reason, the Government are trying to pre-empt that negotiation, although we have a strong and independent group of trustees for our pension scheme.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I tried to negotiate with the Government a slightly longer debate on this issue, believing that we should take it up to 7 o’clock. I lost out in that negotiation, so now I feel it is incumbent on me to reduce my remarks pro rata to give others the chance to participate. I have tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, and I have been quite interested in the reaction that it has engendered. Since I tabled it I have heard colleagues say that they think I am on to a good thing, and that they would support it if the House were to divide. However, I will wait and see the view of others before making a final decision on that.
Mr Bone
I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady. If this motion goes through, the Government will quite rightly be able to say that the official Opposition support the wording because they voted for it in the House of Commons. That may well be her position—I am happy to accept that—but this is not the right place to be debating this issue.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for what she said in support of the motion. She set out the Opposition’s position clearly and we are grateful for her comments.
The hon. Lady is right. We ought to emphasise very clearly, first, that MPs’ pay, remuneration and pensions should be determined independently—we should not vote on the money we get. I agree with her and with the principles of the legislation, the final part of which we are putting in place today. Secondly, we should say explicitly—this is the crux of the debate—that on pensions MPs should not be in a different position from others in the public sector. We should be treated no better or worse than those whose interests we will be considering and have considered in the past. The public will take a very dim view indeed if, as a parting shot, we try to claim that we are a special case, although there have been some indications, however well wrapped up, that some feel we are a special case.
Intrinsic to that is something that we need to understand across the public sector, which is that these prospective changes do not change accrued benefits: they are not retrospective. In the case of the Members’ pension scheme, they cannot be retrospective by statute.
I must pick up one point made by the hon. Lady, which was echoed elsewhere in the Chamber. She said that Members have a relatively limited period of employment in the House, about 15 years, which is reflected in pension contributions. We should recognise that that is slightly longer than the average length of service in the civil service, which is 13.5 years, so our tenure is not below average across the working population. However precarious we might think our position is, there are precarious positions out there as well.
The main argument that we have had this evening is on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and supported by the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and partially by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who expressed some sympathy but felt he would support the motion.
The key point is that they do not wish us to express an opinion on the form in which the independent scheme will be worked out. They feel that that should be left alone entirely and that for the House to express an opinion on the matter pre-empts the decision. I do not think that it pre-empts the decision. I think that it is perfectly proper for the House to take a view. We are statutory consultees on the final schemes that will be independently worked out by IPSA if the motion is passed. Although I think that it is important that we have an opinion, that opinion, which must have some value, will not dictate the final result. I repeat that I do not believe that we should be in a different position from other people in the public sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaydon nods in support of that contention.
Others fear that we are arguing for exceptionalism. The general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, today commented on the amendment:
“We’re not all in this together… While they bay for cuts to public sector pensions, they act to feather their own nests. This will appal ordinary people”.
I do not propose to base everything I say on the opinions of Len McCluskey, but I think that many people who do not take an extreme view would nevertheless be very concerned if it appeared that MPs, of their own volition, are to be treated differently from those in other public sector schemes. That is why I am particularly grateful for the support of the shadow Leader of the House for the basic contention.
Mr Heath
I trust IPSA to carry out its statutory functions and give an independent assessment, but I think that there is no harm whatsoever in inviting the House to agree that we should not claim an exception for MPs. We claim no such thing and therefore expect IPSA to have regard to Lord Hutton’s review and the policy consequences that flow from it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Does Mr Chope wish to move his amendment?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye—[Hon. Members: “Aye”]—to the contrary No—
House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill
Christopher Chope Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is quite right. I think it was the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), when he was Leader of the House in the previous Parliament, who said that there had never been a piece of legislation that had gone through the House and received proper scrutiny that had not become a better Bill as a result of that scrutiny. The thinking of the Whips—that pushing stuff through without proper scrutiny achieves the best for the Executive—is the wrong way round, because that actually results in completely the opposite.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s Bill, but does it deal with the problem of the Committee of Selection? That Committee is dominated by the Whips and it effectively prevents honest Back Benchers with an independent mind from serving on many Public Bill Committees.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend hits on an important point. One of the problems in this Parliament is that someone who does not agree with the line of the Executive or the shadow Executive cannot get on to such Committees. That happens because Whips nominate the membership of Committees, but a side benefit of my Bill would be that that would end, because there would be no Whips.
Unlike in many other countries, the Executive live within Parliament, rather than outside it. They propose from within Parliament, and sit, live and breathe within it. Over the years, people have therefore sought election to Parliament not to become Members of Parliament, but to become Ministers. They want to be either a Minister in government, or a shadow Minister in opposition. In the vast majority of cases, people who are elected to the House of Commons want to be a Member of Parliament not for its own end, but as a method to become a Minister. That gives enormous control to Government and Opposition Whips. If someone proposes to exercise their judgment against what the Whips want, they will rapidly be given the threat that their career will be over and they will never become a Minister—I think that I have probably qualified for that advice.
Mr Chope
Before my hon. Friend finishes, let me say that I am absolutely delighted with his speech. I am sure that my decision not to go any further with the National Health Service Redress (Amendment) Bill was a wise one, because otherwise we would have been deprived of his contribution. Does he think that his Bill could be summed up as a deregulatory Bill, replacing regulation with self-regulation?
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as usual he is at one with the Prime Minister in wanting deregulation.
Let me finish by quoting the words of a man who has the best interests of our democracy and our country at heart. This man said:
“We will give the House of Commons more control over its own timetable so there is proper time for scrutiny and debate. We will make MPs more independent, with more free votes so that they can vote as they wish and not as they’re told to.”
Those are words of our new Prime Minister, uttered in 2009 in his powerful speech about rebuilding the connection between Parliament and the people. He has already done much by giving us the Backbench Business Committee, ensuring the election of Select Committee Chairmen and promising to set up a business of the House committee by 2013. I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill today to help the Prime Minister achieve his aims.
Committee on Members’ Allowances
Christopher Chope Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not having been here at the outset, but I was chairing Westminster Hall and it was not possible to get a substitute as quickly as I had hoped.
I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) that much progress has been made during this short debate. I am certainly pleased to hear that. There is a lesson here: if the Government table motions on the Order Paper that are inconsistent with a resolution of the House agreed to as a result of a Back-Bench debate and do not discuss their reasons for tabling the motion, it creates a climate of suspicion. That climate of suspicion was confirmed yesterday, when the Committee of Selection was set up to confirm the membership of the Committee on Members’ Allowances but at the last minute did not deal with the business at hand. I understand that it has been confirmed during this debate that there will be a special meeting today of the Committee of Selection to set up the Committee so that the latter can organise itself to meet next week. I do not know whether that interpretation is correct, but I understand that that is what has been agreed.
Why did we have to go through all this? It is regrettable that this adversarial attitude has been created over an issue that everybody on both sides of the House takes very seriously—IPSA’s administration of our allowances system. Yesterday, I went on to the IPSA website to make a claim for the past month—it was my first claim for a month—and I found that four previous items that I claimed for had been sent back. I will not go into the details except to say that after more than an hour on the telephone all those matters were resolved. However, it should never have taken so long. It was a matter of process dominating common sense and reality. The person from IPSA wasted more than an hour on the telephone. I had to waste more than an hour on the telephone. There were lots of delays and as a result one member of my staff was not paid as quickly as they should have been. That is why it is important that this Committee is set up with the terms of reference that we are debating this afternoon.
Mr Leigh
My hon. Friend can be reassured because we have had a categorical reassurance from the Deputy Leader of the House that there will be absolutely no restriction on what the Committee can decide or recommend. I have the greatest faith in our Front-Bench team—as far as I am concerned, their word is their bond.
Mr Chope
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that when the Committee of Selection meets, he will be selected as a member of the Committee, with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor as its Chairman. With those two on the Committee, I have little doubt that it can do some effective work. However, I still do not understand why it has taken so long to set it up. It was resolved on 12 May that it should be set up, but it is now almost 12 July.
I see that quite a few members of the Treasury Bench are in their places. I hope that they will learn a lesson from this—that we should be much more open with each other about these issues instead of creating or facilitating a climate of suspicion. It is possibly only because today’s business collapsed more than two hours early that we have had the chance to have this open and frank discussion on the Floor of the House on this important issue. When the report—or reports—come back from the Committee, I hope that the Government will again be open and frank, and allow us to ensure that the recommendations are debated and carried into action. That way, there will be no need to spend even more parliamentary time trying to get the Government to do what was agreed by the Prime Minister as long ago as before last December, as I recall, when he made it clear that if something did not happen by April, he would ensure that pressure would be put on IPSA to get its act together.
All’s well that ends well—I hope. In that respect, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for briefing me on what transpired earlier in the debate. I hope that it will be confirmed in the response to this debate that the members of the Committee will be appointed by the Committee of Selection today, so that they can get down to their work first thing next week.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to colleagues who have participated in this brief debate. I do not think that any of us seek to minimise the difficulties that have on occasion arisen over the last year in the operation of IPSA. As we all know, there are numerous bodies trying to iron out the problems and produce a more user-friendly, but at the same time rigorous approach to the whole subject. The Committee that we are setting up—that the House has asked to be set up—will go a long way towards dealing with the more fundamental review of the legislation, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and coming up with recommendations.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that if he had doubts about the wording of the Government motions, we would all have been delighted to discuss his concerns with him and allay any fears. As I mentioned earlier, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) has spent quite some time discussing with interested Members the implications of the Government amendments, and to a large extent was able to reassure those who had a fundamental interest in the establishment of the Committee that their fears were groundless and that this was a real attempt to facilitate its setting up.
Mr Chope
Does the Minister accept that, if those fears had been allayed, my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) would not have had to table the amendments that are being debated today? How is what he has just said consistent with the Government’s action yesterday in withdrawing from the business of the Committee of Selection the appointment of the members of this Committee? Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend why the opportunity for a short, five-minute debate was not taken—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I must also tell him that we are discussing motions 9 and 10 together, and that no amendments have been moved.
Oral Answers to Questions
Christopher Chope Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the House of Commons nursery; and if he will make a statement.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The nursery opened on 1 September last year and was inspected by Ofsted on 1 February, and achieved an overall assessment of “good”. Ofsted rated it as “outstanding” for the effectiveness of the setting’s engagement with parents and carers. The nursery has 40 places and is planned to reach its break-even point of 28 places within three years. Currently, 12 places are filled, and a further eight children are registered to start within six months, making a total of 20.
John Thurso
This year the cost of the nursery will be approximately £50,000, but it is on track to break even ahead of schedule, and thereafter, as was planned by the Commission in bringing forward the nursery project, it will have no impact on the public purse—indeed, it will be a very modest net contributor to the House’s funds.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Christopher Chope Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I shall speak to my amendments 67 and 68. Amendment 67 would substitute the figure of 600 for 585. I tabled the amendment because at the last general election the Conservative party manifesto, on which I was privileged to be re-elected, referred to 585 seats. I have to say that I had some reservations about that part of our manifesto, because I felt that it introduced a degree of inflexibility where, as we have heard from the Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Boundary Commission, it is desirable to leave the Boundary Commission with some flexibility in considering these important issues. From the outset of this Parliament, however, I have been trying to get a straight answer—either from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) or the Deputy Leader of the House—to the question why the figure of 600 was chosen.
I take very seriously the allegation made today by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that the figure of 600 was chosen for politically partisan reasons rather than for objective reasons pertaining to good government. I look forward to the Government responding in detail to the question of why 600, rather than 585, which was in our manifesto, was chosen. I note that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is not yet in his place to speak to his amendment 74. It is a corresponding amendment from the Liberal Democrats, calling for a reduction to 500, which was the exact figure that the Liberal Democrats included in their manifesto, on which the hon. Gentleman was re-elected to this House. This is a very serious issue.
The suggestion that the figure of 600 has been plucked out of the air has rather damaging connotations for the credibility of the coalition Government. Let us examine the difference between 600 and 585. With 600 seats, there would be roughly 75,000 to 76,000 electors per constituency. With 585—in other words, a reduction of 2.5% on the 600 figure—an average of 1,800 or so electors would be added to every constituency. Is anyone in government arguing that it is on account of that crucial increase of another 1,800 electors per constituency that we have opted for the 600 figure rather than 585—itself a conveniently round number in the sense that it was a 10% reduction on the present size of the House?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing magical about the figure of 600, just as there is nothing magical about 585. One was a 10% reduction; the other a round figure reduction of 50. The figure is not magical; it is simply an arbitrary figure that reduces the size of the House in a way that I believe is consistent with the public mood and the needs of this House.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman says that it is an arbitrary figure; I am pleased that he concedes that. He says that it is consistent with the public mood, so let us examine that proposition and let us hope that he will provide some evidence for it when he responds to this debate in due course. He also says that the figure is consistent with the needs of this House. Where is the evidence for that? Why should this House comprise 600 rather than 585 Members? If, by referring to the public mood, the hon. Gentleman means the public’s concern about the costs of Parliament, why at the same time as reducing the size of this House are we merrily increasing the number of people in the other place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) asked? Indeed, as he told us, the number has already increased by more than the proposed reduction here.
The Government are proposing to reduce the number of Members of Parliament by 50, but they have already increased the number of Members in the other House by well over 50—getting on for 60—and there is a prospect of substantial further increases. Where is the case for that? How can increasing the size of the unelected House at considerable additional public expense, while at the same time reducing the size of the elected House, accord with the public mood?
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s argument about the House of Lords, but surely the fact that one House is currently moving in the wrong direction does not mean that we should not move in the right direction.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend has made a perfectly fair point. Let us recall, however, that although the Government have consistently argued that the problem is that this elected House is the largest in the European Union and in most legislatures, they never point out that the other House is larger than this, and that in legislatures not just in the European Union but throughout the globe the revising or upper Chamber, or the senate, is almost invariably not larger but significantly smaller than the elected Chamber. Where is the justification for maintaining a much larger second Chamber? No international relative statistics support the case for very large second Chambers, which seems to be what the Government want to introduce.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has made a pertinent point in referring to the size of second Chambers in many modern democracies around the world. The point that he has not made is that in most of those instances the second Chamber is elected, whereas our second Chamber—which is bigger than our elected Chamber—is unelected. I consider it a massive contradiction that the Government are proposing an expansion of the unelected second Chamber and a reduction in the size of the legitimate, elected Chamber.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. While he was making his intervention, I received a communication from a Whip to the effect that, apparently, the coalition Government are committed to reducing the size of the other House. My response was “When?” I supported an excellent ten-minute rule Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which proposed doing away with Whips in this Chamber. I am grateful to the Whip for the help that he tried to give, but I should be even more grateful if he could ensure, perhaps through those on the Front Bench, that it is put on record when we will reach a point at which the second Chamber is smaller than this elected Chamber.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), but is there not a clear case for presenting the proposals relating to voting, membership and size as a single reform package, given that there is bound to be a reduction at some time in the future? The fact that Whips are running around giving Members information illustrates our current problem.
Mr Chope
As so often, the right hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental point. Given that the Government have not been listening to what has been said on both sides of the Chamber throughout our debates, I hope that the other place will concentrate the Government’s mind by taking control of these important issues and insisting that piecemeal constitutional legislation of the sort that we are discussing is not the answer to the country’s problems, does not accord with the public mood, and is cynical in the extreme. I hope that the Bill, which has been subject to vicious timetabling and much of which will not be discussed in this Chamber, will be well and truly filleted when it reaches the other place.
Ian Lucas
The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech. Does he agree that what the public want is a straightforward approach from politicians of all parties, democratic accountability and an honest, considered discussion about amendments to the British constitution? Unfortunately, because we have discussed neither the Bill in draft nor issues relating to the House of Lords, we are not having that discussion now. My constituents are telling me that they believe that the Bill is designed for party political advantage, which diminishes this Chamber and all of us who sit in it.
Mr Chope
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point very seriously, because the allegation that there is to be constitutional change in order to try to benefit one political party over another is a very serious one. We should not allow that allegation to be spread among the electorate unless there is a justification for it. I am looking for some assurance from my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there is no political manoeuvring and that instead this is an objective, non-partisan measure. So far, however, I have not been convinced that that is so, and I do not think the arguments put from the Opposition Front Bench and by Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber have been properly addressed.
I have made the following point to the Deputy Prime Minister in many previous discussions in the House. There should not be a reduction in the size of the legislature without a pro rata reduction in the size of the Government. The response I have always received to that is, “Well, we don’t see the need to do that as the two issues are not connected,” but they are fundamentally connected. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and others have already made the point that the measures under discussion will give much more power to the Executive and less power to the legislature, and that is totally at odds with what the Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition that he was going to do. He said then that he wanted to increase the power of Members of Parliament and reduce the size and power of the Executive. He said that in the run-up to the general election, and it was even spelled out in terms in the Conservative party manifesto. I hope that at the end of this debate we will hear from the Front-Bench team how they think that these measures are consistent with undertakings given to the electorate both before and during the general election campaign.
What conceivable reason can there be for picking this arbitrary figure of 600? One rumour circulating among many of my colleagues is that the motivation behind the move is to provide another way for the Executive, through party managers and the party machine, to be able to put the frighteners on reluctant supporters of the coalition in both Government parties. Boundary Commission representatives said in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that as a result of these proposals every single constituency in the country will have to have significant boundary changes. The Whips have peddled a bit of misinformation, suggesting that if a Member’s constituency already has about the right new number of constituents—76,000—then, “You’ll be all right, Jack,” but the Boundary Commission has made it clear that every single constituency boundary in the country will have to be significantly altered. What goes with that, of course, is the reselection of Members of Parliament, and what goes with that is more power for the Executive, through the party managers, to try to influence the reselection process.
Although we know that, in fact, the most independent MPs got the best results in the last general election, it does not prevent—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is right: she had an outstanding result in the general election, on which I congratulate her, and it had nothing whatever to do with her loyalty to her party when it was in government. What she achieved sends a very important message. I hope that many of my 147 new colleagues will take that message to heart and realise that even if this Bill goes through and a change is made to almost every constituency, those who have stood up fearlessly on behalf of their constituents will do better at the ballot box, and probably in the reselection process, than those who supinely followed whatever they were told to do by the Whips. That does not alter the fact that this can be done to put the frighteners on people, because nobody quite knows what the future will bring.
Phil Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the chaos that the boundary changes will create, but if this measure goes through, that will not just occur this time around; there will be uncertainty every term, not only for all Members in this place, but for our electors. We could end up breaking the link, which we all respect, between elected politicians and their voters.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A proposal that has not yet been tabled in an amendment or a new clause, but perhaps could be tabled on Report or in the other place, is for a sunset clause, in order to see how the new number works in practice, rather than allowing it to go on indefinitely. He may be interested in proposing such a sunset clause—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Shall we concentrate on what is actually in the Bill—in particular, the issue of the number of MPs—and not on what might occur in the future?
Mr Chope
Absolutely, Ms Primarolo. I am sorry that I got slightly carried away, as a result of that intervention, in anticipating what might happen in the future.
I tabled my amendment for discussion because in the general election we promised that there would be 585 MPs, because we needed that number and it would reduce the costs of Parliament, but we are now proposing 600. That means that the costs will be reduced by less than they would have been had we opted for 585. Given what we have heard today, it appears that when the books were opened they were even worse than the worst fears of my right hon. Friends in the Government. Surely it is inconsistent with the spending decisions taken today to row back from a figure of 585 to one of 600. That gives credence to the charge made against the coalition Government that, although 600 is an arbitrary figure, it is not quite as arbitrary as we might be led to believe, because it is based on some private work that has been done suggesting that it might be to the advantage of the coalition partners, rather than the Labour party.
Mr Chope
Ms Primarolo, you have already criticised me for speculating, and I am certainly not going to speculate. All I am saying is that, before this House gives approval to a reduction in the number of MPs to a fixed number of 600, the case needs to be made and we need something more than an assertion that it is an arbitrary figure, that it accords with the public mood and that it meets the needs of this House. None of those things has been established. Apart from anything else, even if I agreed with such a move, I would not support it unless I could see evidence of a pro rata reduction in the number of Ministers and the size of the Executive, and thereby not a dilution of this House’s ability to hold the Executive to account. That is my modest contribution, but I make it clear that I intend to seek re-election in the next Parliament, be there 600 or 585 constituencies, or the current number.
John Mann
I wish to address my remarks to amendments 364 and 227. I particularly wish to deal with the principle of having the number of Members of Parliament fixed at 600, because I find the fixed number particularly objectionable and dangerous. That contradicts the history of this country going back many centuries, because our system has evolved as a majority system. We have had first past the post—although the alternative vote is now being suggested—as a way of electing individual Members who represent individual constituencies. The moment that one moves towards a mathematical fixation determining the number of seats, the trip down the slippery slope towards proportional representation has begun. If the mindset is that there should be an equality of votes, however that is defined—of course there were important arguments yesterday about how to define the equality of voters and who defines the electorate—and that there should be a mathematical equation, the logical conclusion is that that can be taken further as things ebb and flow.
A further conclusion could be drawn from that, because if it is good enough for the House of Commons, it is good enough for other parts of the—I use this phrase lightly—British constitution. So the House of Lords should have a fixed number of seats and Members of that House should be aware of the likely logic that must follow, whatever that number might be. Some might suggest—I think I once did—that if there was a fixed number, it should be as low as 100. It might be a shock to them to go so low. However, the moment one has a fixed number, one sets in place a principle that totally and absolutely contradicts every principle in establishing constituencies that this country has had before.
This is a critical principle, which seems to have been overlooked in the debate about the precise numbers. The moment we make that change, that principle will be enshrined for ever. The Deputy Prime Minister made comparisons to the Great Reform Act of 1832. I have studied that Act quite extensively, not least because the originator, John Cartwright, came up with the concept living in the house that I now occupy and would have been a constituent of mine. The original rotten borough was East Retford, with 150 voters choosing two Members of Parliament. Following the recent boundary changes, done on the basis of equalising constituencies across the county of Nottinghamshire, I now have the privilege of representing Retford, having lost the district of Warsop.
That was part of a boundary change under the current system to numerically equalise as much as possible the size of parliamentary seats. I have 20,000 new voters and I lost 10,000. I do not object to that principle. The 10,000 who went objected vehemently, because they seemed to feel that I was a good and representative Member of Parliament, but those whom I now represent were delighted to have the opportunity to vote for or against me. That was a major redistribution on the principle of equalising size, but this rotten Bill enshrines in perpetuity the concept of a mathematical arbitrary equation that each constituency will be of the same size, which has fundamental ramifications.
Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)
Christopher Chope Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain why we need to do this before the summer recess? If he knew a week ago that we needed to do it before the summer recess, why was it not put on the Order Paper below the line so that we had advance notice of the Government’s intention?
Mr Heath
I have just said that the Government are facilitating a process. This is not Government policy: it is for the House to determine. I see no reason why we should not debate this issue tonight. We have plenty of time to debate it tonight—possibly as much time as any Member could reasonably expect to debate an important issue such as this. It is important that we take a decision, for the obvious reason that if we could not decide, we could not allow the UK Youth Parliament to make use of the facilities at the time when we would invite them to do so if this motion were passed. It would therefore seem to be entirely sensible, even within the constraints of procedure in this place, to table a motion to agree to invite the Youth Parliament to use the facilities and, if that is agreed, for it then to do so—rather than the other way round.
Philip Davies
If the hon. Lady did not keep intervening, we might get on to the arguments so that we could outline them for her. She is far too impatient—she obviously wants to get on with it. I want to get on with it, too, but I am trying to be generous with people who want to intervene. I shall try to outline the arguments, but I am surprised that she seems to think that the only place that a debate of the Youth Parliament can take place is in this Chamber. Why cannot a debate of the Youth Parliament take place in other forums? They can have a very good debate in Westminster Hall and in the House of Lords. Why do they have to be here to have a debate? That is the point that the hon. Lady is making, which I do not really follow.
Mr Chope
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the big complaints at the meeting of the Youth Parliament last year was that debates were truncated? The Youth Parliament member for Christchurch, for example, was not called and so he was unable to participate. Would it not be better if the Youth Parliament met not just one day a year but several days each year, so that there was time for every member of the Youth Parliament to participate and to stand on their feet in this wonderful Chamber?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and he is living proof that people can change their mind in this place. He seems to be articulating the view that we should have more Youth Parliament debates in this Chamber, an argument with which I am sure that many hon. Members would agree. Many might agree with it secretly because they do not want to let the cat out of the bag now, just like last year when they did not want to let the cat out of the bag that this would be an annual occasion. They now do not want to let the cat out of the bag that they want this to happen more than once a year—in fact, that they want it to happen a few times a year. Perhaps it could happen every week, or every Friday that we did not sit. Perhaps that is what they really think, but they do not have the courage of their convictions to say so.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take your intervention, which I absolutely accept, as a signal not to accept any more interventions. I will try to work on that basis, so that I can set out the arguments that I wanted to set out, but which I have been deterred from setting out by lots of people wishing to intervene in my speech. I hope that other people are just as generous when they make their speeches.
One of the arguments put forward for the Youth Parliament last time was that having its debate in this Chamber would raise its profile around the country. Hon. Members might have done some detailed survey work on that, but I would be interested to see all the opinion polls that show that the public now have a better grasp of the UK Youth Parliament than they did last year, before its debates took place. That was supposed to be one of the key measures of success last year, so I was surprised that neither the Deputy Leader of the House nor the shadow Deputy Leader of the House—nor, indeed, any of the many hon. Members who have made interventions—made the case by saying where it is clearly stated that the UK Youth Parliament’s profile is now much higher.
If we want to raise the profile of certain issues—youth issues may well be one of them—perhaps we can also raise the profile of other issues. I do not understand why we need the Youth Parliament to have a debate in this Chamber in order to raise its profile. Why would a debate held elsewhere not also raise its profile? I hope that Members who are in favour of the motion will deal with that point.
I would also like to talk, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, Mr Speaker, I apologise. I want to deal with one of the interventions made by a Liberal Democrat Member who spoke about members of the UK Youth Parliament being unique in not being able to vote. The Liberal Democrats might like to have a word with their hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) who in last year’s debate made the same point that I have—that many people, including prisoners, do not have the right to vote. If my point of view is so unacceptable, Liberal Democrat Members might like to speak to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane.
Philip Davies
I think that is absolutely right, which brings me back to the thrust of my argument. What is so special about the UK Youth Parliament? Why is it so much more important than any other organisation? That is a particular point.
I want to move on to the point about cost. The Minister did not mention the cost. I hope that he will. I will certainly give way to him if he wants to make it clear. What estimate has been made as to how much it will cost for the House authorities to open up the Chamber for a day for the Youth Parliament? In last year’s debate, the figure bandied around—I have no idea whether it was accurate or not—was between £30,000 and £40,000. If the Minister would like to confirm or deny those figures, I am sure it would be particularly helpful. If that is an appropriate figure, I think that we should be discussing whether that is a necessary use of public funds in this age of austerity, and whether the money could be spent in a better way.
The views of members of the Youth Parliament were mentioned earlier by the Minister. Perhaps I can issue a challenge to him. He might like to go out and speak to young people in his constituency and ask them how they would like to see £30,000 to £40,000 spent for the benefit of the Youth Parliament. Would they want it spent on having a debate here? The answer may well be yes—I do not know—or would they prefer the money to be spent on other ways of engaging young people to take part in debates and engage in the political process? Is there no better use of money to deliver what we all want at the end of the day—more young people engaged in political activity and debate?
I was issued a challenge earlier about whether I had asked my MYPs about their views on having a debate here, but I would issue the same challenge to all hon. Members. Have they asked their MYPs how they would like to spend the money that is to be spent on this debate if they had a choice? If we ask people, “Would you like a Rolls-Royce?”, most will say yes. If we say, “Would you like a Rolls-Royce if you had to spend the rest of your life living in a tent to pay for it?”, they might say no. Before we say to people, “Would you like a debate in the House of Commons Chamber?”, we should put the pros and the cons and the costs to them, and then ask them for their view. It might well be a different view. Young people are just as sophisticated as other people here. They may well weigh up the pros and cons and come to a different opinion if all that is put before them.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree that we need to reform the process for private Members’ legislation. When we discussed this a week or so ago, it was agreed that the Procedure Committee would look into the matter and bring forward proposals. I hope that its members will also speak to the Backbench Business Committee so that we can have the benefit of the views of both Committees. It would certainly be to the benefit of the House if we could improve the way in which we deal with private Members’ business and put an end to the procedural nonsense that we have at the moment.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When is the motion on the fixed-term Parliament, which was promised by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House on 25 May, going to be brought forward? He said that it would be put on the Order Paper at the earliest opportunity, and that we would have a debate on it before the summer recess. Is that still the position?
Mr Heath
I think I am right in saying that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to make a statement on that subject in the very near future, so my hon. Friend will have to be patient for a little longer—[Interruption.] It will, of course, be made in Parliament, which is the right place for such statements.