Recall of MPs Bill
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I want to speak principally to the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been kind enough to add theirs—amendments 42, 43 and 44 and new clauses 6 and 7—but first I want to welcome the Bill, which delivers on a manifesto commitment from at least three of the parties represented in the House. The other parties must forgive me as I do not know whether it was in their manifestos.
Mr Heath
The hon. Lady nods her head.
I am pleased that our commitment is finally being honoured. In government, I was frustrated at the time it took to get something before the House, and I think it is an open secret that I would have preferred it to have gone slightly further than the Bill before us, but nevertheless it is exactly in line with what those parties said they wanted and what they put to the people. I hope, therefore, that we can get away from this false dichotomy between a real recall Bill and a bogus recall Bill. This is not a bogus recall Bill, but it is one that could be strengthened, and that is exactly what we should be focusing on.
I think we might need to look at the constitution of the Standards Committee. As a former member of the old Standards and Privileges Committee, I think there is scope for changing the membership of the Standards Committee, although I would make one caveat about the voting rights of members. That point was covered in a Green Paper on privilege that I produced as Minister but which I do not think anybody read, apart from—possibly—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Either way, it was obviously minority reading, given that so many people since have commented from a position of sublime ignorance on the subject of privilege. Nevertheless, there are issues to consider and in principle I agree that we should reform the Committee.
We should not kid ourselves, however, that any Committee of the House will have the confidence of many members of the public. That is why I want a mechanism that provides the public with direct access to this process and which is not mediated by a custodial sentence or the decision of a Committee of the House. I am sorry but there is no way such a Committee could be seen as anything other than an old boys’ club. I winced slightly when I heard my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is not in his place, refer to the capacity of the House to expel Members. This is not a gentlemen’s club. Can we please get away from the Victorian idea that we make the rules and deal with things? Our electorate has a right to be engaged in this process.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Standards Committee, whose lay members are denied a vote by the House, does nothing more than report to the Floor of the House? It is not a Committee that sits upstairs and comes to these decisions. The decision about whether somebody is guilty of misconduct—I have spent three years trying to find out exactly what that means—would be taken on an amendable report on the Floor of the House.
Mr Heath
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but that does not alter the fact that the public will not believe that any mechanism mediated by MPs, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, is not going to protect MPs. I do not think it a fair criticism, but that prejudice is now impossible to remove, so let us accept it.
I want to find a new way to give the public access to the recall process. As was clear from the exchanges between the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the Labour spokesman, we are talking about behaviour that our constituents cannot accept, rather than views with which they disagree. As I think he knows, I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Richmond Park is trying to do, and I accept his point about 20% being a difficult level to achieve—somebody would really have to incense their constituents—but I do not accept that 5% would be difficult to achieve for a well-funded campaign or even a political opponent who has lost an election and wants an immediate rerun. He blithely says, “Of course, all Members would probably have a petition process against them”, but that is not a satisfactory position for Members to be in. If someone wants to do radical things in the House and represents a socially conservative constituency, they will face problems of this kind. It does not take much to get 3,500 people to say they do not support gay marriage or some other policy on which we have legislated. I want to concentrate, therefore, on genuine misconduct.
Sir Edward Leigh
It could be the other way round—a social conservative could be attacked by more liberal constituents—but I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. I presume he is in favour of the amendments from me and my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) providing that no process could be started based on votes cast or speeches made here. Is he in favour of what we are trying to do?
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the threat of recall would have an effect on MPs? In the United States, a lot of people who face a recall just resign. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) contended that the support of 50% plus one of voters would be required for a successful recall, but that is not the case; it would only require 50% plus one of those taking part in the referendum.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend just said that the threshold of 3,500 voters or 5% was low, and used the example of gay marriage as an issue on which a petition could easily be secured. Will he explain to the Committee how that would be so wrong for democracy? What would be so wrong for me, as the hon. Member for Bedford, to have to go back to my constituents under the threat of a potential recall because of something I had said in the House? I cannot understand what the problem with that would be.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman might take a different view, but my personal view is that the general election process is where these things are decided, not on a single issue, but on the performance of the Member and the plurality of views that are expressed. To have a form of Athenian democracy in this country, where we have constant voting and constant re-election, does not seem to—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) is burbling from a sedentary position, but I do not think his party had anything about recall in its last manifesto, so perhaps he needs a further recall now, because if he votes for a recall provision this evening, he will be breaking his election pledge not to have one; I do not know.
Let us move on. I personally do not think that what the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) described is in the interests of the sort of representative democracy that we have always enjoyed in this country. However, I do think—I feel this very strongly and have argued it passionately, both before the election and since—that we need to find a way of capturing those examples of misconduct that are not necessarily caught by the criminal law and might not attract the attention of the Standards Committee, or, even if they do, where the public do not accept that as a mechanism.
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the constant threat of recall, particularly for those in marginal seats, might be intimidating and lead parliamentarians to champion popularity over principle, which would corrupt the democracy in which we live?
Mr Heath
I do think that is a recipe for “populism”—in the worst sense of the word—and that it is open to abuse. It is a naive view that it would not be abused by those with deep pockets and strongly held views. It would be, and I do not believe that is necessarily in the interests of parliamentary democracy as we understand it.
To return to misconduct, several Members have rightly said that it is difficult to define the misconduct that we are talking about, so I looked around for an objective test of whether somebody had behaved improperly. I found that in England there is such a test, which many Members will be familiar with. English and Welsh law has the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, which is often used against public officials—most commonly against police officers nowadays, but also against council officials or others in the public service, including occasionally civil servants. The offence is understood by the courts and has been in existence for a long time—since 1783: Rex v. Bembridge, if anyone wants to look up the start of the offence.
If it helps the Committee, I will give a simple definition. Actually, nothing is simple in this area, because it is open to interpretation, but the legal definition—the working definition for the moment—of the offence is where somebody
“wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”.
To an extent, therefore, it is a catch-all offence to deal with people who behave improperly. I felt that it might serve as an appropriate trigger for the public to have recourse to the system without having to go through the other mechanisms.
Zac Goldsmith
The right hon. Gentleman describes the offence as a catch-all, but the advice that I have had—I have sought advice on this—is that it is a catch-virtually-nothing-at-all. The Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying that it should apply
“only where…the facts are so serious that the court’s sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate”.
The House of Commons Library says:
“There are few prosecutions, suggesting that action is taken only when misconduct is particularly gross”.
And the courts have said:
“The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one, will not suffice”.
Is the right hon. Gentleman really adding anything at all to the Bill?
Mr Heath
Yes, I think I am, for two reasons. First, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said, because the offence is actually quite frequently used nowadays in the courts of England—we are talking about more than a dozen and towards 20 cases a year. In fact, there was one only last week, when a senior police officer was indicted for the offence. Secondly, the reason the offence is not used against Members of Parliament at the moment is, of course, the potential difficulties with the Bill of Rights—I need to move on to that, because that is one of the difficulties.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He will of course know that the Bill as drafted extends to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but his amendment extends only to England and Wales.
Lady Hermon
Oh, so it extends throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that and give some examples.
Mr Davis
This is meant to be helpful. In the several cases of misconduct in public office that I have had to deal with, the charge has been used because, really, there was nothing else that would catch the offence that had been created by the public official. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s argument; the problem is that there is very little in the way of proper precedent that tells us what the offence really means. It seems to me that that is a very bad basis for any law at all.
Mr Heath
It is difficult, and as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the common law offence of misconduct in public office has been subject to scrutiny over recent years. Indeed, the Law Commission is studying it right at this moment to see whether it could be put on to a statutory basis, which might provide a better definition. Curiously enough, however, one of the attractions of the offence for this purpose is its lack of definition, because all I am trying to do is define the things that fall short of fraud, assault and battery or whatever, but that nevertheless clearly constitute improper behaviour in the conduct of a Member of Parliament.
What I am seeking to do is put the matter in the hands of the public, not MPs, so that there is a third trigger in the process. I am trying to ensure an objective test, which is applied in two ways. First, misconduct in public office is a recognisable offence. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) said, it is one that the English courts understand—I will come back to the problem with the other jurisdictions in a moment. Then, using a court that is understood—the election court, which is established under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which provides for two High Court judges in England and Wales, two judges of the High Court of Northern Ireland or two judges of the Court of Session in Scotland—the matter would be assessed.
That would put Members of Parliament in the same position as other public servants, which is an important signal in itself. Notwithstanding the need for protection under the Bill of Rights, I do not see why we as Members of Parliament should not be in a different position from other public servants in other respects. I have also drafted my amendments so as to automatically provide a filter for claims that are trivial, vexatious or clearly simply party political in nature, rather than genuine claims of misconduct.
What are the difficulties with my proposal? There are two really big drafting difficulties that I encountered in trying to put it together. I think I am reasonably adept at drafting parliamentary amendments, but I have to say that these were significant problems. One problem is exactly the point that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made. We are talking about English common law and there is not a directly comparable offence of any kind in Scotland. I looked in vain for a common law offence in Scotland, and the nearest I could find was breach of duty, which is not the same as the common law offence in England. That is why there has to be a slightly, I would say, circumlocutory approach—perhaps that is not the right expression, but it is certainly complex—in that the courts would be asked to adjudicate on the offence as though it were committed in England, irrespective of where it was committed by the Member. I accept that that is a difficulty, and I would like better constitutional lawyers than I am to have a look and find a more elegant way of achieving the same objective.
Chris Bryant
It seems to me that there is another problem. The Crown Prosecution Service says clearly in its guidance on misconduct in public office:
“The suspect must not only be a ‘public officer’”—
not as straightforward to define as it seems—but that
“the misconduct must also occur when acting in that capacity.”
When does an MP act in the capacity of an MP except when proceeding in Parliament, which is the one thing that the hon. Gentleman wants to preclude?
Mr Heath
That is another precise difficulty in the drafting that I foresaw. If the hon. Gentleman looked at my new clause—there are so many tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that I cannot find it at the moment. [Interruption.] Yes, new clause 7, which states:
“The court may consider such conduct whether or not it is committed in England and Wales, and whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament.”
In other words, it deals with the Member of Parliament irrespective of that hazy definition of what the terms of contract of MPs are. I accept that this is a difficulty, however, and I do not want to pretend anything other than that these are difficult issues. I hope the Committee will accept that this is a genuine attempt to find a solution to a very difficult problem.
John McDonnell
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the struggle he has entered into. Let me provide him with this practical example that occurred in my constituency in the 1980s. Statements were made in this House that we considered to be of a racist nature, and we thought that they would have been prosecutable if they had been made outside this place. The individual, however, was covered by parliamentary privilege, so was not brought to book. He could only have been brought to book if there had been a right for the electorate to trigger a recall.
Mr Heath
That is the other major drafting difficulty. I do not believe it would be right for me to put something before the Committee that accidentally repealed the Bill of Rights. I think the Bill of Rights provides important protection to Members. My proposals skate on the very edge of what counts as parliamentary privilege and what does not. If the words had been uttered here, they would not be covered by the recall procedure, but I do not think they should be covered by that procedure rather than by having a general election. That is my answer.
What mechanism am I proposing? It is for 100 electors from the constituency—[Interruption.]
Mr Heath
Thank you, Mr Amess.
I am proposing that 100 constituents—I deliberately kept the number low—can petition and make a claim of misconduct to an electoral court. That election court will then receive submissions relating to that claim or petition and will receive any rebuttal from the Member of Parliament concerned. The court will be asked not to find guilt—that would provide the difficulty over the clash with the Bill of Rights—but rather to certify that a prima facie case of misconduct has been made. The recall process would be triggered and it would then be for the electorate to decide. The jury would be, as was said earlier, the electorate, and they would decide whether they felt that the case was sufficiently proven and that they would no longer be prepared to accept the individual as their Member of Parliament. The recall process would then proceed.
Is my new clause a perfectly formed amending provision? I do not believe it is because of the very serious drafting issues I have mentioned. If, however, the Committee’s view is that misconduct should be captured, but thought and speech should not be captured, my new clause provides a potential mechanism for doing so. I hope to hear from the two Front-Bench teams—to be fair to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, I have partially heard it already—that they are prepared to take the provisions away, talk to people much more learned in the law than I could be as a layman, try to provide a workable mechanism and then lay the proposals before the House on Report. It is essential to crack this nut of public access to the system. That is what I want to achieve. I will support the Bill irrespective of whether it contains a further trigger, but I would very much like to see a mechanism that gives the general public access to something that is currently exclusively the preserve of this House if not through custodial sentencing.
Mr David Davis
Before he concludes, I would like the hon. Gentleman to address two issues that can be seen in the central turmoil of the debate. The first is the trigger of 100 people. That is not a large number to get together, raising the risk of continuous vexatious references. How would he overcome that problem? Secondly, when the outcome is a finding against the Member by the electoral court, is that a 10% test, as in the Government’s proposals, or a full referendum test as suggested in the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)?
Mr Heath
The first point is explicitly covered in new clause 7(6), which states:
“If the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—(a) not supported by the evidence; or (b) trivial or vexatious in nature; or (c) brought for party political purposes; then the court must dismiss the petition.”
That is the filter that prevents people from bringing vexatious charges time and time again. In extremis, of course, the courts have the power to award costs if they feel that the same allegations are being brought forward again and again inappropriately.
On the second point about the threshold, my proposal is that this should act as a further trigger to the Government’s proposed mechanism. I am perfectly open, however, to discussion over whether a better and more appropriate threshold could be applied—both in terms of the original complaint and of the petition process. I do not have strong opinions on this; I would like to talk to others and see if a consensus could be reached.
Kevin Barron
Would the decision of the election court be challengeable? In other words, if someone were found to have been involved in misconduct, could they appeal against it, bringing an element of fairness into the procedure?
Mr Heath
My new clause is constructed in such a way that there would not be an appeal process because the court would not find on matters of guilt. It would find only on the prima facie case in the same way as a magistrates court when it sends an offence for trial at a higher forum. The electorate of the constituency are the court of appeal as well as the court of indictment, which seems to me appropriate.
Zac Goldsmith
One of my points was half-addressed earlier when the hon. Gentleman suggested that one of his arguments against the notice of intent to recall, which we are proposing, is that it would be awkward and inconvenient for MPs to have this bubbling away. However, the same arguments apply even more so to the fact that only 100 people could get headlines in the local papers such as “Misconduct Charges brought upon MP”—even if the attempt was vexatious. There is more room for that sort of mischief in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals than there are in my amendments. However, I have a question for him about the “gross dereliction of duty” in his new clause 7. How is it possible to find an MP guilty of gross dereliction of duty when there is no job description? Would this apply to an MP who refused to come here to engage, debate and vote, as is the case with some parties?
Mr Heath
If a Member of Parliament is elected and fails to carry out even the basic duties of a Member of Parliament, that Member of Parliament will, in my subjective view, be guilty of a dereliction of duty. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the number of Irish constituencies represented by Members who have not taken their seats, I think, judging by the electoral history, that a recall procedure would be unlikely to succeed in the long run, simply because people would elect those Members again in the full knowledge that they would not take their seats.
There was a famous Member of Parliament who decided to go and run a pub in Northern Ireland, and did not attend the House of Commons for a very long time. I think that he was eventually persuaded to do so by inducements offered by the then Government, who were rather short of voting power at the time. It may be that his constituents were perfectly content with that position, but I think that it should at least have been argued that he was failing in his duties to the electorate and to the House.
Thomas Docherty
I intervene merely to seek more information. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the scale of the costs of the election court is likely to be, and who he expects to meet them?
Mr Heath
So many Members have now referred to me as a member of the Privy Council that I think I must have received that status by acclamation. Will someone please tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I obviously behave as though I were a member of that august club, although I am not?
I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that the arrangements would be identical to those that currently govern election courts and election petitions. However, if someone were clearly initiating vexatious proceedings, as is the case with the present election courts, the court could, if it wished, award costs against the petitioner, and might well do so if it felt that the process was being abused.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been asked. I am sorry to have spoken at such great length, Mr Amess, but I have done so mainly in response to interventions, which seems to be par for the course this evening. Let me end by saying that I think that my new clause is objective, and that it fulfils some of what Members on both sides of the Committee want to achieve. I do not claim that the drafting is perfect and cannot be improved, but I hope that the new clause will begin a process of discussion which may reach a conclusion allowing for many of the things that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and some of his supporters want to see achieved without opening the door to what some people equally adamantly do not want to see achieved, which is Members of Parliament being in constant fear of recall on the basis that they have voted to the displeasure of someone very rich in their constituency.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I support recall, as outlined in the Bill, for serious misdemeanours. Those of us who were in the House at the time of the expenses scandal knew that things had to change, and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), the proposal on which we are being called to vote today was in our manifesto.
I shall oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and, although I know it is a dangerous thing to do, I shall support those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). This must be the first and only time I have agreed with him about anything. I also want to say something about the attempt by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to find a middle way.
The Bill has been publicised as though it constituted a method of giving the electorate more of a say. It has been suggested that anyone who speaks against it does not trust the voters, and is somehow less of a politician because he or she is afraid to stand for election. It is a bit like being accused of being a witch. Well, each and every one of us has the guts to stand in every election, and to put our record before our voters. I have always said that the one thing that distinguishes all those who stand for election to Parliament or a local council, or for any other elected office, is that they have the courage of their convictions, the courage to stand before their peers and ask for their trust. We should recognise that, because it is an important principle.
I think that we may have given too much away to the unelected quango state and the like. We seem to have believed that if we fill organisations with independent people who have no political influence at all—I do not know whether they are born or develop—there will be better decisions. I am a great big believer in the importance of elected office. I think that it is something of which we should be proud, and for which we should argue forcefully as parliamentarians and other elected office holders.
The Bill is strange in that it has united UKIP with the far left in the belief that it somehow represents a radical way forward. I do not think that it does. I think that it is very dangerous. It does not empower voters, and it will undermine the democracy that we in this country take for granted.
The effects of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park would be very simple. The amendments remove the notion that someone must be recalled on grounds of imprisonment or suspension, and allows the recall of Members for any reason. I think that this the first time I have ever heard a Member present the argument that his proposals will never actually be used. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be very difficult, and that the barriers were very high. Why put such a proposal on the statute book? Is it conning the electorate to give them something that is so difficult to achieve? Is the hon. Gentleman being dishonest with the people who he suggests will be empowered ?
Recall of MPs Bill
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
Let me make a bit of progress. The diametrically opposed view is that a recall system should be implemented to allow the recall of MPs on any grounds and at any time, including disagreements with an MP’s stance on a matter of policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) makes the counter argument, but my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) takes the view that a policy disagreement between an MP and his or her constituents is such a ground. That is not the position of the Government, or the commitment that was made in the party manifestos.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is explaining quite clearly the difference between what is misconduct and bad behaviour, which would get someone sacked from any other job in any other circumstances, and what is simply a disagreement over policy, where it would be possible for people to use a large amount of money effectively to remove an MP. But does he understand the concern that many members of the public have that the trigger for this at the moment is in a group of MPs in the form of the Standards and Privileges Committee? Does he understand that perhaps there needs to be an alternative mechanism that goes directly to the point of petition?
Greg Clark
I do understand both points that my hon. Friend makes. The question of a trigger is something that we will be debating both today and in Committee. Members who have served on Bill Committees with me will know that I have always taken a view that when experienced Members of Parliament debate a subject of great importance and interest—where the matters divide on party political lines—it is right and appropriate that the Government should reflect on the proposals, or amendments, put forward. I will confirm that we will do that and that we will take very seriously the views of the House.
Stephen Twigg
I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record.
The example of the “cash for questions” scandal in the 1990s exemplifies the weakness in the Bill. If we accept the principle of recall, then surely such clear examples of misconduct should fall within the criteria that I set out.
Mr Heath
The stories mentioned by the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) demonstrate part of the problem, which is the self-importance of this House and its willingness to act as a gentlemen’s club rather than, at the end of the day, giving the verdict to our constituents. That is why this Bill, with I hope, a widening of the trigger mechanism, is so important.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vaizey
It does not surprise me at all to hear that Northamptonshire is the most enterprising county in England, because it has one of the most enterprising Members of Parliament, and my hon. Friend continues to innovate in his role. I am delighted that Kettering and Northamptonshire reflect the huge boom in businesses—part of the 400,000 extra businesses overall that we have seen created since the coalition came to power.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
As far as the south-west is concerned, the growth of small businesses will be dependent on four critical infrastructure issues, all of which fall to the Government to decide within the next few months. The first is the road system, the A303; the second is the rail system and communications to the far south-west; the third is flood defences; and the fourth—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this—is access to high-speed broadband for all businesses right across the rural areas of the south-west. Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment to talk to his colleagues in other Departments to make sure that the south-west gets the infrastructure it needs?
Mr Vaizey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his enterprising approach in getting so many different Departments into one question. I will want to make the case, but it is ultimately the decision of my colleagues in the Department for Transport when it comes to the road structures and of those in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it comes to flood defences. Let me say, however, that broadband roll-out is going incredibly well in the south-west. Cornwall is one of the most well connected counties in England, while Devon and Somerset are not far behind.
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the aerospace industry is one in which the British supply chain had been badly depleted over the years, and it is now being rebuilt. When I was last in India on a departmental trip I did visit an Indian aerospace company that was relocating to the UK, so this does happen. Through the aerospace growth partnership, which is a key element of the industrial strategy, re-shoring and building up the supply chain is a key element in the long-term planning of the sector.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
May I ask the Secretary of State about the remuneration of university vice-chancellors, because the entry level appears to be about £160,000 a year? There are 127 vice-chancellors receiving more than £200,000 annually, 33 receiving more than £300,000 and four receiving more than £400,000. What is it about running a university that makes it so much more difficult and so much more remunerative than running the country?
Greg Clark
The robust tradition among universities is that they are independent institutions; Ministers do not have the ability to direct them. Universities are now in a competitive environment: they compete for students and with each other for research funds. I am sure that vice-chancellors across the country who are meeting today in Leeds at their annual conference will have the hon. Gentleman’s message relayed to them.
Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the victims, and I certainly am available to have a meeting with their families and talk to them about all the concerns they have. Immediately, the concerns are the consular issues that need to be dealt with, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), is doing that.
The right hon. Gentleman’s other question was about sharing intelligence, and we have already done that with the Ukrainian Government. Lots of countries have information about what happened. Russia, specifically, will have a lot of information about what happened. As I said to Putin on the telephone last night, he should make that information available, in the same way as the Americans and others have made that information available. He could probably put beyond doubt, if he wanted to, what actually happened over the skies of eastern Ukraine, and I urge him to do so.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
If the gangsters in the Kremlin and their sock puppets in the Russian media do not understand the enormity of bringing down a civil aeroplane on an international route, should we not at least consider whether Russian commercial carriers are any more welcome in sovereign airspace in the civilised world?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. All these issues need to be considered in the context of bringing together what Europe can do collectively to send the clearest possible message to Russia.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
If lawyers were paid by the word, they would be multi-millionaires by now. I would like to get through a bit more, preferably with the co-operation of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), in the form of an exceptionally pithy question.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Will Law Officers take every available step to ensure that public servants and former public servants are not prevented, by terms of severance agreements or the Official Secrets Act, from providing information on which the inquiry is contingent?
The Solicitor-General
As the Home Secretary said yesterday, it is the Government’s intention to have a transparent inquiry, and the Attorney-General’s office stands ready to support that.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I saw the Chief Secretary this morning at Cobra and he looked alive and well to me, so the hon. Lady does not have any worries on that front. I have said that that is not our priority; our priority is to cut taxes for low and middle earners, and that is what we have done. When it comes to April this year, her constituents will be able to earn £10,000 without paying any income tax at all. That is equivalent to a 10% increase in the minimum wage, and means that their income tax bill will have gone down by two thirds under this Government. Those are the sorts of tax cuts that we are interested in.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
May I thank the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their personal engagement with our issues on the Somerset levels, and may I ask the Prime Minister a question that I do not think the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government quite grasped on Monday? When the emergency, the crisis phase of this problem, is over, we must have sustainable plans to protect people on the Somerset levels. That will require a revenue stream that will come through local government, and that means changes to the way that is administered. When we have those detailed plans, will the Prime Minister meet me and others from Somerset to ensure that we have a sustainable future?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other MPs from Somerset, and I have visited twice to see for myself. The problem at the moment, as we know, is simply the pumping capacity. It is now taking 3 million tonnes—soon 5 million tonnes—of water off the Somerset levels, but because there are 65 million tonnes, or more, of water on the levels, it is going to take time. What we need to do once that water level starts to come down is get the dredging going, and then work out the long-term programme for ensuring that this man-made environment is properly looked after by man, so that it is sustainable for the future. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss that.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Business Secretary said that it was welcome that—in terms of our GDP growth—we have seen strong growth in manufacturing and industrial production, and not just in services. I think that is important.
If we are to ensure that we genuinely help people as our economy grows, we need to cut people’s taxes. The point is that we have cut people’s taxes because we have made difficult decisions about public spending. Every single one of those decisions has been opposed by the Labour party, but if we had listened to them, people would be in a more difficult situation in respect of the cost of living, rather than a better one.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of all the people of Somerset, for his announcement about the dredging of the Parrett and the Tone, where an area larger than the size of Bristol is under water and has been under water for a month. I also thank all those who are working so hard on the ground. Can I take it from the Prime Minister that he is committing the whole of the Government, including the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Treasury, to working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deal with this situation, not just for now but for future years?
House of Lords Reform Bill
David Heath Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan
It is worse than that. The Joint Committee did not even examine the type of voting system that is now being proposed. It was pulled out of a hat without any proper consideration.
Although the Bill recognises that conventions—[Interruption.] Ministers on the Treasury Bench need to calm down.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the semi-open list system was exactly the system that he personally asked for in the Joint Committee?
Sadiq Khan
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm two things: first, that the Joint Committee stopped sitting in November 2010; and, secondly, that the Joint Committee of both Houses failed to consider this system? He decides not to respond.
Sadiq Khan
The Bill recognises that conventions may evolve, and assumes this will happen of its own accord during the transition phases. We believe that that is too passive and is a dangerous position. The obvious questions requiring clarification include the following. What is the position on the Salisbury-Addison convention about Bills and the prevention of manifesto commitments? What about the convention that the Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation? More than 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament each year; the Parliament Acts do not cover this. What about the convention that the Government should get their business through in reasonable time? The Parliament Acts still allow Bills to be delayed for 13 months. What is the position on the exchange of amendments between Houses? The Lords could force the Commons to concede on major changes or resort to the use of the Parliament Acts. I am not saying that those questions cannot be answered adequately; it is just that the Government appear not even to realise that these are live issues. They have their heads in the sand.
Sadiq Khan
I thank the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for his helpful words. It is important for us to ensure that we do that so that the public can see that we are genuine and because we believe in House of Lords reform. We do not want the Bill to get stuck in the House of Commons so we will enter into discussions, but the Government must talk to us. The Deputy Prime Minister has failed to talk to us on the substance of the Bill and what is really important is that the usual channels operate—
Sadiq Khan
I have already allowed the hon. Gentleman and others to intervene—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Of course I will give way.
Mr Heath
Let me make it absolutely plain: we have tried to speak to the Opposition at all times during the development of the Bill to find out how they long they want for the programming of it. They have declined to tell us and the right hon. Gentleman is declining to tell us today. That is why we cannot reach consensus; the Opposition do not want to tell us how long they want for the Bill, but simply want to vote against the programme motion.
Sadiq Khan
It will be for others to draw what conclusions they want to from those crocodile tears.
As the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber, it is worth reminding ourselves of what the Conservatives believe about programme motions. He has said that
“today I can announce that we will abolish the practice of automatically guillotining Government Bills and give Parliament back the time it needs to make real improvements to the law.”
The manifesto on which he stood—the Conservative manifesto, not the Liberal Democrats one—stated that they would allow
“MPs the time to scrutinise law effectively”.
That is the point that we have been trying to make. Both coalition parties are clearly on the same page as Labour. The Bill before us today should be allowed to be fully debated and there should be no guillotining of debate by the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I do not think that any self-imposed injunction on personal and disparaging comments could have been breached quite so promptly as it was by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) just then, with her reference to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Nevertheless, this has been a good debate, in which 36 Back Benchers have had the opportunity to speak so far—and of course, it is only half-time.
There has been good support for the Bill—some qualified and some wholehearted—and it has been expressed by many. We have heard good speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson). Let me single out for special comment the exceptional speech by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who made the important point that what we have before us builds on what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) started and what Robin Cook produced in conversation with other parties, which is the bedrock of the consensus—which I hope we can still reach—on reform of the House of Lords.
There have also been speeches against the Bill. I am afraid that some have erected straw men so as to knock them down, mentioning things that have simply never been suggested by the Government, but which hon. Members nevertheless felt the need to speak against. However, some speeches were well argued. I would like to single out the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who I know will have had difficulty making the comments she did today. We can disagree with people but still respect the arguments they put forward. Of course I do not agree with them in opposing the legislation, but I respect the way they put their arguments.
Some Members are simply against an elected House. I respect that, although of course I do not agree with them. It is not what their respective parties put before the electorate—it is not what they said in their manifestos—but it is frankly a pointless endeavour trying to bash round the head someone who is committed to unicameralism, such as the right hon. Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) or for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), or the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) or for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). Someone who believes that there should be no second House will not support proposals for reform. I understand that: it is a perfectly proper argument.
Many others appear to think—this is a view shared by many appointed peers—that any system that appointed such exemplars of legislative acuity and perfection as themselves must be an exceedingly good system indeed. I do not necessarily share that view. I have great respect for the quality of much of the work of the present House of Lords—and, indeed, for the quality of many individual peers. However, that is not a sufficient argument for a system that, I believe, is simply not sustainable.
Many Members—particularly, I have to say, those sitting on the Government Benches—are those who I remember railing against the prospect of a House of cronies when we last debated this subject, but they seem content with the idea of a fully appointed House. It is not a view I share.
Mr Jenkin
I remember the hon. Gentleman railing against Governments who impose timetables and guillotines when he was in opposition, so how can he now come to this House and guillotine a constitutional measure—which would have been unthinkable under Winston Churchill, incidentally—which is not going to be subject to a referendum and may be Parliament Acted, so that when it is being scrutinised by the other place, he will have no option but to propose that the same damaged and inadequate Bill go back to the other House, as he tries to force it through?
Mr Heath
I will return to the issue of the programme motion in just a moment, but let me deal first with the rather familiar arguments that have been marshalled.
There are those who say that they are for reform, but not yet. They say it is too precipitate and that there has been insufficient scrutiny. This process has been about as precipitate as the reckless progress of a particularly arthritic slug. We have had what I would describe as pre-legislative scrutiny on this for 101 years. This is not a quick process.
Mr Graham Stuart
Following up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), will the hon. Gentleman please answer on the issue of the guillotine? Why, when he was always against it in principle before, is he now in favour of it?
Mr Heath
The right hon. Gentleman says “Do it now.” I asked him dozens of times how long he had waited for this Bill, and he never replied. Not once, so he can pipe down!
Others argue that they want reform, but not now, as there are and always will be other priorities. They are absolutely right that economic issues must be pre-eminent. That is the reason for this coalition Government, but it does not stop the House doing other things, and it never has. It did not prevent this House from passing one of the most important pieces of legislation on social policy we have ever had—the Education Act 1944—in the middle of a world war. I simply do not believe that this House cannot address more than one issue at a time.
A variety of Members said that they want reform, but not this reform. Some have argued that it is a mixture of proposals and not the unadulterated product of a single party’s programme. That is true, but these are the same people who also argue that we have failed to listen to others and that we have failed to reach consensus. We have tried to find common ground between the parties, and that is what is before us today.
Mr George Howarth
Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us when, during the course of that 101 years that he mentioned, the notion of a 15-year term first came about?
Mr Heath
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a few moments.
We also heard the proposals, from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and others, that we should be going for Lord Steel’s Bill. Lord Steel has put forward some small and valuable proposals, but if anyone honestly believes that those small incremental changes that would put right the legislative incapacity of the previous Government actually address the fundamental constitutional issues about the House of Lords, I have to say that they are fundamentally wrong.
Mr Heath
It might be because we were anticipating 14 days of debate on this measure. The fact that the Government acceded to the majority of the recommendations of the Joint Committee shows that the Government have been prepared to listen.
Some have criticised the voting system, particularly this semi-open list. I made the point in an earlier intervention that that was something that the Labour party asked for. Of course, it asks for something and then it votes against it later, but that is par for the course; we expect that. To those who believe that a list with a voting constituency of millions is not better than a closed list with a voting capacity of one—the Prime Minister of the day, putting forward his or her nominations to the upper House—I have to say that I simply do not accept that argument.
Hazel Blears
Can the Deputy Leader of the House honestly say from the Dispatch Box today that this Bill is genuinely about increasing democracy rather than simply a device to sustain his party as the one holding the balance of power in a second Chamber?
Mr Heath
The right hon. Lady will have to make up her mind. Either the right hon. Lady believes that we are not going to win any seats in the next election, in which case we will not have any seats in the House of Lords under this system—although we would under an appointment system—or the reverse. She cannot have it both ways. I am afraid that there is a slight logical inconsistency in her argument.
The issue of ministerial appointments was raised, and I am happy for us to examine that in Committee. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) inveighed against the practice of bringing people in from outside, giving them ministerial posts and putting them in the upper House. I wonder whether he ever had that conversation with Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or with any of the other GOATs who were brought in by the last Government.
Mr Blunkett
The point that I was attempting to make—obviously not successfully—was that those Ministers were brought in as, and remained, Members of Parliament. The Government’s proposals do not allow that. They impose a system which will mean that, for the first time in our constitutional history, Ministers will not be part of and embedded in our Parliament.
Mr Heath
The right hon. Gentleman may not have studied the Bill assiduously enough. It is true that those Ministers will not be there for life: the right hon. Gentleman is right about that. Under the present system they are there for life even when they have clearly outlived their ministerial usefulness.
We heard arguments in favour of secondary election, and I think that that is a perfectly valid debate for us to have in Committee. We also heard arguments about primacy. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made what I considered to be a very sensible suggestion about the possibility of a concordat. I thank him for that: it is something that we need to debate.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) asked which legal expert the Government had consulted on clause 2. It was Lord Pannick, who I believe the hon. Gentleman thinks is a very good lawyer indeed.
Jesse Norman
In that case, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the same Lord Pannick has been so devastating in his criticisms that were published this afternoon?
Mr Heath
I do not believe that he has, but that is an argument to which we can return in Committee.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) compared the Deputy Prime Minister with Andy Murray. I think that, if anything, he is more like Jonny Marray, in that he is a champion doubles partner, and on that basis the coalition has been succeeding.
Let me now deal with what I think is one of the most important issues on which we shall have to reach a conclusion tomorrow. There are those, predominantly in the official Opposition, who will vote for the end but not for the means, namely the programme motion. I have long argued, as has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that programme motions should, wherever possible, be arranged by agreement. They should be for the convenience of the House: they should enable debate, not restrict it. That is the way in which we have managed things in this Parliament so far.
I repeatedly asked the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) how much more time he wanted. He has 10 days for the Committee stage in addition to the two days for Second Reading and the two days for Report, 14 days in all. I asked him repeatedly how many more days he wanted, but answer came there none. The Opposition cannot say how many days they want, because they decided to vote against the programme motion before it had been published or even suggested. I believe that 14 days out of a total of 88—only 88 days are available to the Government for legislative business during a whole year—are sufficient. If the right hon. Gentleman has a proposal, let him come up with it; but if, as I suspect, he has no proposal whatsoever other than a determination to oppose, he is doing his own argument a great disservice.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman just said that his fundamental principle was that a programme motion should be allowed only when it was for the convenience of the House. If he has not learned from today’s debate that this programme motion is not for the convenience of the House, should he not withdraw it?
Mr Heath
I think that that remains to be seen, but if we are still on clause 1 after 12 days, the House will not have done the Bill justice in its scrutiny.
I have no doubt that the tomorrow’s debate will be argued just as keenly as today’s. I think, and the Government think, that this measure is long overdue, and the polls show that the British public want it. It puts into effect the modest proposition that those who make our laws should be elected by our people, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that we are very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House. I was sorry that he ended his remarks. We were enjoying them and thinking that they would continue until 10 pm, but they did not.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Duddridge.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
David Heath Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harris
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because I wanted to refer to comments that he made in an intervention a few minutes ago. As my hon. Friend said, it is already a criminal offence not to return a completed registration form, for which there is a potential fine of £1,000. The hon. Gentleman may well not agree that that should be the case. That speaks to a fundamental difference between how his party and my party see civic activity. I believe that although voting should not be compulsory, it is a civic duty that, in the past, we took for granted. Turnouts in the elections following the second world war were about 80% because voting was something that everyone did. That is no longer the case, and we in this House have to bear some responsibility for that increase in the lack of activity and engagement in the political process. The Government have an important role to play in making sure that when it comes to polling day, every adult in this country has the right to decide whether to vote.
It is not remotely, in any way, shape or form, a compromise of civil liberties to say that everyone should be on the electoral register. Apart from everything else, there is an important argument for that in relation to financial inclusion. Often, credit card and finance companies will not give someone credit unless there is some proof that they exist, and that often comes from the electoral register.
The clause betrays the Government’s very lax approach towards voter registration. It is not enough merely to say that electoral registration officers may conduct an annual canvass. I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), because it was in her company that I first canvassed for the Labour party in 1985; that makes us both sound extremely old. The importance of a local authority canvass cannot be overstated. I remember as recently as the late 1980s hearing a knock on the door in the evening, when a local authority officer would hand me my form and ask me to stand there, fill it out and give it back to him. That was not seen as an intervention that was alien to our traditional way of doing politics but as a core element of the democratic process.
The Bill must include an absolute legal obligation for electoral registration officers to conduct a house-to-house canvass, whether it is every year or relates to a longer period. I have worked for local authorities, and I guarantee that “may” will inevitably come to be translated as “won’t”. Unless we put “must” into the Bill, I fear for the future of democracy in this country. On the strength of the arguments that we have heard since 6 May 2010, that state of affairs will concern Labour Members a lot more than Government Members.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
It is a pleasure finally to partake of the Committee stage of the Bill and of your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I say to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) that I do not think that a great deal divides our intent on these matters. We are clear that we want the most comprehensive register that we can achieve and to ensure that electoral registration officers do their job effectively in bringing that about. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) had a little silliness along party political lines, but most Members have made positive points about the need to ensure that as many eligible people as possible are registered.
Some of the criticism of the Government proposals comes a little ill from the party that passed the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, in which there was no requirement for an annual canvass and which abolished the annual canvass, and that said in government that there would be no block registration at Queen’s university Belfast or the university of Ulster because it was no longer necessary. Perhaps some of the points that have been made by Labour Members would have been better addressed to their own Ministers when they were proposing legislation from this Dispatch Box.
Mr Harris
It is slightly disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that Northern Ireland is exactly the same as everywhere in Great Britain, given the threat that there was in 2002 to local authority canvassers, particularly in parts of east and west Belfast. Since there are different electoral registration arrangements in Northern Ireland and have been since the late 1960s, he is being a little ungenerous to the former Government.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is wearing a lovely tie, but his point is not entirely logical. The arguments for getting rid of the door-to-door annual canvass in Northern Ireland were nothing to do with the security situation and everything to do with the system of individual voter registration that was being introduced. That is precisely analogous to what we are doing.
Let me deal with the substance of the points that have been made. There is one clear misapprehension among those who have spoken, which is to assume that there is currently a requirement for the annual canvass to take place in October. That is not the case under current legislation. There is a reference date of 15 October. That is the point at which people are asked to consider where they are resident. That is quite a confusing requirement. I know for a fact that people who are trying to register get confused by it. They think, “Hang on a minute. On 15 October I plan to be visiting my Aunt Gladys in Carlisle. Where should I put myself down as being resident?” The reference date is therefore not necessarily helpful to the process of registration. There is not a requirement for the canvass to take place in October. It can take place at any time and is divorced from the reference date.
The canvass usually takes place around October because of the other factors that electoral registration officers have to consider, such as the deadline for the publication of the register, the performance standards set by the Electoral Commission, the data return that electoral registration officers are required to provide to the Office for National Statistics and the usual timing of elections in May. Electoral registration officers will still have to take those factors into account when making arrangements for the canvass.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has discussed this matter with an expert panel of electoral registration officers and electoral administrators. It has welcomed the removal of the reference date, which it agrees is confusing, and sees the advantage of the requirement for an annual canvass as it is put forward in the Bill. It provides flexibility, but at the same time there is an implied date that officers can work around. They can extend the canvass period if it will help the completeness of the register, but they will still be canvassing at approximately the same time. I hope that that at least helps Members understand what is proposed.
Amendment 8 is about what factors the electoral registration officer takes into account in preparing the canvass. Proposed new section 9D(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which will be inserted by clause 4, states:
“Each registration officer in Great Britain must conduct an annual canvass in relation to the area for which the officer acts.”
That follows the wording of the canvassing obligation in existing legislation. Registration officers are therefore already required to canvass their whole area, and we do not need to set out in new primary legislation the precise categories of property that a registration officer must contact to comply with the requirement to canvass their area. The electoral register and the local land and property gazetteer use the same address data.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?
Chris Ruane
I thank the hon. Gentleman. The obligation of door-to-door canvassing was set out in, I think, the Electoral Administration Act 2006, but many authorities did not take it up. Year after year, they were asked, “Are you doing this?”, and responded, “No.” We need firmer legislation. We were not firm enough in 2006, and here is an opportunity to state firmly in legislation that officers have to go out door-knocking year in, year out, because that is what gets results.
Mr Heath
I prefer to answer it at the point in my remarks where I reach the relevant amendment, rather than suddenly plucking a piece of information out of the air. I think that is helpful to the House.
We expect registration officers, as part of their canvassing duty, to write to all properties of which they are aware and at which people may be resident, including all the categories mentioned in amendment 8 and any other properties containing potentially eligible electors. The difficulty with specifying categories in primary legislation at the level that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggests is that it could inadvertently narrow the scope of what electoral registration officers are expected to do. Such details are difficult to change if they are set out in primary rather than secondary legislation.
I move on to amendment 7, so the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) will be pleased to know that his point is now relevant. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for highlighting the benefit of conducting house-to-house inquiries as part of the canvassing process. Section 9A of the 1983 Act already requires registration officers to take all steps necessary to maintain their electoral register. That includes the requirement to make house-to-house inquiries on one or more occasions. That will remain in the 1983 Act, so it is not necessary to make the suggested amendment.
In addition, the Electoral Commission’s performance standards set out the steps that a registration officer must take to comply with their duty, and we expect full compliance with those standards. Registration officers can carry out house-to-house inquiries to obtain information when no canvass form has been received, or to supplement such information, but the Bill will also enable them to make use of house-to-house inquiries before sending out canvass forms. That is an important distinction. Such inquiries may not be appropriate in every area, so we would not want to amend legislation to require registration officers to conduct them, but they will be particularly useful in ensuring the effectiveness of the canvass in areas of high population turnover such as we have discussed this evening. What I am really saying is that existing requirements remain, but they will be supplemented by this legislation.
Chris Ruane
The Minister mentions the provision in the 1983 Act. The 2006 Act re-emphasised that and gave it greater status. Will that now be superseded, because even when it was given greater status it was not properly implemented? Here is an opportunity to make the 2006 Act even stronger. Will he take it?
Mr Heath
Nothing is being superseded. The arrangements that we are putting in place will strengthen the requirement. I do not accept that changing the word “may” to “must” would make the slightest difference to those recalcitrant councils that simply do not do their job properly, and those are the ones that we and the Electoral Commission need to address. We will do so, and I am confident that at the end of the process we will have a better registration process than we have at the moment, and it will be much more inclusive of those who should be registered.
I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) explain the numbering system in Edinburgh on Second Reading and I heard her again this evening, and I am afraid that I am still no more confident that I could understand how to deliver anything there. That is a matter that the electoral registration officer in Edinburgh needs to take very seriously.
I invite the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to withdraw the amendment and to work with us to ensure that the arrangements in the Bill work most effectively.
Angela Smith
It has been a long night. I have listened carefully to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). The points made about amendments 7 and 8 should be taken very seriously, but I will leave it to the other place to discuss them in greater detail. We intend to press amendment 6 to the vote, because we believe that it is crucial to have an annual canvass at the right time of the year—the time when people understand that it takes place by tradition.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
David Heath Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Oh deary, deary me! It is a rare privilege for the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform and me to present a Bill that seems to have the wholehearted support of all colleagues on the Government Benches, and I want to put that on the record. I think that is because the reform is based on the important principle that the electoral register should include all those who are eligible to vote and none of those who are ineligible to vote.
It is clear that there are risks inherent in our current system. Over the years I have often taken part in international electoral monitoring missions, both in eastern Europe and in central Asia, and occasionally I have led such missions. It always seemed an embarrassment that I could not defend the integrity of our electoral system in the way I would demand of the systems in other countries. I must say, in passing, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who said that presiding officers should have more powers, that in at least one polling station I visited the presiding officer had an AK47 on the desk in front of him, but I think that is something we would draw back from.
I had thought that across the House we shared the principle that individual voter registration was necessary and desirable. I know that there are some refuseniks. I know that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for example, will never believe that individual voter registration is the right course. Incidentally, I can give her at least one bit of reassurance. She asked if she could be on the Committee. It will be a Committee of the whole House, so I think she may sneak in. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) does not want to see any change at all, and he has colleagues who share that view.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Bill is the subject of a pilot whereby Members can table explanatory statements for any amendments or new clauses that they wish to bring forward?
Mr Heath
Indeed I will, as the Parliamentary Secretary did when he moved the motion earlier. I think that is an important innovation.
Many colleagues on the Government Benches stressed the dangers of electoral fraud, which are clearly there. We heard reminders of that from the hon. Members for Peterborough, for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and, by intervention, from my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). I simply cannot understand the point made by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who suggested that there was some defect in the process of bringing forward the Bill, because I cannot remember a single Bill that has gone through so many processes of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is actually held up as an exemplar of good process, so I am sad that she does not recognise that.
I do not have time to go through all the details of the contributions from hon. Members, but I will refer to a few. I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made a reasoned and well-argued case. He does know a little about this because he has supported the principle for many years, as he said. He read out the report from eight years ago.
Mr Heath
We are confident that it will not do so—[Interruption.] But let me say that I can point to the fact that we had a substantial fall in registration during the period of the previous Government, so I ask myself, “What did that Government do about the disgrace of 3 million people falling off the register?” The answer is nothing. We are putting forward concrete measures to ensure that we not only have a register with integrity, but recruit as many additional people as possible to it, and online registration, for example, will be a major boost to young people’s registration, because it will make the process easier for them.
As I have said, I will have to rush through my response to several contributions. I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Pendle in one respect, because we do not intend to remove what he described as postal votes on demand. A great many people benefit from postal votes, and we need to maintain that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) talked about second home owners and will know the distinction between someone who owns a second home and someone who is resident in more than one home. His local councils have been taking action on that, and, as I know he will be glad to hear, we are still considering the matter of the edited register.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest raised the question of queuing, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has already answered that point, when he mentioned the changes in administration locally which ought to cure that problem.
I was very taken by the speech from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She made a number of very important points about how the system will work, and we will carefully consider them, but may I give her one piece of reassurance? She mentioned the electoral arrangements in her own city of Sunderland, which are very good, and one reason why is Mr Dave Smith, the city council’s chief executive, who is on the programme board, so we will benefit directly from his advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) welcomed these changes, and may I reassure him again on the important point about the carry-over of postal votes? If people’s details do not change, the carry-over will happen automatically and we will not lose them from the register. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) asked again about publishing the secondary legislation during the progress of the Bill, and I reassure him again that we will do so—unlike our predecessors, who did not do so with previous Bills. The hon. Member for Witham asked for an assurance, which I can give her. The Government will not use this Bill to amend prisoner voting rights, whatever may be said in the courts.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) was for the principle of the Bill and asked how it will affect European parliamentary election preparations. The simple answer is that it will improve the accuracy of the register by moving the canvass date, and I think that that will be helpful. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned the service personnel issue, which is a very important principle, and we need to consider a mechanism to facilitate registration and registration updates as part of the arrivals process for personnel at new postings.
I will not be able to answer all the points that have been made, but I felt that the contribution of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) was very sad indeed because he was desperately casting about for a reason to oppose a Bill that he supports in principle, and for some reason to say that, despite the Government having made concessions in a range of areas where we have listened to what people have said, it was still not enough. He was desperate to find good reasons to vote against the Bill, but he did not persuade me, I doubt if he has persuaded the House, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.