Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has been brought forward by the Government in response to the welcome decision by the Church of England to allow the ordination of female bishops. It will ensure that female diocesan bishops can join their male counterparts on the Lords Spiritual Benches sooner than they would have done under the current rules.
Bishops have attended Parliament from its earliest beginnings. In the first Parliaments, abbots as well as bishops and archbishops attended as Lords Spiritual alongside the nobles and peers of the realm—the Lords Temporal. Several Archbishops of Canterbury served mediaeval kings as Lord Chancellor. After the Reformation, abbots ceased to be Lords Spiritual. In the reformed Church of England, there were 26 diocesan bishops, all of whom had the right to sit as Lords Spiritual.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I am sorry to bring a note of discord to the proceedings, but I am bound to observe that the whole arrangement is for one denomination of the Christian Church. If we are to have religious people in the other place in the 21st century, surely they should be more representative of all Christian denominations and, indeed, should reflect all faiths.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Church of England provides a structure right across the country for faiths to come together? It is the only Church of any size to do so and, as such, it plays a vital role. Other faiths support the role of bishops in the other place; it is not controversial, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said.
Mr Gyimah
My hon. and learned Friend makes a very valid point. The Bill is not controversial. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), has pointed out, it has cross-party support from Members throughout the House. It is not to do with the composition of the House of Lords.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Through the Minister, may I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) what Her Majesty the Queen said at the start of her diamond jubilee year? She said:
“The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.”
Mr Gyimah
I could not put have put it better or more eloquently than my right hon. Friend.
We lost the bishops, briefly, under Cromwell’s commonwealth, but they were welcomed back to Parliament at the restoration. No new bishoprics were created until 1847, when the population had increased and previously small towns were becoming industrial cities. The Church responded by increasing the number of bishops, but it was agreed that the new bishops would not add to the number of Lords Spiritual. The Bishopric of Manchester Act 1847 and subsequent Acts kept the number of Lords Spiritual at 26. The Government have introduced the Bill in a similar spirit to those Acts, which adapted the constitutional arrangements in line with the changes made by the Church as it modernised.
The current arrangements by which Lords Spiritual sit in the House of Lords are set out in the Bishoprics Act 1878. Twenty six bishops—the two Church of England archbishops and 24 of its diocesan bishops—are entitled to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. Five of the 26 bishops automatically receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords on the basis of their see: the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Given that women in the Church have waited so long for this to happen, and that many of them hold senior positions but are not yet bishops, does the Minister think that we might see a woman automatically going into one of those five senior positions rather than having to work her way through the diocesan route?
Mr Gyimah
That is an interesting point, but it is a matter for the Church. The Bill seeks to affect the process by which female bishops can enter the House of Lords, but the question of which female bishops occupy which position is a matter for the Church. I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment that women have waited for this for a long time.
The remaining 21 bishops take their seats on the basis of seniority. When a vacancy occurs, it is filled by the longest-serving bishop, and that is why we have the Bill before us today. Clearly, the present seniority rules mean that it would be many years before a female bishop would be eligible to sit in the House of Lords. In consequence, the Archbishop of Canterbury, after consultation the Lords Spiritual and others, requested on behalf of the Church of England that amendments be made to the arrangements under the Bishoprics Act 1878 to enable female bishops to enter the House of Lords sooner than they would under the current rules.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As a Stockport Member of Parliament, I was delighted when Rev. Libby Lane was appointed Bishop of Stockport. However, she is a suffragan bishop and will therefore have no automatic right to take a seat in the other place. What assessment has the Minister made of the Church of England’s ability to appoint women bishops to represent dioceses, so that they will become eligible to sit in the other place?
Mr Gyimah
The length of time involved will be a matter for the Church. The Bill, which could come into effect by the end of this Parliament, would mean that whenever a vacancy occurred in the House of Lords, a female bishop occupying a diocesan seat would be able to leapfrog the next male bishop in line. So we could see the first female bishop in the House of Lords as early as the start of the next Parliament, but the question of who that will be is a matter for the Church. I shall say more about that later.
The arrangements that the Bill will put in place will last for 10 years, by which time it is expected that there will be a pool of both male and female bishops. This is therefore a temporary arrangement that will sunset at the end of that 10-year period, by which time it is anticipated that the issue it is intended to address will have ceased to exist.
Andrew Gwynne
I accept what the Minister says about introducing measures to allow women bishops to leapfrog others so that they can be appointed to the House of Lords, and I appreciate that individual appointments are a matter for the Church, but what assessment has he made of the number of bishops in the Church of England who are coming up for retirement? That assessment could be useful in informing us about the appointment of women diocesan bishops.
Mr Gyimah
It is not for the Government to make such an assessment, but we believe that the 10-year period will allow enough time for the Church to appoint a sufficient number of women as diocesan bishops and that, once they have become eligible for appointment to the House of Lords, they will be able to fill those positions as and when they become available. However, that is a matter for the Church, and the Bill has been put together in consultation with the Church, which will ultimately control the number of bishops. Ten years is seen as sufficient time in which to enable the Lords Spiritual to reflect the number of women bishops.
Sir Tony Baldry
As my hon. Friend will be aware, several diocesan vacancies—in Gloucester, in Oxford and in Southwell and Nottingham—are being considered at the moment by the Crown Nominations Commission. It is perfectly possible that one—or indeed all—of those new diocesan bishops could be a woman. The Bill will ensure that if and when they are consecrated, they will be able to go straight into the House of Lords without having to wait behind every male bishop who is, at present, ahead of them in the queue. Depending on when those dioceses determine who they have as their new diocesan bishops—that will depend to a certain extent on the Crown Nominations Commission—we could see a woman bishop in the House of Lords very speedily.
Mr Gyimah
My right hon. Friend makes the point clearly. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) asked about the Government assessment, but, as my right hon. Friend points out, vacancies are available. I would not want to speculate from the Dispatch Box on whether a vacancy will be filled by a male or a female, but the Church has shown its commitment to increase the number of female bishops and the number of female bishops who become members of the Lords Spiritual. That is, after all, why we are here today. One retirement from the Bishops’ Bench in the next Parliament has already been announced: the Bishop of Leicester will retire on 11 July 2015.
Diana Johnson
I wonder whether the Minister will be able to help me to understand this fully. An assessment has been made, because 10 years is the time period in the Bill for when the sunset clause will come into effect. On that basis, is the assessment that in 10 years’ time we will have 50:50 male and female bishops in the House of Lords? What does the Minister think will be the position after 10 years?
Mr Gyimah
There are no quotas and there is no target for 50:50 representation. The intention of the Bill is to enable the Church to fast-track women bishops into the House of Lords. The system, as it currently operates, is based on length of service. If we allow it to operate, then even in 10 years’ time it is theoretically possible that we will not have any women bishops at all. The Bill will allow the Church to reflect on the number of women bishops represented in the House of Lords, but there is no target. This is not about 50:50, but about being able to reflect the fact that women bishops, appointed on merit, can serve in the House of Lords and not be limited by the rules on length of service.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Why is there a need for a sunset clause? I do not understand why we feel that everything will have been solved in 10 years. Would it not be better to leave it open-ended and repeal the legislation in 10 years’ time if we feel that the situation has been dealt with? I would hope that in 10 years’ time we will have moved to a democratically elected House of Lords.
Mr Gyimah
The 10 years is because the Church believes that that will be enough time to ensure that the Bishops’ Bench better reflects the gender diversity in the Church. At the end of 10 years, there is nothing to stop the Government of the time asking for the Bill to be extended. We are responding to the request of the Church. Whether it is 10, 20 or 30 years, it is down to the Church. Women bishops will end up serving in the Lords based on how fast they are appointed as bishops. The key driver is not the length of the sunset clause per se, but how speedily the Church appoints women to be bishops.
Sir Oliver Heald
If one looks at the experience of women priests—who now make up roughly half of the priests out there—there is no reason to think that there will not be plenty of women bishops coming through. This provides an opportunity for them to go into the House of Lords.
Mr Gyimah
Indeed. The Church proceeded speedily with women priests and I suspect it would move speedily with the appointment of women bishops, based on merit. The Bill will ensure, as I have pointed out, that female diocesan bishops, as they are appointed, do not have to wait to join the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual.
The Church’s decision to ordain women has been gradual and has taken place over the past 30 years or so. It has been something of a journey for the Church, beginning in 1975 when the General Synod passed the motion
“that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women into the priesthood”.
In 1985, it passed legislation to allow women to become deacons; in 1992, it allowed women to become priests; and in 2014, it took the historic decision, warmly welcomed in this House and elsewhere, that women as well as men could become bishops. Last December, the Rev. Libby Lane was announced as the future suffragan bishop of Stockport in the diocese of Chester. As a suffragan, rather than diocesan bishop, she is not yet eligible to join the Lords Spiritual.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Just in case the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks, may I refer him back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell)? Tomorrow, in the chapter house of Westminster, 100 yards away, we will be celebrating the 750th anniversary of our first Parliament. Back then, of course, every bishop would have been Catholic. I and my hon. Friend are not asking for a statement today. Bearing in mind the fact that women priests unfortunately make union between our two Churches less likely, we simply ask that the Government have an open mind about allowing bishops of other denominations to enter the House of Lords.
Mr Gyimah
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), made it clear during the brief debate on the timetable motion that this is a tightly focused Bill with one substantive clause, and that is what we would like to focus on today.
The Bill would come into effect on the first day of the next Parliament. Subject to the Church appointing a female diocesan bishop, we could therefore have a female bishop among the Lords Spiritual as early as next year. The Bill is supported by the Church and the Opposition. It has been brought forward by the Government, working closely with the Church, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the bishops, senior clergy and Church officials for their help. In particular, I thank the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom I am delighted to see in the Gallery today.
This is a modest but important Bill, and it has one simple aim: to bring female bishops among the Lords Spiritual sooner rather than later. Given how long women have waited to become bishops, that is right. The House of Lords should not have to wait for an unknowable period before its Lords Spiritual Benches reflect the new make-up of the episcopate. I look forward to further debating these provisions in today’s debates.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
13. What assessment she has made of the effect of recent changes in child care costs on the affordability of nursery care for families on low and medium incomes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The cost of some of the most popular forms of child care has come down. We have seen that with nurseries, for example: the cost of nurseries is down by 2%, and the cost of childminders is down by 13%. But we are not complacent: we are funding 15 hours of free child care for all three and four-year-olds and all disadvantaged two-year-olds, and we are introducing tax-free child care for working families. This should be compared with the record of the previous Government, under which the cost of child care went up by 50% between 2002 and 2010.
Bridget Phillipson
The charity 4Children recently published figures showing that one in five parents with child care costs this year will either have to reduce their hours or are considering giving up work altogether because of child care costs. This is certainly the case when I speak to parents in Sunderland. Will the Minister go further and extend free child care for three and four-year-olds so that parents can stay in work and contribute to the economy?
Mr Gyimah
The research by 4Children to which the hon. Lady refers confirms that we have a clear plan for child care. As a result of our work, more families than ever before in this country are now eligible for free child care. She refers to the Labour party plan to extend free child care for three and four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours, but the Labour party is the only party that thinks a clear plan is where it decides to fund a pledge through a bank levy that it has already spent 11 times. That is not a clear plan.
Karl Turner
One in 10 working families spend one parent’s wages on child care, so why will the Minister not back Labour’s call for 25 hours a week of free child care for parents of three and four-year-olds, to help working families with this cost of living crisis created by this Government?
Mr Gyimah
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer, just in case he was on autopilot and asking a Whip’s question: it is not possible to fund a pledge with a bank levy that has already been spent 11 times. This Government have a clear plan for child care. Over the course of this Parliament we are spending an extra billion pounds on not just three and four-year olds, because children are not only three and four; parents need child care for children below the age of three and for children older than three and four. That is why we have a clear plan, because we have a strong economy.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It pleases me greatly that the Minister is happy to repeat our very popular pledge of a bank levy to fund child care. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), we saw another survey last week which found that 300,000 parents want to go back to work but just cannot do so because of soaring child care costs—since 2010, they have increased by 30%. Will the Minister now admit that this Government simply must do more, and accept that we need an increase in free child care?
Mr Gyimah
Just in case the hon. Lady was not listening, let me say that child care costs went up by 50% under the last Labour Government, whereas under the current Government child care costs have stabilised and are falling for some of the most popular forms of child care. In addition, we are saving families who have three and four-year-olds £370 a year per child; we are saving disadvantaged families £2,300 a year per child through the free entitlement for two-year-olds; and tax-free child care will save families up to £2,000 per child per year from this autumn. That is because we have a clear plan, funded because we have a strong economy. Labour’s plan is not funded.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
9. What steps she is taking to ease teachers’ work loads and increase the proportion of the time they spend teaching.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
T4. Parents look for certainty when they are planning family finances and child care can be a considerable cost. Does the Minister share my concern that in announcing unfunded new child care policies, the Labour party could create real and unwelcome uncertainty in the child care market, which will help neither parents nor children?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
My right hon. Friend has huge experience in this area, having held the portfolio that I hold when we were in opposition. It is absolutely right that we need to give parents certainty to plan their child care needs. Child care hits family finances, so it is right that the Government have a clear plan to give parents of all three and four-year-olds free child care. For parents who want additional child care there is tax-free child care, but the Labour party’s plan, funded by the bank levy, which has been spent 11 times and more, is not a clear plan. Certainly, given its economic stance, it cannot fund that plan.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
According to the Minister, schools should be able to choose whether to teach emergency life support skills, but we do not allow a choice in other subjects. Does he not agree that it is worth two hours so that we can transform our society, make every school leaver a life saver, and so save potentially 150,000 lives a year?
European Parliament Elections Bill
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for bringing the issue of the voting system for European parliamentary elections before the House. He spoke with characteristic force and clarity, although with brevity on this occasion. He made his point clearly that this is a Bill that he wants to be considered in the next Conservative manifesto. I am sure that the powers that be will have noted that.
Clearly, the voting system that we use to elect our representatives is a matter of great importance and will have a significant impact on our democracy and the relationship between the public and those elected to serve them. I will try to set out the Government’s position. The Government take such matters seriously and welcome debate and discussion on proposals for changes that seek to enhance the democratic process. I therefore thank all Members for the debate so far. It is something on which there is a degree of consensus.
The voting system in use for European parliamentary elections has been debated at some length in both Houses of Parliament. Clearly, there is a range of views on the merits of the closed list voting system. It is fair to say that the closed list system is simple for electors, and it ensures that across a region seats are allocated in proportion to the votes cast.
However, I am conscious that there has been dissatisfaction with the closed list system both inside and outside Parliament and the debate today has highlighted that concern. Criticism has centred on the system being “closed”. The parties solely determine the order in which candidates are awarded the seats that they achieve. It is argued that that puts too much power in the hands of the parties and results in MEPs who are remote from the electorate. All those arguments are very strong indeed. We recognise that introducing an open list system might help to address the issue of MEPs being seen as distant from electors, because it will bring candidates closer to electors. However, the open list system is not currently used in any statutory elections in the UK.
Introducing an open list voting system at European parliamentary elections in Britain would require both primary and secondary legislation. Realistically, in terms of timing, it is not feasible at this late stage in the current Parliament to make the necessary legislative changes. In addition, there will be a number of practical and logistical implications that would need to be considered in changing the voting system for European elections.
Political parties, candidates, electoral administrators and electors would all need to receive guidance and instruction in the workings of the new voting system. This would be a novel and potentially complex system for electors, but the problems are surmountable. There will obviously be the issue of redesigning the ballot paper, which would be significantly different under an open list system.
Jonathan Evans
Looking around the Chamber, I think that I am the only person here to have stood in a European election and I have done so on two occasions. Although there is a box on the ballot form by which one can vote for a party, where the names are listed it has been the practice on a number of occasions for people to choose to put the cross alongside the name of the candidate rather than in the box for the party. Generally, if it appears in the area where the party has its candidates’ names, it is counted as in favour of that party. That is another indication that my hon. Friend’s point is surmountable.
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend, as he says, has great experience of standing for election. He makes the point quite clearly about how the ballot paper would need to be redesigned. As I said, I believe the problems are surmountable, but it is worth putting on the record that moving from the current system to an open list system would mean that there would be some practical difficulties to surmount. Moving to an open list system would also raise cost issues, and given the Government’s central role in funding European elections, we would wish to consider it very carefully.
All that having been said, the Government can understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has tabled the Bill. The timing is an issue and practical implications need to be considered, but the subject should seriously be borne in mind in the next set of election manifestoes. With that in mind, I recommend the Bill to the House.
Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Today the Government are introducing the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill to the House of Commons, with explanatory notes.
The Bill follows the legislation permitting women to be ordained bishops. That was completed by the General Synod of the Church of England on 17 November. With the way clear for the first women to be appointed, it is right that those women should be among the Bishops who occupy seats in the House of Lords—known as Lords Spiritual. This Bill is intended to allow that to happen sooner than it would under the existing rules.
Currently, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester automatically take seats in the House of Lords. The remaining 21 seats are occupied by bishops in order of seniority—length of service. Under the current system, it would be many years before women bishops were represented in the Lords.
The Government’s Bill, which is supported by the Church of England, proposes a modification of this rule for the next 10 years, so that if a female bishop is available when a Lords Spiritual seat becomes vacant, they will automatically be appointed to the House of Lords. If no female bishop is available, the vacancy would be filled by the next most senior male bishop, as currently happens.
A copy of the Bill and explanatory notes can be found on the website:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills
Paediatric First Aid
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I start by offering my deepest sympathies to Mr and Mrs Thompson for the tragic death of their daughter, Millie, in October 2012. I would also like to say how much I admire the worthwhile work that the Thompsons are doing through Millie’s Trust in their daughter’s memory, providing first aid courses free of charge for people who are pregnant or have children under 12 months, and providing two-day courses for a charge to nurseries. Those are all incredible feats in a very short period of time, and I congratulate them on that. It is no accident that Joanne Thompson won the Lorraine Kelly inspirational woman of the year award.
This debate has come about following Millie’s tragic death and because of the impact of Mr and Mrs Thompson’s e-petition, which has gained more than 102,000 signatures, to have it made law that everyone working in a nursery must be trained in paediatric first aid. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on securing today’s debate on this important matter. I also thank all the hon. Members who have spoken here today. I have listened to their contributions and I agree that Millie’s death is a wake-up call for all of us. I hope during the course of my speech to address the points that have been raised so far.
As many hon. Members have said today, we can all agree that all young children deserve the highest possible level of safety and care. As a new father myself, with an eight-month-old son who is about to start nursery, I know that I want the nursery that I choose for my son to have an exemplary safety record, so that I can be reassured that he will have the best possible care. That is because the safety and welfare of children in all settings, whether in social care, schools or early years provision, is paramount.
What do we want to achieve? We want to ensure that there are confident, capable paediatric first-aiders in all nurseries, taking responsibility and responding quickly in an emergency. What are we doing to deliver that? The statutory framework for the early years foundation stage sets the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to age five. All nurseries must meet these standards to ensure that children learn and develop well and are kept healthy and safe.
In the light of Millie’s case, we have strengthened the early years foundation stage requirements. From this September, the early years foundation stage has made it even clearer that nurseries must always have staff available who are trained in paediatric first aid. Beyond that, we added to the paediatric first aid requirement that nurseries
“should take into account the number of children, staff and layout of premises to ensure that a paediatric first aider”
is “available at all times” and
“able to respond to emergencies quickly.”
In other words, if a nursery is operating over three floors, with children on each floor, it is not acceptable for it to say that it only has one first aider, because it is operating on three floors.
Sir Bob Russell
Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said, will the Minister state whether training in those first aid requirements are being given by people who are qualified first aid trainers and not just people who say they are qualified first aid trainers?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I know that he has a lot of experience in these matters, which brings me on to one of the points that has been raised in this debate. It has been said that the regulations have been watered down since September. That is simply not the case. We have strengthened the regulations by saying that providers must take account, as I have said, of the number of children, the staff and the layout. Although we have removed the local authority approval, we replaced that with a requirement to meet the course content for British Red Cross and St John Ambulance, so based on good practice of those with expertise.
Ann Coffey
The Minister seems to be saying that he is not prepared to ensure that all staff working in a nursery have training in paediatric first aid. Two staff in this nursery were trained. Does he think that the nursery had trained enough staff in paediatric first aid? If he does not think that is so, why will he not bring in regulations to ensure that the number of paediatric staff that he thinks are suitable to be trained in a nursery are trained?
Mr Gyimah
That is a very good intervention. I am developing my case, but as I said at the outset, it is obvious that we need two things. We need enough staff trained in paediatric first aid, but also, importantly, we need to ensure that they are confident and capable of acting in an emergency, rather than panicking and not dealing with it. We do not want it to be the case in an emergency that there are a number of people who have a first aid certificate but it is not clear who is the point person who is capable and competent to deal with that kind of situation.
Ann Coffey
As the Minister will be aware, the campaign that Millie’s Trust is running is aimed at ensuring that every member of staff in a nursery is trained in paediatric first aid, because it believes, rightly, that that will protect children in all situations. The Minister has not answered my question; I have heard a lot of good intentions from him, but I return to the question that I asked him. If he does not think that it was sufficient, in the nursery in this case, to have only two members of staff trained in paediatric first aid, why will he not regulate to ensure that all members of staff working in a nursery are trained in paediatric first aid?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady makes a very passionate point. As I said, I will develop my case further. What I am saying is that the requirement of the EYFS means that nurseries must think carefully about whether they have enough trained staff. That is about more than ensuring that they have enough trained staff to cover leave or staff sickness. We know that, in some instances, the speed at which a trained first-aider can attend to a child who needs help can be crucial in ensuring a good outcome for the child. We are already seeing how the new requirement is being delivered on by many nurseries, which are taking into account staff turnover, holidays and sickness.
The hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned the House of Commons nursery, which advertises that all its staff have first aid certificates. In fact, many nurseries continue to do that as a point of differentiation between them and other nurseries, so I would say that the strengthening of the EYFS is having an effect on the market. We are putting lots of other things in place to strengthen that even further.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I apologise for joining the debate late: I was in a statutory instrument Committee. I have been listening carefully to the debate and the Minister’s responses. The more I listen, the more I wonder what the reason is for not having everyone trained to the extent that the e-petition asks for. As the Minister explains things more, he seems to be confirming my growing feeling that that would probably be the best way forward. Will he spell out why the Government are reluctant to go down that route?
Mr Gyimah
We want to create a situation in which we have competent people dealing with this kind of incident. On its own, a first aid certificate, which means that someone can tick the box to say that they have a first aid certificate, does not mean that that individual will be able to deliver first aid as and when an incident happens. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) mentioned, in the case of one of the people who had a first aid certificate in this instance, their certificate had expired. If someone gets a first aid certificate, they have to renew it every three years.
I want to ensure that we do not end up legislating and having a tick-box culture, thinking that that in itself has addressed the problem, when there are a number of other things that we can do, as I will explain if hon. Members allow me to develop my points further. I am referring to work that we are doing with the National Day Nurseries Association to help nurseries to understand what it means to have capable and competent staff and how they can respond in an emergency. I believe that that is far more important than a tick-box approach to dealing with this kind of situation.
Mark Hunter
I thank the Minister for taking another intervention. With respect, I do not think that anyone here today has been arguing for a tick-box culture and, if I may say so, I do not think that that phrase is particularly helpful to the consensus that has emerged during the debate.
I want to follow up the intervention from the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). The Minister referred to the changes to legislation. The fact of the matter is that it rests with individual organisations, individual nurseries, to decide what is and is not sufficient. The Minister says that if a nursery is operating over three floors rather than one floor, that is a different consideration. But as long as it remains the decision of the individual establishment, there will be inconsistencies.
Certain establishments—better-funded ones, with much more money—will no doubt ensure, as some already do, that every relevant member of staff has paediatric first aid training, but until it becomes necessary for all relevant staff to have that training, there will always be some nurseries, some of these businesses, that choose not to have every relevant member of staff trained. That is the core of the problem. The Minister needs to provide some clarity on why, apparently, the Government do not think that that would be a logical way forward. It would remove any uncertainty.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He used Ireland as an example in his speech and, in the light of the intervention that he has made, I will refer to the Irish example. The Irish are actually moving towards the framework that we have in this country with the early years foundation stage. In response to a parliamentary question, they have said explicitly:
“The final draft will include a requirement that early years services have a person trained in first aid for children available at all times.”
The solution that we are adopting, which can best be described as one that allows nurseries to use their professional judgment in appointing the right staff to this vital role, is not as anomalous as the hon. Gentleman describes. I have said before and I will say again that not everyone who works in a nursery will be ideally suited to being a first-aider. Nurseries should ensure that their first-aiders have the confidence and the reliability to cope with an emergency, and I believe that the EYFS achieves that. At this stage, I do not feel that we need to amend those requirements further. I do, however, want to remain fully informed of the effects that those changes are having on the ground, and I know that the Department for Education plans to undertake a review of them next year.
I also know that the Thompsons were concerned that some nurseries might not know how to interpret the strengthened requirements. I am pleased that in direct response to the Millie’s Trust campaign, the Department for Education will issue in February new guidance for nurseries, setting out clearly what the expectations are and how nurseries can deliver on them effectively. I have asked the National Day Nurseries Association to help with that guidance. It will be identifying a number of nurseries delivering exemplary paediatric first aid practices, including methods used to ensure sufficiency of first aid-qualified staff, and providing case studies and videos to ensure that nurseries are absolutely clear on what the PFA requirements mean and how they should work in practice.
Ann Coffey
Despite what the Minister is saying, we could still have a situation in which a nursery, under his example, had decided that having two staff trained in paediatric first aid was sufficient—and a child died. That clearly shows that the way to protect children is not to rely on nurseries exercising their professional judgment, but to make it mandatory that all staff be trained in paediatric first aid. Otherwise, at some time in the future, there will be another inquest because a nursery has exercised its professional judgment. Sadly, for the child who might die in the future, that is not enough. Surely the Minister can accept that the way forward has to be making it mandatory for all staff in nurseries to have first aid training. We cannot leave this matter just to the professional judgment of individual nurseries.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady makes another very passionate intervention. Of course we want to ensure that the requirements in the EYFS are being delivered on in every nursery. As she rightly points out, we do not want just to leave that to the nursery’s professional judgment on its own. We should remember that Ofsted regulates and inspects all early years provision. Before a nursery can open, Ofsted checks that it meets all the registration requirements, including those for first aid. It also inspects all nurseries on how they meet the EYFS requirements, including those for paediatric first aid.
If a nursery fails to meet the requirements on first aid, that will impact on Ofsted’s inspection judgment; as anyone who has looked at the nursery market will know, nurseries crave a good judgment from Ofsted because it is a point of differentiation in the market. Ofsted’s judgment is therefore really important. If the nursery does not meet the requirements on first aid, Ofsted will respond with appropriate steps. That may include giving the nursery a short time to meet the requirements. Where necessary, Ofsted can take enforcement action.
[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]
To ensure we have consistency of practice in the sector, I would like to hear from professional bodies and training providers about how they support nurseries in providing paediatric first aid. I would be delighted to discuss the guidance further when I meet Mr and Mrs Thompson later today. The guidance will be published next year, and I very much want to have their input and involvement.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I apologise for not being here for the whole debate. I welcome the inclusion of the requirements in the Ofsted inspection, but will the Minister tell us how frequently our nurseries are inspected? My understanding is that an outstanding one, which would have been judged on previous criteria, might not be inspected for several years. In taking the approach that he is, does the Minister consider that time is on his side?
Mr Gyimah
That is a good question. There is an Ofsted inspection cycle for every nursery, but there is also a cycle for the first aid certificate. If someone has a certificate, it will expire after three years, and they will then have to go back and do a two-day course to have it refreshed. I am counselling against believing that the acquisition of a certificate alone will prevent such awful tragedies from happening again. What will prevent them from happening again is nurseries knowing what best practice is and implementing it, rather than just saying, “Our staff have the certificate, so we are covered.” That is what I want to avoid.
Richard Graham
In a sense, there are two slightly different issues. I think the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) was close to implying that, had everyone received paediatric training in the nursery where Millie, very sadly, died, these events would not have happened, but I am not sure that any of us here today is in a position to make that judgment. However, on the wider point, many of us feel that future tragedies would be much less likely if everybody did receive paediatric training, so will the Minister respond to the call for a review, which the coroner, in effect, made?
Mr Gyimah
I can commit to a review next year of how the requirements have been strengthened and how they are bedding down in the nursery sector. I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. None of us can say what would happen if there was another situation on the ground, but we do have the coroner’s response, and I can commit to a review.
Mark Hunter
Further to that intervention, does the Minister agree with this statement from St John Ambulance:
“Ensuring that every adult working in a child facing role has appropriate paediatric first aid training would decrease the delay in responding to a first aid emergency, and increase the quality of care”?
If he does, is that not somewhat inconsistent with his previous response?
Mr Gyimah
It is a powerful point. To restate my argument, not everyone with a certificate is necessarily the right person to deal with an emergency. We can argue that the likelihood of not having the right person on hand is reduced if everyone has that certificate, but we want to have a situation where nurseries follow recognised best practice, rather than to mandate it just so that everyone can say, “I have the certificate, and that is it.” We obviously value what St John Ambulance does, which is why the EYFS requires nurseries to use its training or British Red Cross training.
Richard Graham
The Minister has helpfully confirmed that the national review will go ahead, as the coroner wanted. To avoid any doubt, will he confirm that it will include consideration of moves to make it mandatory for everybody working in nurseries to receive paediatric training?
Kevin Brennan
May I press the Minister on the nature of the review? Is he talking about an internal departmental review or about getting independent experts to look at the issue and come to a conclusion? Furthermore, on the timetable, he will be aware that we will be pressing up against all sorts of deadlines next year, if I can put it that way. The review will have to get under way quickly if he is to deliver on what he is promising the House, so when will it get under way?
Mr Gyimah
We have been looking at that since Mr and Mrs Thompson had their meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). Once I have had a meeting with them, we will publish details of the nature of the national review, but that is not to say that the issue is not of great importance for us.
Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who focused on whether we have watered down the regulations. I touched on the point about local authorities. I would also like to reassure him that, at the heart of the increase in the skills and qualifications of the early years work force, we have emphasised the importance of paediatric first aid, which is included in professional child care qualifications, although that might not necessarily lead to a certificate that can be renewed every three years.
Our standards for early years teacher status mean that all early years teachers will know how to establish and sustain a safe environment and employ practices that promote children’s health and safety. Our early years educator criteria, which the hon. Gentleman is intimately familiar with, mean that all early years educators will understand how to respond to accidents and emergency situations.
Mr Gyimah
As I said, the review is of the utmost importance to us. I have committed to a review, and the Department will look at it as expeditiously as it can. Of course, independence is also important.
The Opposition spokesman asked for the previous Secretary of State’s response to the coroner’s report. I will write in due course to those who have spoken to provide them with the necessary information.
On the actions following the meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, a letter was written to Mr and Mrs Thompson. We have also commissioned a good practice guide from the National Day Nurseries Association. On the removal of first aid requirements from qualifications, we will provide an answer in writing to Mr and Mrs Thompson and put it in the Library.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and Mr and Mrs Thompson that the Government recognise the importance of keeping children healthy and safe. We are focused on strengthening the EYFS. We will produce guidance and, in due course, a national review, which will include the question of mandatory training.
Paediatric first aid training is, and will remain, a statutory requirement for all nurseries and pre-schools. I hope that I have given the necessary assurance that the Government take the matter seriously and that we will work with Mr and Mrs Thompson to ensure that there will not be another awful tragedy such as the one they experienced.
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) wants to make a winding-up speech, but if he does I remind him that a Division in the House is expected at 13 minutes past 6.
Mark Hunter
Yes, I would like to take the opportunity of summing up. To be candid, I find the Minister’s response a little disappointing. There seemed to me to be a fairly clear consensus—not only among the hon. Members who spoke, but also in the sources of information from which many of us quoted—that there is a need for something to be done.
No one is saying that the Government have deliberately neglected the situation or allowed it to happen; I am quite persuaded that the law of unintended consequences was involved. However there is clearly a problem, and as long as it is within the purview of individual establishments to take their own decisions about what is adequate and what is not and about whom they go to for the training—so that they need not be certified and accredited—there will still be doubt and uncertainty in the mind of many parents. A case has been made for a national framework.
Mark Hunter
The key point is this—I happen to have the St. John Ambulance note in front of me so I will refer to it again: St John Ambulance believes that every adult working in a child-facing role should have had training in paediatric first aid.
By highlighting the tragedy, and bringing it to the attention of parents throughout the country, we are giving the Government an opportunity to be seen to be listening and acting. It will not cost much money or need much legislative time to establish the safeguards, so that every parent taking their child to nursery will know that all relevant members of staff are adequately trained in paediatric first aid. It seems a simple, straightforward and relatively inexpensive request, and I am still baffled about why the Minister’s response has not been more optimistic and positive. I appreciate, however, that it will not be entirely down to him. I hope that we can explore the matter further in the private meeting to follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to the Millie’s Trust campaign to train all nursery nurses in paediatric first aid.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
5. What steps her Department is taking to help more schools offer nursery classes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Nurseries in schools are at the heart of our plans to offer flexible, affordable and high-quality child care. To deliver on that plan, we are removing the red tape that stands in the way of schools offering provision to two-year-olds. We have also invested £100 million in early years child care places, of which a third are being created in schools. We are allowing child minders to offer wrap-around care in schools, and championing calibration between schools and private, voluntary and independent nurseries.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Keeping a child in the same school when they transition from nursery to primary school is in the best interests of the child and indeed the school. Although I welcome steps to examine moves towards amending admissions codes for the most disadvantaged, may I urge him to keep an open mind about widening this policy right across nursery schools?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In many cases, parents want their children to continue into reception year in the school in which they attended nursery, but that should not come at the expense of parents who, for whatever reason, choose different early years provision for their children. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are amending the admissions code for the most disadvantaged pupils. Of course I always keep an open mind, and we will keep this matter under review and consider it later.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
One of the best ways of extending nursery provision is to have supportive chairs and boards of governors. Many schools find it very difficult to find governors, and many are paying them. May I ask the Minister what his personal—not his departmental—opinion is on the principle of paying school governors? By the way—interest declared!
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
There will continue to be a shortage of nursery class places until we address the issue of pay for nursery school staff. Top bankers’ pay went up by 7% last year, and that of those working in nursery schools by barely more than 1%. What will the Minister do about that?
Mr Gyimah
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post, but I do not agree with the numbers she cites. In fact, the pay of nursery staff has gone up, according to independent statistics. More important, most of the provision is in the private sector. The Government cannot prescribe wages for people in the private sector, but we can cut taxes so that people can keep more of what they earn, and that is why we have raised the personal allowance to £10,000.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment she has made of the vulnerability of children missing from school and home to child sexual exploitation.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
9. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of allowing nursery schools to become academies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Many maintained nursery schools are delivering high-quality early education, often in disadvantaged areas where that provision can make the greatest difference. Our aim is to improve parent access to high-quality early-years provision, enable a diverse market and ensure that nurseries are part of that market. However, the current legislation does not allow maintained nursery schools to become academies, but we will keep that under review.
Mr Stuart
I welcome the Minister’s response—or I think I do—that this is going to be kept under review. Too many maintained nursery schools—centres of excellence anchored, for the most part, in the poorest communities in the country—have been lost under successive Governments. Would not academy status give them the opportunity to ensure that they continue to help the Government in raising standards for all and, most importantly, closing the gap between outcomes for rich and poor?
Mr Gyimah
I welcome the enthusiasm of the Chairman of the Education Committee for maintained nurseries. I have visited Pen Green maintained nursery in Corby, which is an excellent example. He mentioned harnessing their quality. We have invested £5.5 million in teaching schools so that maintained nurseries can spearhead this and help to spread quality across the sector. He is right to indicate that 4,000 schools have benefited from academy status. As I said, we will keep the situation under review as opportunities arise to reconsider the legislative framework for maintained nurseries.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Many nursery schools would like to become co-operatives but, by law, they are not currently allowed to do so. I welcome the Secretary of State’s interest in this area. May I press the Minister on allowing for an amendment to be made to the Deregulation Bill? That could happen very quickly and it would allow nurseries to join other schools in becoming co-operatives.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
10. If she will make an assessment of the public benefit contributed by schools in the private sector.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the Minister, for the benefit of the House, enlighten us as to which independent statistics he prayed in aid in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)? My hon. Friend was using statistics from November this year produced by the Office for National Statistics’ annual earnings survey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with the answer.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Last week, a primary school in my constituency at Middle Rasen was marked down from “outstanding” by Ofsted for being too British. That follows other faith schools that have been marked down because they are falling foul of the Secretary of State’s new British values. Let us be honest: not a single traditional Catholic or Anglican school preaches intolerance in this country. When will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that we have freedom of faith in our faith schools?
Recall of MPs Bill
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Laing. For some reason, I suspect that today’s debate in Committee will be less excitable than Second Reading or the first day of Committee.
The clauses and schedules in this group set out the process by which constituents can sign a recall petition, who is eligible to sign the petition and where the responsibility for running the process rests. I will summarise the effect of the provisions and address amendment 38, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), when I describe clause 7.
Clause 6 provides that every constituency in the United Kingdom will have a petition officer and that the role will be fulfilled by the person who usually runs UK parliamentary elections in the constituency.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early on. He will know that in Northern Ireland, the chief electoral officer has huge responsibilities because we have Assembly elections and local council elections. Will any additional resources be given to the chief electoral officer and his staff so that he can be the petition officer under the Bill?
Mr Gyimah
Yes, it will be up to the local authority to provide additional staff to help the electoral officer fulfil their duties with regard to petitions. Petitions will be funded centrally through the Consolidated Fund, so returning officers will get the resources that they need to perform their role. We focus on the returning officer in that context because they have experience of running elections, and we believe that they have the necessary skills and experience to run the petition process.
Clause 6 gives effect to schedule 1, which sets out the general duty of the petition officer in the conduct of the recall petition. It empowers them to appoint deputies, delegate their responsibilities, and claim expenses for running the petition.
Clause 7 sets out the steps that a petition officer for a constituency must take on receiving the Speaker’s notice issued under clause 5. The petition officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable, designate
“a place, or places, at which a recall petition is to be made available for signing”
by constituents. They must designate
“the 10th working day after the day on which the officer received the Speaker’s notice”
as the first day on which the petition is open to be signed, unless that day is not practicable. In that case, it may be sensible to defer proceedings to the next day. The clause also requires the petition officer to make the petition available for signing in a maximum of four places, ensuring that venues selected have “reasonable facilities” for signing the petition, and are accessible to people with disabilities
“so far as is reasonable and practicable”.
Amendment 38 would make it a requirement for the petition officer to select a “minimum” of four places where the petition can be signed, and no maximum would be set on the number of places that could be selected. I can see the good intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that the process is as accessible as possible. However, I reassure hon. Members that the Government have tried to address that concern, by accepting a recommendation from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made during pre-legislative scrutiny that the number of signing places be increased from one to a maximum of four. Introducing a minimum requirement of four signing places and not setting a maximum number could result in an inconsistent approach across the country and increase costs. For example, my hon. Friend has 21 wards in his constituency and if he—perish the thought!—were subject to recall, the returning officer could decide on 21 signing places in his constituency. In constituencies such as Norwich North or Norwich South, for example, which are densely populated, there would be just one place to sign the petition because of that dense population.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Will the Minister accept that there is a certain inconsistency about the geographical size of constituencies?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that takes me further into my argument. We are taking additional measures to ensure that the petition is as accessible as possible. For example, the petition period is eight weeks, so constituents have eight weeks to decide whether they want to sign it, and to make time to sign it at a time convenient to them. It is worth remembering that this process is very different to polling day. That takes place on one day, and therefore returning officers try to make as many places as possible accessible for constituents. I therefore urge the hon. Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 8 places a duty on the petition officer, in accordance with regulations under clause 18, to send a notice of petition to persons registered in the register of parliamentary electors for the constituency. That notice will serve a similar function to the poll card at elections, and set out how and in what ways electors can sign the petition if they wish. Importantly, clause 8 also specifies that the notice of petition must include information on the particular
“recall condition which has been met in relation to the MP.”
Petition officers will find the details of that condition specified in the Speaker’s notice issued under clause 5. Including that information on the notice of petition should help the recipient to understand why the recall petition has been opened, and to decide whether or not they wish to sign it.
Clause 9 requires the petition officer to make the recall petition available for signing
“at the designated place or places, and by post”
for a period of eight weeks from the designated day, in accordance with regulations in clause 18.
As I have said, the eight-week period has been chosen because it ensures that electors who wish to participate have sufficient time to consider information on the reasons for the recall petition, including the views of campaigners, and any public response given by the MP.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is there any particular reason for eight weeks?
Mr Gyimah
The view is that eight weeks—roughly 40 working days—gives sufficient time, or even more than ample time, for constituents to engage properly with the process.
Clause 8 details who is entitled to sign the recall petition. The general rule is that a person who is eligible can sign the petition on any day during the eight-week signing period. They must be on the register of parliamentary electors and entitled to vote in a parliamentary election in the constituency as a result of an application made on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. I gently remind him that, after the 2001 general election, vote stealing in Northern Ireland was identified as a serious problem, particularly in Sinn Fein constituencies—that is a statement of fact and also a criticism. To deal with that serious problem, all those registered to vote must produce a photographic identity document. The Government have been good in producing free electoral ID cards, but will a person signing a recall petition be required to produce photographic ID?
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify his point about the system working in the same way as a general election? What is his expectation of the opening hours for the petition? Try as I might, I cannot find any rules about how long it must be open. Will he set out the position?
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister, but if I understand him correctly, the Government are proposing to use a town hall or council office. As you will know from your constituency, Mrs Laing, that council office is not necessarily open from 7 am to 10 pm. Perhaps the Minister wants to rethink that answer.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman mentions a town hall or local council office, but it is not necessarily for the Government to determine that. The petition officer will determine where the petition takes place and make the appropriate arrangements for the handling of that petition. That is not being prescribed in the Bill, as he says. I will try to get him further information on that point in due course.
Other constituents will be able to take part in the petition process: anyone aged 18 years or over can do so, and so can anyone whose 18th birthday is before the end of the signing period. Clause 10 sets out that the last day on which a person can make an application to register as an elector, which will enable them to participate in the recall petition, is the day when the Speaker’s notice is issued. The electoral registration officer must determine such applications on or before the cut-off day, which is defined as the third working day before the beginning of the signing period. Such a cut-off mirrors practice at elections and ensures there is a point in time when the register is set and can be distributed to signing places to ensure that only those eligible to sign the petition can do so.
Clause 10 gives effect to schedule 2, which inserts new section 13BC into the Representation of the People Act 1983, and which is on the alteration of registers of parliamentary electors and necessary amendments. The amendments are necessary to ensure the recall petition process can rely effectively on the register of parliamentary electors.
I have received inspiration with regard to the question from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). Opening hours will be set out in regulations. Obviously, locations would not be open all hours, but there may be a possibility of their opening later. That will be a matter for the petition officer to determine, and will be set out in regulations.
Clause 11, as I mentioned, establishes that electors will be able to sign the petition in person by post or by proxy.
Lady Hermon
It is very kind indeed of the Minister to invite an intervention before I am even on my feet. As I have indicated to the Committee, vote stealing in Northern Ireland was a very serious crime and had to be dealt with very seriously. For those who turn up in person to vote at a polling station there is a requirement for photographic identification. There are also very strict regulations on proxy voting and voting by post. Will equivalently strict measures be put in place to ensure that recall petitions do not result in an increase in vote stealing? It is such a serious crime.
Mr Gyimah
Once again, the hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. As I said, the practice has been designed to mirror the practice in general elections, so the same strict standards will apply to the petition process as one would ordinarily expect in the course of a general election.
Clause 11 allows electors to sign the petition in person by post or by proxy. The entitlement to sign the petition by a particular method will be subject to regulations to be made under clause 18, which will set out the process in more detail. It is worth noting that once a recall petition has been signed the signature cannot be withdrawn. That is the usual way that public petitions are administered. It could undermine the process and cause confusion if electors were allowed to withdraw their signatures from a recall petition at a later date.
Clause 12 sets out that it is an offence for two or more signatures to be added to the petition by, or on behalf of, any individual elector, just as in elections it is an offence for two or more votes to be cast by, or on behalf of, an individual elector. The Government believe it is important that the recall petition process is secure. Systematic fraud would be hard to orchestrate at an election. The provisions are necessary to deter any attempts at double signing to inflate the number of signatures in a petition. The provisions should also give constituents confidence in the result of the petition.
Clause 13 sets out three conditions in which the recall petition process will be terminated before the end of the eight-week signing period. The conditions that would trigger an early termination are: the date of the next UK parliamentary general election being brought forward to a date that falls within the six-month period of the date of the Speaker’s notice; if an MP’s seat is vacated, for example because the MP is disqualified; and where the first recall condition was met and the MP’s conviction or sentence, or the order in question, is overturned on appeal.
Thomas Docherty
I apologise—I perhaps should have raised this point with the Minister in advance—but I have being going backwards and forwards between clauses 3 and 13. As I understand it, clause 3 states that the recall petition shall not take place—I apologise if I am incorrect—until the appeals have expired. Is it therefore not a contradiction for clause 13(4) to say that the recall shall fall if the conviction is subsequently overturned on appeal?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a very smart point. He is clearly reading the Bill in detail, as he should. The distinction relates to “in time” and “out of time” appeals. The explanatory memorandum refers to some appeals that could be out of time and could therefore be overturned when the recall petition has already started.
As I was saying, electors will be less likely to sign the petition knowing that they will shortly be able to have their say at the ballot box, thereby impacting on the overall objective of the recall petition. That is why the petition will not be taken forward under those circumstances. The second and third conditions—that the seat is already vacant and that the conviction has been overturned on appeal—are clearly appropriate reasons for terminating the petition early.
In summary, I have set out why the clauses and schedules in this group are necessary, as they establish who can sign a petition and how. The provisions ensure that petitions will be administered by those with experience of running elections and in a manner consistent with the rigours of an electoral process.
Lady Hermon
For the sake of clarity, can the Minister sum up what the position is now in Northern Ireland for someone who wishes to go and vote in person? They will be required, as in a general election, to produce photographic ID and if they do not turn up in person, the same rules for proxy and postal voting will definitely pertain, to ensure that we do not have vote stealing again in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I do not think that is what he said either. Indeed, that was what I was hoping the Minister had said to me, but I have a horrible feeling that it was not what he confirmed.
Mr Gyimah
The advice I have received is that the same protections on voter ID will apply in Northern Ireland. In relation to postal signatures, this will be available on demand in Northern Ireland, unlike for elections, because we recognise that signing a petition in person may raise different issues from casting a secret vote. The position is therefore slightly different from what I said earlier.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for repeating the explanation that floated across the Chamber to him to correct what was said earlier. I must invite him to go back and look at the evidence taken after the general election about the serious problem with postal voting in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Belfast West and other Sinn Fein constituencies. They had something like three times as many postal votes as any other constituency throughout the UK, so provisions were introduced swiftly to deal with vote stealing, particularly where it involved postal votes rather than impersonation.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I want to make a few brief comments and ask the Minister some questions about clause 6 and schedule 1, and clauses 7 and 9. These provisions relate, as he said, to the petition officers who will be appointed.
My questions are about the costs incurred in this process. The Bill is non-specific and refers to the condition that
“the total of the officer’s charges does not exceed the amount…specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister”.
However, one of the interesting things about the Bill is that it is accompanied by a detailed impact assessment, which goes into such meticulous detail on the likely costs incurred during the process that it lists the estimated total costs of one recall petition, which include the cost for the petition officer, at £500, the cost of the petition signing place, at £734, and the cost of the petition notice card, at £20,891. I was wondering why, if that much work has been done, the Government are waiting for secondary legislation. Why not build it directly into the Bill, so we could see exactly the cost that is likely to be incurred? If we are committed to secondary legislation, when are we going to see the provisions for it coming forward? Will it be done quickly? I presume it will be, because if the work has been done, I see no reason at all why it cannot be brought forward immediately. Perhaps it is, in reality, already available and could be presented to us.
My second point relates to clause 7, which refers to a “maximum of 4 places” where the petition can be signed. To his credit, the Minister has said that he has taken into account the opinions of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but why has he not taken into account the representations made, not just by the Member who tabled the amendment, but by the Electoral Commission? The Electoral Commission has provided a circular, which has gone to all Members. It says that it sees no reason why there should be “a maximum of four” places in which to go and vote, suggesting there should be “a minimum of four” places. It makes the very good point that our constituencies vary enormously in their size and geography, so four places might be appropriate for a compact constituency, but nowhere near enough for more rural constituencies.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you will forgive me, Sir Roger, if I do not speculate about the popularity or otherwise of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in the various Orange lodges of his constituency—going down that path would not end well for any of us in the Chamber. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is absolutely right that careful consideration has to be given. Again, we have not had enough detail. We are working from a series of assumptions about petition stations being in council offices and polling stations, but Ministers have not set out in any detail where they are likely to be.
Finally, in relation to my earlier point about consultation, there is a requirement for returning officers to consult at least with political parties and other interested parties on the siting of polling stations, and indeed on the boundaries of polling stations within electoral wards. We have not yet seen anything that would explicitly require the petition officer at least to consult. There is more work to be done on that issue.
We also have concerns about proxy and postal votes. The Minister might like to say a little more about why existing postal voters will still have to write in to request a postal vote, rather than simply being issued a petition form by post. I press the Minister to give us some satisfaction in that regard. Will he also confirm that there is often a last-minute flurry of activity to join the electoral register? I appreciate that he has made it clear that one has to be on the register at the trigger date, but often there can be a slight administrative delay, as we saw in the recent referendum in Scotland. Can he confirm that the application, rather than its processing, will be taken as the cut-off point as there can sometimes be a few days’ backlog?
Mr Gyimah
Welcome, Sir Roger, to the Chair. A number of very good points have been made and I shall deal with them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made many interesting points, and asked why the Bill does not go into the same level of detail regarding expenses. The AV referendum process and the petition process mirror a referendum process, rather than a general election process. The AV referendum gave us some hard facts to work with.
Mr Kevan Jones
In an AV referendum, postal voters would be sent a ballot paper. Here, we are asking people to come forward to sign a petition. Those are completely different things, and they are getting confused in this debate.
Mr Gyimah
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, he will realise that I was speaking specifically about expenses. We have used the hard facts that the AV referendum gave us to develop some estimates, but the question is: how much detail can the Bill go into? The truth is that expenses may be incurred during a petition process that the Government could not have anticipated, so it will be down to the petition officer to submit expenses and costs, and we will set out a fees and charges order to cover that. That is why the Bill does not go into as much detail as the hon. Member for Caerphilly would have liked.
Rightly and understandably, there has been much discussion about whether the petition signing sheet will be user-tested. I hope I can reassure the Committee that its wording has been developed with the input of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is balanced and fits with the commission’s guidance for referendum questions. The wording that we and the commission have devised gives petitioners the information they need, including the important addition that if the Member in question loses their seat as a result of a petition, there is nothing to prevent them from standing. It is worth making it clear that during the petition process, the Member in question is no longer a Member of Parliament: when recall is triggered their seat is vacated, but there is nothing to prevent them from standing in the subsequent by-election.
Wayne David
The Minister says that there has been consultation with the Electoral Commission, but the commission itself says that it would be far better if the opinion of a panel consisting of a cross-section of the population were tested before the final wording was agreed. There must be a sliver of doubt in the Minister’s mind, because the Bill itself says that
“The Minister may by regulations amend subsection (4).”
If the Minister wants to be able to amend it, why not take it out, and let us have a proper consultation?
Mr Gyimah
There is not a sliver of doubt in my mind. I am smiling because I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman on user-testing, which we would look to undertake as we go through the process of setting out the regulations, if need be amending the petition signing sheet. So the Government have not set their face against user-testing, which I believe is the main concern, and understandably so.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister refers repeatedly to the secondary legislation process and the Standing Orders. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has said, the relevant wording is in the Bill—in primary legislation. Is the Minister confirming that the Minister in question will seek to amend the Bill itself at a later date, rather than pursuing the secondary legislation process?
Mr Gyimah
We will be using the powers of secondary legislation to amend the Bill once we have been through user-testing. The practical point is that we cannot user-test while at the same time debating the Bill. User-testing could throw up a completely different issue. We have developed the Bill with input from the Electoral Commission and we will user-test it as we go through this process.
Mr Heath
I applaud the Minister for being open-minded about this issue and I realise he is describing a process, but it really does not make sense to include specific wording in primary legislation and then say, “We will probably amend it, once we’ve done the user-testing, in secondary legislation”, because no one will know that. When they go to the primary legislation, they will find different words from those that will appear on the petition form. If I may gently say so, it really would make more sense to get rid of this clause, put “the Minister may, by order, prescribe the words” and let him get on with it by secondary legislation. That is not a Henry VIII clause—Henry VIII would have had just one signature, anyway. It is just sensible legislation.
Mr Gyimah
Let me finish describing the process I was outlining. We will get Royal Assent for the Bill, undertake user-testing, and then introduce secondary legislation. We in this House amend our legislation all the time—for next year’s general election we are looking at a number of things that were based on user-testing with the Electoral Commission. We may not have to amend it at all, subject to user-testing.
Thomas Docherty
I say in the spirit of bipartisanship that I think the Minister may have misspoken. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is entirely correct. It is not normal practice to get Royal Assent and then seek to amend primary legislation. If I may try to be helpful to the Minister, he might wish to offer to the Committee that he will take this issue away and seek to establish some consensus on Report, or even in the other place.
Mr Gyimah
As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out from a sedentary position, we all want the same thing: we all want to ensure that this process works extremely well, and I will take on board the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has made.
A number of references were made to the wording of the petition signing sheet. The wording is set out in primary legislation but can be amended by secondary legislation if some problems transpire, as I said earlier, but we would look to gain consensus for the process.
The decision on where polling stations should be located is normally made by members of the council for the local authority in question. All local authorities must review their UK parliamentary polling districts and polling places at least once every five years. To assist with this, the Electoral Commission has produced guidance on conducting polling place reviews. A number of Members said that the decision on where to locate the polling station could in some ways prejudice the result. The truth is that unless there is a polling station in every part of the constituency, we will be open to that charge.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is important to point out that these are not polling stations but collection points for petitions. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) said, we no longer have last week’s nonsensical proposal by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). However, it would be open to someone from a party in opposition to a Member of Parliament subject to recall to do exactly what the Minister just said. They could have a polling station on every street corner if they wanted to. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for example, let us say that the local party wanted, for unfriendly political reasons, to put a polling station in a certain building.
Mr Gyimah
The main point is that the person who determines where the polling stations are located is the petition officer, who is otherwise the electoral registration officer, and they have the skills and experience to determine how to run the process. It would be easy for the hon. Gentleman to make that charge if there were to be a petition station in every part of the constituency, but that is not what we are debating, because the Bill says that there will be a maximum of four.
Mr Jones
In my experience, it is possible to influence the outcome of these things. I remember that many years ago a council ward in the Newcastle city council area seemed to have a polling station on every street corner. When I became the Labour party’s local ward secretary, I asked why, and found—lo and behold—that the person in charge was a local councillor. I am not saying that this should necessarily be addressed in the Bill, but there should be some stronger guidance as opposed to just leaving it up to the local council.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the only way in which people can participate in this process is by turning up physically and signing the petition sheet. Let me be clear, by the way, that it will not be possible to see everyone’s signature on the petition sheet; in fact, it looks more like a ballot paper. People can participate by post or by proxy. It is not strictly accurate to argue that the place where the ERO decides to locate the petition station can, in itself, affect the result.
Mr Heath
I think that most electoral registration officers will fulfil their duties as petition officers with exactly the same degree of integrity as they would in elections, and they are also subject to supervision from the Electoral Commission. When the regular review of polling places takes place, we could ask the ERO, in consultation with all the people he has to consult, to designate where the petition places would be situated so that there was clarity on that at a time when it was not specific to a particular MP in particular circumstances, and everyone recognised that it was a neutral process. That would be very sensible, and it might be done by guidance or by regulation.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being incredibly patient given the number of questions. I have not yet had an answer to my question about costs, on which I am sure that he has had inspiration. As part of the £55,000 costs for a recall, what estimate was made of the number of people who would seek a postal vote?
Mr Gyimah
I will come to that point later.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked whether anyone can turn up at any location and sign, and asked about double signing. I assure him that these details will be set out in regulations. Constituents eligible to vote will be sent a petition notice card allocating them a location, and they will be able to sign only at that location. They will be marked off the register at that location when they are given a signing sheet.
Mr Jones
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I think that the purpose of a Committee is for the Minister to answer questions about what he is saying to it. When people ask the Minister questions, a lot of the time he clearly does not have a clue what he is talking about. He should accept interventions on these technical points—they are not general political points.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Member who has the Floor determines whether he gives way on any particular point.
Mr Gyimah
Thank you, Sir Roger. I think I have been quite generous in allowing interventions in the spirit of allowing members of the Committee to contribute as much as possible to the Bill. As the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said on Second Reading, we have been generous not only in accepting interventions but in accepting excellent ideas such as that just proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath).
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about translation into the Welsh language. Clause 21(5) applies section 26 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to regulations made under the Bill, and this would give a power for the appropriate Minister to provide a form of words in Welsh. I hope that that deals with his point.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked whether there would be a marked register. Yes, there would. We are considering whether it would be a public marked register, because in this case, unlike in an election, where we can have a register but be unable to tell which way people voted, people will declare by way of a marked register their intention on whether they want to get rid of an MP.
Mr Gyimah
That is precisely why we are considering the issue. Obviously, the point of the register is to mark people off for verification purposes as they turn up at the petition station. Further to that, we are considering whether to make the register public. We have to recognise that this process is very different from an election and think about what happens when the register becomes a marked register.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about appropriate opening hours. I assure him that we will look into that when it comes to drafting the regulations. It may be possible for a petition officer to choose a location that is open in the evening, on weekdays, and so on. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we should have a consultation to determine some of these questions every five years rather than doing so in the heat of a petition process.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He kindly said to me at the beginning of the debate that he was happy to welcome as many interventions as I wanted to make, so I am taking him up on that offer.
A couple of very useful suggestions have been made by the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Will the Minister pick up on those as a compromise that would take us through this group of clauses? The hon. Member for Foyle rightly observed that eight weeks is too long a period, and that four is too small a number of designated places for a recall petition. Will the Minister consider shortening that period, because it will be agonising for the sitting MP? For eight weeks, a sitting MP who has been successfully elected in an election will not know whether they are sitting or suspended, or what they are going to be, until perhaps 10% of the electorate have cast some manner of vote. Will the Minister consider the compromise offered of more designated places and a shorter period in which a person could sign the petition?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The Government are trying to strike the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said that four places would be the minimum rather than the maximum, but not setting a maximum at all would risk having great inconsistency across our constituencies. Allowing for eight weeks provides a balance and people will be able to vote either by post or by proxy during that period.
Lady Hermon
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he persists with this line of argument, I invite him to visit Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast, where more peace walls have been built since the Belfast agreement was signed on Good Friday than existed during the troubles. We have constituencies that are divided. Four places for people to vote on a recall petition would be so unrepresentative.
Mr Gyimah
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s particular point about Northern Ireland, but I do not think that the Government’s point about a maximum of four places and allowing eight weeks is particularly onerous. If people are particularly exercised about signing the petition, eight weeks is a sufficient amount of time for them to be able to do so.
Mark Durkan
Only 10% of voters would have to sign the recall petition during those eight weeks, which is a longer period not only than the by-election campaign that would succeed the petition, but than the period designated for a general election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Is eight weeks reasonable?
Mr Gyimah
Eight weeks is reasonable, given that there will be a campaign on both sides. Once there is a notice of petition, the candidate would want to set their case before the electorate and the people who believe in the MP would also want to campaign. Eight weeks allows for getting people to the polling station to vote and for campaigns to take place. It allows for every step of the process to take place in an orderly fashion.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, asked how the Government arrived at the estimate of £55,000 in our impact assessment. According to the breakdown, a total of £23,000 breaks into staff preparation and issuing, staff opening and check-in hours, training, printing and stationery, postage and equipment. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the necessary assurance.
Thomas Docherty
What I specifically asked about was how many electors the Government, in reaching that total, estimated would vote by post. The Minister has not given us that figure yet, but I am sure he has it to hand.
Mr Gyimah
I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point of detail.
In rounding up this debate, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset not to press his amendment. When establishing an electoral process, the Government believe that we have to ensure that we make it as open as possible. There are many cases where a smaller number of signing places will serve constituents just as well as a large number, but we must not set out in statute expectations of service that could be hard to meet. The flexibility that the Government have built into the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny provides enough physical locations for signing when people wish to do so in person.
Before I sit down, I want to clarify one point. I said that the MP would not be an MP during the petition process. In actual fact, it is the seat that is vacated if the threshold is reached, but the MP would have to stand in the by-election and win in order to retake their seat. In that sense, the seat would be lost, albeit only temporarily.
Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
We have had some great contributions from both sides of the House. There were seven Back-Bench speeches, from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax). They all made some thoughtful and insightful points about the Act. The arguments put forward can be summed up as follows: the Act is an aberration, it is a political stitch-up and it strengthens the Executive over Parliament and the public, and that it therefore should, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, be reviewed and repealed. I will address each of those points in turn.
First, on the issue of review, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset explicitly asked about, it will be for the next Government, whether of a single party or of coalition parties, to evaluate how the Act has operated in this Parliament, and what, if any, lessons can be learned, and how they can make best use of their own fixed term. Not only will such an appraisal assist the next Government in their planning, but it can help to inform any amendment that might be needed to the Act.
I turn to the case that was made for repealing the Act. There has not been consensus about whether the argument is about having a shorter fixed-term Parliament or not having any fixed term at all. It is interesting to note that the right length of a Parliament has been debated in this House over centuries, which should come as no surprise in our 800-year-old democracy. It is striking how, at different points in our history, the case for shorter, and indeed longer, Parliaments has been made. In the 17th century—in 1641 and again in 1694—we had Triennial Acts requiring Parliament to be called every three years; I am sure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby would agree with that. From 1716 we had the Septennial Act, setting the maximum duration of a Parliament at seven years. That was amended in 1911, to set the maximum at five years, and finally repealed in its entirety only in 2011.
Sir William Cash
In my hon. Friend’s historical survey, has he noticed that the reason why the Triennial and Septennial Acts were passed was to suit the convenience of the Government of the time? In the case of the Septennial Act, it was also to do with the Jacobites and the rest of it, but it has always been for the convenience of the Government. That is the purpose of such Acts; there is no great constitutional principle.
Mr Gyimah
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. There were, of course, many other times when Parliament has considered whether we have the right balance for our time. During the era of the American revolutionary war, a Bill for annual Parliaments was moved year after year by a small but committed core of Back-Bench supporters. In response to my hon. Friend, I would say that our debate today continues the fine tradition of probing our constitutional arrangements, and, yes, it is right to continue to probe and to ask the right questions, but he and his colleagues’ concern about the fixed nature of this Parliament is not new in our democracy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I have a mild disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I think it is worth recalling that the Septennial Act was introduced because of the cost of elections, particularly the cost of bribing the electors, and it was thought better to have it once every seven years than once every three, to lower the cost to the pockets of Members of Parliament.
Mr Gyimah
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Parliament has had this debate several times, and there have been several reasons to alter the length of a Parliament. Sometimes it has been done in the national interest, and sometimes—some would argue—for naked political reasons. The situation that we face today is certainly not an aberration in the history of our democracy.
The genesis of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 raises a number of questions, many of which have been mentioned today, especially by Members on my side of the House. The Act had its genesis in the coalition, which was an historical anomaly. It is therefore important to separate the concept of a fixed-term Parliament and the value that it could have for the British public from the concept of the coalition, although both came together. A single party could have passed the Act if it had had a majority in this Parliament to do so. By the same logic, a single party could repeal it on a simple majority if it so wished. Fixed-term Parliaments are not inextricably bound to the idea of a coalition.
Four years down the line, it is easy for us to forget that when the coalition was formed, words such as “secure and stable government in the national interest” seemed like the punch line to a joke, but this fixed-term Parliament has been able to deliver exactly that for this country. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said that democracy should be a wild beast that could rampage around the country. I would hazard a guess that this Parliament has been anything but predictable. It has been unpredictable at every twist and turn. The fact that it has been a fixed-term Parliament has not neutered our democracy; indeed, it could be argued that it has invigorated it in a number of respects.
Richard Drax
I do not agree with the Minister on that last point. Our country has faced far greater dangers than the ones we faced in 2010, yet we saw no need to change our constitution on those occasions.
Mr Gyimah
I was incredibly nervous when our country was on the brink of financial and economic collapse after 13 years of a Labour Government, and we needed to take the necessary action to get the country back on track.
Having listened to the arguments today, I believe that the Government remain unconvinced of the need to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It is too early to assess the full benefits of having a fixed election timetable, but it is clear that there are advantages to a system that is transparent, consistent and fair. This Government came to power at a time when faith in our political system was at an all-time low. Political and constitutional change has been part of tackling that. It cannot be right for key decisions about our democratic process—perhaps the key decision: the timing of an election—to be decided by the Executive on the basis of political advantage.
Many have argued that the Act somehow strengthens the Prime Minister. I argue that it weakens the Prime Minister’s position, because he cannot decide the timing of an election by his own fiat. It was Roy Jenkins who said that a Prime Minister who lost an election had, ipso facto, called that election at the wrong time. By fixing the date of the general election, we have significantly weakened the Prime Minister and given strength to Parliament and the public.
Sir Edward Leigh
If fixed-term Parliaments were such a good idea, why did we not put them in our manifesto?
Mr Gyimah
There are many good ideas that were not in our manifesto; it is important that we, as politicians, are able to adapt and to reflect the times.
It is not the case that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced simply to maintain the coalition. The previous system, whereby prerogative power was exercised over a democratic process for political advantage, served the wrong interests. Imagine Gordon Brown sitting in Downing street in 2007 chewing his fingernails and trying to decide whether that was the right time to call an election so that he could have another five years in government.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister means “the right hon. Gentleman”.
Mr Gyimah
I meant to say “the right hon. Gentleman”. I stand corrected.
By setting out the general election timetable in legislation, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act removes a Prime Minister’s power to call a general election. Removing that power from the Executive and giving it to Parliament enhances the transparency of our democratic system and represents a significant surrender of political power. Fixed-term Parliaments also provide a number of practical benefits to both Parliament and the Government. They provide greater certainty and continuity and enhance long-term legislative and financial planning, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said. They also afford greater political stability by giving future Governments foreseeable terms.
Some of the arguments that we have heard against fixed-term Parliaments are that they are inflexible, that they were conceived in a hurry and that the consequences were not fully thought through. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. It is also argued that fixed terms prevent a Government from ending and Parliament from dissolving when they reach their natural end, when it would be most beneficial for a new Government to take the reins. But as I have said, there are benefits to stability, certainty and transparency, and to those inside and outside Government being able to plan.
The question of flexibility has been raised in the context of the Scottish referendum and the need to change the timing of the next general election. Under the Act, the Prime Minister of the day is able to lay an order before both Houses to extend the date of a general election by a maximum of two months to deal with unexpected developments, although they must spell out their reasons for taking that step. The Act also provides for early elections to be called if a motion is agreed by at least two thirds of the House or without Division, or if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative Government are confirmed by the House of Commons within 14 days. I do not believe that that limits voter choice.
Prior to the Act, a party could change its leader midway through a Parliament and that new leader would become Prime Minister. In that situation, the new Prime Minister would be under no obligation to call a general election for five years. Under the terms of the Act, however, the leader could still go to the country, although a vote in the House in favour of so doing would require a two-thirds majority. It is unlikely that the Opposition would withhold their support, for reasons of political consensus.
Mr Allen
The Minister is making a thoughtful and cogent speech. Now that we have a fixed-term Parliament and we know the date of the next general election, does he accept that that knowledge is the property of the British people? Does he agree that, if any incoming Government sought to repeal the Act and give powers to a Prime Minister who had not been directly elected by the people, that would create a real crisis of legitimacy and be seen as a power grab by the party that had won the election?
Mr Gyimah
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the convention in this country is that a Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. If a future Parliament wanted to repeal this Act, made the case and had the votes in this House, it could repeal the Act. The more substantive point, which has been made a number of times, is that in a five-year Parliament the fifth year is wasted. The truth is that be it a five-year, four-year or three-year Parliament, it is always possible to make the case that the last year is spent electioneering, so that point does not necessarily follow from having five-year fixed-term Parliaments.
The final point I wish to deal with is the idea that the Government have run out of steam. In the Queen’s Speech, we announced a full legislative programme; there were 16 main programme Bills, including five carry-over Bills and three draft Bills. That compares with 13 main programme Bills, including three carry-over Bills and two draft Bills, in the last Session of the previous Parliament. Our programme includes legislation dealing with serious crime, trafficking and modern slavery, improving access to finance for small business and pensions.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby invoked Oliver Cromwell and his words to the Long Parliament:
“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.”
I would say that the Labour Government were here too long for any good they could do and, be it on the economy, welfare, health or education, this five-year Parliament is doing a lot to get our country back on track.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why passing a lot of laws is a good idea? Have we not got enough laws already?
Mr Gyimah
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which comes as no surprise to me. He would agree that when we got into government we had to fix an almighty mess and rectify a big mistake—the last Labour Government—hence the legislation that we have had to pass in this Parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
For up to two minutes, I call Sir Edward Leigh.
Voter Registration
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I thank the shadow spokesperson for his remarks, and I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing the debate, and I thank her for her interest in the important topic of voter registration.
Individual electoral registration is one of the biggest modernisations of electoral law in this country for 100 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) mentioned, for the first time we are not relying on the head of a household to register everyone in that household; people can register themselves. In addition, we have online registration, so that people can register to vote in as little as three minutes. The introduction of online registration will allow the mobile populations that have been mentioned, such as students and private renters, to register from their smartphones. That is a big modernisation, which we should all recognise and celebrate.
Julie Elliott
Are there any statistics yet on how many people are registering online?
Mr Gyimah
Since the launch of IER on 10 June, the digital service has processed more than 2.5 million applications. Almost 70% of those were made online through the “Register to vote” website, which has a satisfaction rate of more than 90%.
I am conscious of the time, so I will try to address all the points that have been raised as fast as I can. A lot has been said about the transition to IER, and there has been some bombast, hyperbole and conspiracy theory. The transition was speeded out as part of the coalition Government’s programme to tackle electoral fraud and rebuild trust in our elections. The timetable is phased over two years to help to manage the risk that the transition will impact on the general election. I want to put on record that no one who registered to vote at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the general election in 2015. It is for Parliament to decide in the summer of 2015 whether the transition will conclude in 2015 or at the end of 2016. The phase-in of the transition to IER with a carry-forward will allow those who are not individually registered by the time of the 2015 general election to vote in that election. I hope that will provide some reassurance that no one will be disfranchised, which is the word that has been used so far.
Of course, we must be mindful of the pitfalls of introducing a new method of registering to vote, and we should focus on the completeness and accuracy of the register. Much has been said about the need for the register to be complete, and the Government and I agree with everyone on the need for that, but we cannot ignore the importance of accuracy. Without an accurate register, we risk undermining the very elections on which the system is based, so we must not simply sweep away the importance of accuracy.
During the process, we have had to learn a lot of lessons from Northern Ireland, which is a point that was raised several times during the debate. We have introduced some safeguards, such as the confirmation process, the carrying forward of electors, online registration, the retention of the annual canvass and the maximisation of registration funding. So far, £4 million has been made available to help all local authorities and five national organisations to maximise the register and deal with the problems that have been identified.
Chris Ruane
One of the key lessons from Northern Ireland is the importance of door-to-door canvassers, especially for non-respondents. Some electoral registration officers have broken the law by not knocking on those doors for five years on the trot. What advice has the Minister got for those EROs who break the law?
Mr Gyimah
EROs, of course, must follow the law. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point during the course of my speech. The need to ensure that students, who can be quite mobile, get on the register has been mentioned several times during the debate. I assure hon. Members that through the creation by the Cabinet Office of a student forum in early 2013, the Government have been working with key partners in the higher education sector, including Universities UK, the Academic Registrars Council and the National Union of Students, to agree on practical steps that EROs and universities can take to encourage students to register. Steps that have been agreed by all representatives of the student forum include the provision of data from universities to EROs to help them to contact students individually; promoting the use of online registration, particularly during university course enrolment; and publishing guidance for ARC to help registrars to implement those steps before the start of the 2014-15 academic year.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), wrote to university vice-chancellors asking them to support local authorities in their efforts to maximise the number of student registrations. A lot is being done to get students on the register. We recognise the importance of data sharing in the context of students, which was mentioned during the debate. Individual electoral registration officers must make it easier for students to register. More than 410,000 applications from 16 to 24-year-olds have already been submitted via the online registration process.
Stephen Twigg
I welcome the work of the student forum. Can the Minister assure us that he will take a close personal interest in the matter and look at the figures as they come in? If by January or February it is clear that there has been a substantial fall in the level of registration among students, will the student forum work with him to look at what can be done via online registration to get those figures up?
Mr Gyimah
I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only students but all under-registered groups are a priority for the Government. We want to maximise the register so that people can exercise their right to vote.
The Electoral Commission’s research found that 90% of people feel that it would be easy to provide their national insurance number when registering to vote—that is based on real evidence—and only 1% of applicants so far have been unable to provide their national insurance number or their date of birth. In February 2014, the local authority in Sunderland received £12,627 for maximising registration. That allocation was based on under-registration, especially due to the authority having a high student population. Of course, there are people without national insurance numbers, but that is a very small cohort. In such exceptional situations, people can provide other information, such as their passport.
A lot has been made of local data matching in this debate, and in other debates on individual electoral registration. All local authorities and valuation joint boards in Great Britain took part in the confirmation dry run in 2013, which involved matching their electoral registers against Government records. We believe that EROs are best placed to understand the relevance of locally held data and are likely to improve confirmation matches. That varies between local authorities, so we believe that EROs are best placed to make that judgment.
Chris Ruane
I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Should the Electoral Commission have told the 383 EROs that the cross-matching of local government data was mandatory, not just a choice?
Mr Gyimah
As I have said, it is for EROs to judge how to go about local data matching in order to maximise the register. I have a couple of points to make about EROs, so if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to that in a second.
We have also talked a lot about people in homes who are missing from the register. Again, I assure Members that every unconfirmed elector will be written to twice, and those who do not respond will receive a doorstep visit. Eighty-seven per cent. have been confirmed and transferred to the new register automatically. Every household will also have two written reminders during the annual canvass. We are therefore undertaking a practical, step-by-step process to ensure that people get on the register.
Postal vote fraud is another issue of concern, and it is a valid concern. The Government are working to address any form of electoral fraud, and I assure Members that further measures are being taken to strengthen the integrity of the postal voting system. Measures introduced in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 provide that applicants for postal votes must submit identifying signatures and dates of birth, which are checked against corresponding records. Like the recent review by the statutorily independent Electoral Commission, we have found no reason to recommend changes to the postal voting system, which we will keep as it is.
Chris Ruane
The Electoral Commission is proposing changes to the postal vote system. If Conservative or Labour canvassers are out there on the knocker and a person wants a postal vote form, which we give to them and they fill in, the Electoral Commission proposes that we cannot take that form away and send it off. That is a big change, which I oppose, although I support the Electoral Commission’s proposal on handling postal votes at election time. Is the Minister correct that new proposals are not being made on postal voting?
Chris Ruane
The Minister has just said that there are no proposed changes to postal votes, but the Electoral Commission proposes to stop members of political parties handling the registration of postal votes on the doorstep, and I do not think we should accept that proposal. The commission also proposes that political parties do not touch postal votes at election time—I can support that proposal, but I do not support the proposal on registering postal votes.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman has a point. Of course, the integrity of the electoral system is important, and it is worth keeping postal vote fraud under review as we go through IER.
I know that the performance standards of EROs are a subject close to the hon. Gentleman’s heart. I am pleased that the report shows that the majority of EROs clearly met the performance standards in 2013, but the commission identified 22 EROs who failed to meet performance standards. That is obviously disappointing, even if it represents an improvement on 2012, when 30 EROs failed to meet the standards. In fact, performance has improved every year: 53 EROs were failing in 2011, 30 were failing in 2012 and now 22 are failing, which is still too many. My predecessor wrote to all EROs who failed to meet the standards, stressing that Parliament expects them to meet those obligations. The Cabinet Office provided additional funding in the current financial year for that important work. I assure the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that Ministers are fully prepared to issue a formal direction to EROs, if necessary, to ensure that they comply with their statutory obligations.
Chris Ruane
I do not like to pull the Minister up on what he is saying, but he just said that EROs had improved every year, but they have not. It was 16 EROs who did not perform their statutory duties in 2008, 17 in 2009 and then as low as eight in 2010, but in 2011 it shot up to 55. That is not an improvement; it is getting worse. Then the figure was 30 and then it was 23, so what the Minister has just said, from the Front Bench, is factually incorrect. There has not been an improvement over the years; there has been an improvement, then a worsening and then another improvement.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; yes, there has been a recent improvement: 58 EROs were failing the standard in 2011, 30 were failing in 2012 and 22 were failing in 2013. That is an improvement, but the important point is the one I made: that Ministers are fully prepared to issue a formal direction to EROs, if necessary, to ensure that they comply with their statutory obligations. Twenty-two is an improvement, but it is still too many.
I am conscious of the time, so let me bring my comments to a close. We have a registration system that is a huge advance on the previous system. We have modernised the system and introduced online registration; it is not a retrograde step. There are 7.5 million people who we need to ensure we get on the register, but those 7.5 million people were not on the register before 2010, so I reject the allegation that somehow there is a Government conspiracy at work. As politicians, we all have an interest in ensuring that we have a thriving democracy, which is why the Government are allocating funds to ensure that we maximise the register.
The shadow Minister made the point about the Wales Bill. My concern is that we would be introducing more onerous burdens by adopting those recommendations, but we will certainly keep under review the need to ensure further canvassing and doing everything we can to ensure that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.
Statutory Register of Lobbyists
Sam Gyimah Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 provides for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists, which the Government are committed to introducing in good time before the end of the Parliament. The statutory register of consultant lobbyists will increase transparency by requiring those who lobby on behalf of a third party to disclose the names of their clients on a publicly available register.
Today the Cabinet Office is publishing a consultation document on the draft regulations which will provide for certain practical aspects of the register.
The consultation seeks views on draft regulations on: limitations on the duty to supply information to the registrar; the charging structure; the supply of VAT—registration information to the registrar by HMRC; and the detail of the information that lobbyists will be required to submit in information returns. The Cabinet Office is also seeking information from lobbyists that will allow the level of the charge in the draft regulation to be set at an appropriate level in the first year.
I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses and online at: http://www.gov. uk/government/consultations/statutory-register-of-consultant-lobbyists