Private Members’ Bills

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I repeat that as a result of the course that the Government have chosen, Turing’s law will now be enacted within weeks as part of a Government Bill, together with safeguards to ensure that anyone who is not supposed to receive a disregard or pardon will not be able to secure it by subterfuge.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I fully support my hon. Friend the Chair of the Procedure Committee. Will the Leader of the House respond to the question he has been asked as to whether he accepts that the existing arrangements bring this House into disrepute? I believe that they do.

[Mr Lidington]

We will respond in full to the Committee’s report. Over the years, many criticisms of the private Members’ Bill procedure have been made from different quarters. I will take seriously the proposals the Committee has made. However, we also need to ensure that under our procedures, legislation does not reach the statute book, perhaps even creating criminal offences affecting our constituents, unless there is clear demonstrable support within Parliament among a majority of Members for it to be enacted.

Devolution and the Union

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I am certainly in favour of looking at the logical implications of financial devolution and following them to their natural conclusion. If we do not do that, we shall have a very “silo” debate.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Surely it cannot be right for someone who is living with, say, heart disease or cancer to suffer because an extra £203 per head has been allocated elsewhere owing to an accident of geography. Surely all Members want a settlement that is fair to individuals with long-term conditions, wherever they live in our United Kingdom.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend—who chairs the Health Committee—is absolutely right, as usual. We must all agree that an accident of geography cannot mean that the voices and the needs of the elderly, the vulnerable, and NHS patients somehow count for less.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have not finished my comments in relation to special advisers. There is an amendment in lieu to which I am about to refer. Ultimately, whether or not there are contacts with the special adviser, it is not the special adviser who signs off the decision; it is the Minister.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The description I would use is glued at the hip. Coming to this place as an outsider, my observation is that special advisers are absolutely key to decision making. If our aim is genuinely to improve transparency, we will miss an important opportunity if we do not include special advisers.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I think that this is quite straightforward: if a Member cannot explain the purpose of their amendment, why did they table it in the first place? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would find that his amendments had greater support if their purpose was set out clearly for Members to see. Many Members have referred to the extra costs that might be involved, but surely they are nothing compared to the costs of poorly drafted legislation. As for the cost in trees, not a single extra tree would have to be felled if the House moved towards the 21st century and had all amendments and explanatory notes delivered to Members’ iPads so that they could be absolutely clear about what they are voting for. I see no excuse for not moving towards such a system, which would improve the quality of legislation. I hope that Members will support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

That sounds more like luck than anything else. If he did not know what he was voting for, there is every chance that afterwards he might have regretted it, so he is very lucky that has not happened.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very interesting to call a Division now to see how many Members arriving in the Chamber could tell what they were voting for?

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

Lobbying

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). I should start with a confession; I am married to a lobbyist. He is a consultant NHS psychiatrist and chair of the Westminster liaison committee for the Royal College of Psychiatrists and provides advice on mental health to all political parties. Having made that confession, I shall confess that I am also a lobbyist; I lobby shamelessly on behalf of my constituents in South Devon.

All of us would agree that lobbying is at the heart of our democracy and the way it works. It is a tragedy that lobbying has acquired a dirty raincoat image. I suggest that we should not throw the raincoat away; we should give the raincoat a wash. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that this is all about transparency in representation to decision-makers. But the word “transparency” has become devalued currency. We are talking about the kind of transparency that one sees on an ambulance window, allowing people to see out but not to see in.

We need to look at how transparency applies in our democracy today. At the heart of the matter is the question: who are the decision-makers in our democracy today? As a Back-Bench MP, I find that very many of the decisions made in Parliament take place in rooms to which we are not invited. That is important. Who influences the decisions in those rooms? Very often, in this day and age, it is election strategists. I have no objection to election strategists but if we are to have transparency in representation to decision-makers, we must have transparency in who election strategists, for all political parties, are also representing outside that very important role.

If an election strategist is also working as a paid lobbyist on behalf of big alcohol, big tobacco and other interests around the world, it is very important that people can see what those interests are. It is important that that extends to both Front Benches, and it would be greatly to the credit of Opposition Front Benchers if they accepted that they should also keep a diary of who meets them. This has to apply across the board to all those making decisions on our behalf in Parliament.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has returned to his place because I completely agree with him that there is no legislation in this House that could not be improved with pre-legislative scrutiny. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this important point. What would be the harm in bringing this to a Committee to allow not only Members of this House to make sensible recommendations for change, but people outside? We will have a better Bill if we have pre-legislative scrutiny. Let us not be afraid to allow people outside the House to see what we do in this place and who makes representations to us, and let us have a better democracy.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

The Government’s complacency on the subject of the missing 6.5 million is breathtaking, and we should see it in a wider context as well. At the same time as the size of the elected legislature is being reduced through the cutting of 50 MPs, the number of unelected peers is increasing by about 50 a year. Since 2010, 117 new peers have been created at a cost of £18 million a year. The amount that will be saved by the cutting of those 50 MPs is £13.6 million. We understand from No. 10 briefings—and the Leader of the House has confirmed today—that the creation of more peers will be announced shortly.

However, it is not just the cost that should worry us. The Government are becoming more powerful. We have more Government special advisers that at any time in our history. Moreover, these changes will reduce the size of the legislature while leaving the Executive untouched, thus making Governments more powerful at the expense of elected MPs representing their constituents. Accepting the Lords amendment would enable the reduction in the number of MPs to be delayed, which would have the added advantage of giving us time to consider the right balance between Executive and legislature.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very patient and has risen several times.

[Dr Wollaston]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned students. Does he think it reasonable that the MP who represents a student in, say, Bristol West represents more than 82,000 people, while just across the road in Bristol East the MP represents 13,000 fewer? It is not necessary to be a student of maths to realise that a vote there will carry far less weight. That cannot be right; it goes against all the basic Chartist principles that we would expect the right hon. Gentleman to support.

[Sadiq Khan]

I agree with the hon. Lady, as do the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission. She should join me in ensuring that those invisible citizens who should be on the register are put on the register. Let us not rush ahead with partisan boundary changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

Let me deal with that precise point at the moment I arrive at it. First, I wish to deal with my third point of substance, which is the one that was not made in the debate. It is brief but it is important. A reduction in the size of this House increases the percentage of the payroll vote and thereby strengthens the grip of the Executive on Parliament, without there being an acceptable counterweight.

That leads me to my final point, which relates to the wider coalition issues. Let me make it absolutely clear that I supported the formation of this Government and I remain committed to them. As a Liberal Democrat, I entered this coalition because I believed in 2010 that the country needed a stable Government to deal with the financial crisis that was before us. As a member of the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament, I had looked at many of the matters on the sovereign debt markets and was concerned, and I believe that the right decision was made.

However, when two very different parties come together to get agreement on an essential issue there has to be agreement on other areas. The red line issues—the ones we will not have at any cost or the ones we must have at any cost—are relatively straightforward to address, because we either agree them or we do not, and we are either there or we are not. All the other matters that are subject to negotiation, both individually, as policies, and, most importantly, collectively, as a slate, are much more difficult to deal with. The coalition agreement is not a pick-and-mix menu; it is an agreement. I agreed to the boundary changes—in many respects with a heavy heart—but I did so in the knowledge that the rest of that agreement acted as a counterweight. To my mind, that would occur mainly through Lords reform, which I judged would increase the check on the Executive and strengthen Parliament. For me, that was a fundamental point and I believe it is a fundamental point for all my colleagues.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there are many other ways in which we could reduce the size of the payroll vote in this House? That would have been perfectly possible to do by, for example, reducing the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries or Ministers. His argument is therefore surely not an acceptable one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

There is a bit of a difference between the two inner-city seats that the hon. Gentleman and I represent. Although there is some evidence to endorse his point, it does not explain the enormous disparity between the two seats in Sheffield.

Many of those who are excluded from the electoral register are precisely the people who form a huge proportion of my casework and I know that the situation will be the same for many Members who represent inner-city seats. More importantly, the combination of legislation means that their voice in Parliament will be reduced. If the Electoral Commission’s original concerns about the impact of the Bill came into being and were compounded by a process of redrawing boundaries based on the register as at December 2015, the gap would widen even more. If boundaries were redrawn based on an average electorate of 76,641, which was the basis for the Electoral Commission’s calculations, the actual population of Sheffield Central would be approaching 50% more than that of Sheffield, Hallam.

Some might argue that the Electoral Commission’s worst fears might no longer come true, particularly in the light of some of the concessions the Government have been forced to make. In the longer term that might be true, but crucially the next boundary review would be conducted at the low point of the registration cycle in December 2015. Let me make it clear that like those on my Front Bench I support the principle of equalisation. In so far as there is public interest in constitutional reform, that argument has enormous resonance with the public, but the people to whom I have spoken were shocked to learn that equalisation is based not on population but on the number of registered electors. The effect of the combined legislation will be not to reduce but to enhance inequity.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is simply not always the case? In Torbay, for example, those on one side of the road are represented by a Liberal Democrat colleague who represents 76,000 voters. On the other side of the road at the Brixham end of Torbay, which is in my constituency, there are just over 67,000 voters. One vote carries 11% more weight on the Brixham side of Torbay, and when we take the populations into account, the discrepancy is even higher. It does not always ring true that using population equalises matters because, in some cases, it would make things worse. It certainly would in my constituency, where the situation is already unfair.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not think that Sheffield is any different from many of our other large urban centres, and I think that the effect I have described in relation to Sheffield would apply to the vast majority of urban areas in this country. There might be some exceptions in Devon.

To respond to an earlier comment, my view is that we should move towards a system of genuinely equal constituencies based on boundaries drawn by population size, not by registered voter numbers, but that is clearly a debate for another time. Whether or not we go down that route, we need now to pause, to ensure that individual electoral registration does not further enhance inequity and does not further disempower our cities. If we do not pause, we risk creating a US-style democracy, with notorious under-registration, that excludes the disadvantaged and the disengaged and that focuses political parties and elections on the needs of the more privileged and in that way poisons our politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is right. That is not lost on the House or on the general public. The only harm that the Liberals will do today is to themselves. They confirm what has long been suspected—that the national interest and the constituency interest come a poor second to Liberal Democrat interest.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats have had to get off their high horse because they have sent it to be turned into horse burgers?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes a good and amusing point.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson]

The reviewing Chamber acts as a check and balance without the necessity of playing to the gallery. The contradictory nature of the two Houses of Parliament ensures that genuine revision of legislation takes place, and it is that essential difference between the two Houses that the Bill seeks to eradicate.

I oppose the principle of an elected second Chamber, but the details of the Bill are also wrong. Fifteen-year terms fly in the face of democracy. Even Robert Mugabe has not tried a term of office for that length of time. Fifteen years without any possibility of facing the electorate gives a mandate to that senator without any kind of accountability. The wealth of expertise that exists in the Lords will go, to be replaced by people who really wanted to be Members of this House.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

There are 79 Members in the other place who have expertise in engineering, medicine and health, and science and technology. Does my hon. Friend agree that all those specialties would be lost, despite the requirement for eight years or more experience?

[Gareth Johnson]

And there are many more, of course, who have expertise in government.

The Lords will end up as a dumping ground for failed party candidates and those who do not fancy facing the electorate more than once every one and a half decades. The Bill states that the Commons will remain supreme. That much we can legislate for, but we cannot legislate to control the amount of influence that the new Lords would have. A senator with a higher proportion of votes in a region will claim greater legitimacy than an MP in the same area. For centuries the Commons and the Lords have tended to work well together. A democratically elected Commons is complemented by an appointed and hereditary revising second Chamber, but the proposals in this Bill will set both Houses against each other. More than that, they will set senators against each other—those who are elected against those who are not. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker: this Bill does not just reform the House of Lords; it effectively abolishes it in all but name.

In conclusion, I feel bitterly disappointed that I shall be voting against my party—sick to the pit of my stomach, in fact—but I shall leave this Chamber with my head held high, able to look myself in the mirror. The House of Lords works. It has stood the test of time. We abolish it at our peril.

Business of the House

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

On the point about the debate on the adviser to the Prime Minister, the hon. Lady is now asking us to do what her Government consistently refused to do, which was to allow the Prime Minister’s adviser to initiate inquiries. She will have to listen to the response given by my ministerial colleague in the debate that I have just announced, which was selected by the Backbench Business Committee.

On the Barclays debacle, as the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make a statement, but it strikes me as a failure of the light-touch regime introduced by a previous Minister.

So far as the House of Lords is concerned, the Opposition seem to be in a total muddle. They say that they support the Bill but that they will oppose the programme motion, before they even know what it contains. I ask the hon. Lady, who I know supports reform, to listen to what her leader said in his first conference speech in 2010:

“This generation has a chance—and a huge responsibility—to change our politics. We must seize it and meet the challenge… we need to finally elect the House of Lords after talking about it for…a hundred years.”

That is what he said in 2010, yet yesterday the shadow Leader of the House of Lords said that

“it is not a priority”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2012; Vol. 738, c. 237.]

The only thing that is consistent is the sheer opportunism of the Labour party on this subject.

On the usual knockabout about the coalition from the hon. Lady, I would simply say that two parties are now working together in government more harmoniously than one party did in government for 13 years.

Finally, on fuel, I admire the cool performance of the Economic Secretary in the face of some very aggressive interviewing by Jeremy Paxman. The Opposition accuse the Government of a U-turn, but let us consider their position. First, they introduced a fuel duty escalator—[Interruption.] Secondly, they asked us not to go ahead with their tax rise. Thirdly, when we do not, they complain. The alphabet does not contain a letter describing that manoeuvre.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend please provide a debate on setting up an inquiry into the very serious allegations made against one of my predecessors, Raymond Mawby? These serious allegations, amounting to treason, need to be fully and fairly investigated, because he is not here to defend himself. It is in no one’s interest to have trial by media.

[Sir George Young]

I admire what my hon. Friend has just done in defending one of her predecessors—a man with whom I served in the House from 1974 to 1983. As she said, so far only one side of the story has been put into the public domain, and it is imperative that the other side also be put forward, in the interests of the friends and family of Ray Mawby. I would like to make the appropriate inquiries to see how we might get the full story into the public domain, so that we can find out exactly what happened to him in the years to which she referred.

Ministerial Statements

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Knight]

The complainant might indeed be being political, but if a complaint was made with no grounds, in fact I would expect Mr Speaker to block it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was suggesting that there would be a difficulty in the process, but I do not particularly think that there would. I have every confidence that the occupant of the Chair—whoever it was—would see that justice was done.

The Government made some issue of the fact that the Procedure Committee did not receive any formal evidence from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on this proposal. I am rather baffled by that comment, because the Procedure Committee’s report does not suggest that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has any role in the process, so it is not clear why the Government think that we should have received evidence from him.

The Government said that they do not accept the Committee’s recommendation that the penalty for a breach of House protocol would be a recommendation from the Standards and Privileges Committee that the Minister concerned should apologise to the House. Instead, the Government note that there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with Ministers refusing to apologise to the House when a breach occurs. However, that rather misses the point, which is that the Standards and Privileges Committee would have no need to use its powers if there was no problem to be dealt with. If a Minister had already apologised, there would be no need to go there.

It is perhaps also worth reminding those on the Treasury Bench that the Government have repeatedly expressed support for their own protocol and that the Government are saying that they agree with the majority of Members of this House that the House should be told first when there is an announcement of Government policy. It seems to me, therefore, that the serious leaks that occurred last week should also be deplored by those on the Treasury Bench. I hope that the Leader of the House, when he comes to address us, will add his voice to those that have already placed on record a number of concerns about the leaking of large parts of the autumn statement. Many Members wonder why the Chancellor has not apologised.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the discourtesy of leaking to the press, but does he agree that these leaks involve a discourtesy in that they might be given to some hon. Members before others, placing some Members at a disadvantage?

[Mr Knight]

I do indeed, and I believe that that happened last week. For example, the BBC television news in Humberside had the Chancellor’s announcement on the plan to reduce the tolls on the Humber bridge pretty much word for word and ran it 24 hours before the House was told. It seemed rather strange to me that a couple of hon. Members who happened to have seats near the Humber bridge were available on the bridge itself to do media interviews when the leak occurred.

If the Government do not believe what they say about Parliament being told first and want to leak or announce policies or decisions to the press first, they should come out in the open and say so and they should change their ministerial code.

I now turn to the motion before us. Although I think we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for bringing this matter before us today, I must say that I would have preferred it had he consulted the Procedure Committee before he settled on the wording of the motion. I understand that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, to whom I have spoken about this matter and who chairs the Standards and Privileges Committee, was also not consulted on the terms of the motion before it was tabled or the timing. That is unfortunate. I do not want to tell the right hon. Gentleman, who does his own job perfectly well without any intervention from me, what he might or might not want to do, but he might have wanted to take the matter to his Committee and to have shown it the scope of the draft motion before it was brought to the House.

It is a pity that neither of the two Committees that the House has asked to consider these matters was consulted by the signatories to the motion. That is important because we have not yet debated the Procedure Committee’s report in the House, but the motion addresses only some of the issues raised by the Committee in its report on ministerial statements and ignores others. It is a cherry-picking motion and its scope has been determined without any reference to those who have responsibility for looking into this matter, having been asked to do so by the House.

The motion ignores the Procedure Committee’s recommendations on urgent questions and written statements. For example, we believe there are some occasions on which written statements should be open to oral scrutiny. The motion is therefore unsatisfactory and its timing, coming as it does without that consultation having taken place, is unfortunate. I do believe that action on this issue is necessary, as Governments of both political persuasions have been prepared regularly to flout the ministerial code when it suits them by leaking news to the press. However, I also believe that the way this matter has been brought forward today is unfortunate. Rather like the leaks themselves, it is no way to do business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Syms]

We have to look at the situation realistically. When the Prime Minister goes to the EU to negotiate with other leaders, at the end of that negotiation he stands on a platform next to the Union Jack and the EU flag and announces what has been discussed, what we have agreed with and what we have disagreed with. He sets out how he has been batting for Britain. What we are now saying is that whereas Merkel, Sarkozy or any of the other leaders can put the best face on their negotiation, the British Prime Minister will not be able to do so because he will have to come back here to make a statement, which he does anyway.

[Dr Wollaston]

Clearly, in that instance, Members of this House hear the statement at the same time as members of the press. If leaks are going to take place, which my hon. Friend is justifying, should they also be to Members at the same time?

[Mr Syms]

We all watch the news. I suspect that the vast majority of us are addicts of the 24-hour news channels. I keep being criticised by my wife for switching from channel to channel watching what is on the news, on Bloomberg, on ITV and on Sky. We all watch what goes on. Other Government leaders can stand up and announce what they have negotiated, but we are saying to our Prime Minister, “You can’t do that. You’ve got to whiz back here and give a statement.”

Let me give another example. We have a eurozone crisis. The markets are moving faster than the Governments and the political leaders. What happens when there is a eurozone crisis at the end of business on a non-sitting Friday, and the Chancellor has to make a statement before the markets open on Monday, which is a sitting day? Does he sit in the Chamber till 3.30 pm before he sets out what the Government are going to do, or does he make a statement setting out the Government’s emergency plans before the markets open in Europe and in the UK? If we think it is more important for him to speak to the House, he shuts up and people get plastered in the markets.

The reality is that we want Ministers in whom we have confidence and who speak for the majority of the people in the House. They have to command a majority. The Chancellor would have to come here eventually to answer questions about why he had conducted business in a particular way, but modern markets and modern international negotiation sometimes mean that Ministers make statements in press conferences and for the TV, rather than in the House.

Business of the House

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he finds the present law unsatisfactory. It discriminates against women and against people who marry Roman Catholics. He has made it clear that he has written to the Heads of the Commonwealth to try to get agreement. I can only suggest to my hon. Friend that she awaits the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia and sees what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has to say on this matter at its conclusion.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the role and responsibilities of Parliamentary Private Secretaries? Is it appropriate in a modern democracy that Members of Parliament who are neither Ministers nor in the Cabinet should be forced to resign if they vote against the Government? Does not that restrict their ability to represent their constituents and disproportionately reduce the power of the House?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sorry that two Parliamentary Private Secretaries left the Government earlier this week. She will know that when somebody is invited to become a Parliamentary Private Secretary, there is an assumed commitment that they will support the Government in the Division Lobby. If anybody feels unhappy about that, they should not become a Parliamentary Private Secretary. If, having become a PPS, someone feels they cannot support the Government in the Division Lobby, they have to stand down. I think that is set out in the ministerial code and it is a convention that is widely understood on both sides of the House.