Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The lies can often lead to phobias and bigotry against different groups of people. For example, the onslaught on asylum seekers led to an increase in the number of assaults on them, and that level of bigotry also extends to other groups.

The confidence of the public will be restored only when an independent, regulated press complaints body with proper powers comes into being. The powers should include the power to call for remedies to put right the harm that has been done. For example, when someone has had their reputation tarnished because lies have been told about them, exemplary damages should be considered. More importantly, an equal amount of space and time should be given to the printing of a retraction as was given to the creation of the original story.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely, as is the whole House. Does she agree that there are few things in life more utterly scandalous and indefensible than, when the press foully traduce an individual and are proved to have lied, they print an apology on page 64 underneath the gardening tips? Should not the apology be of equal prominence?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

My hon. Friend has just taken my next sentence from me. I was going to say that if two front pages are given to a story that is a lie, two front pages should be given to the retraction.

We do not expect the media to be politically balanced; nor do I ask for that. What everyone in the House and the country wants is for the media to print the truth, not lies. We do not want to gag the media. We want them to carry out investigative journalism, and to expose wrongdoing. We want them to search and to quest for the truth, but we want them to print the truth as well. This is what the big debate has been about. Over the course of the years we have had examples such as the Watergate scandal, and the media have on many occasions been a force for good. They have held many people, corporations and Governments to account, and it is right that they should do so. No one here is suggesting that when we talk about regulation of the press, we are talking about preventing it from carrying out proper investigations. We are, however, concerned about the despicable and illegal means used to carry out some of the investigations, and about the printing of lies. Like many other Members, I have been following the debate for the past two weeks, and I am glad that there are now going to be investigations. I hope that the commissions will report very soon.

House of Lords Reform

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stuart Bell]

Yes, you did.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

As ever, my hon. Friend has been illuminating the House from a position of great wisdom and experience. When he talks about parties being split, however, does he not accept that the Labour party might be split on the detail, the minutiae and the sub-clauses of the Bill, but that there is absolutely no man, woman or child in the Labour party who is against the principle of House of Lords reform in some way, shape or form?

[Sir Stuart Bell]

I would have reached that part of my speech, if I had not been interrupted from the Labour Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. Of course we want reform of the House of Lords. The noble Lord Steel has proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. If it is a question of reforming the House of Lords, the proposals are already there. Why go to the expense when even the Deputy Prime Minister—he made an eloquent contribution today and the other day—cannot quantify the cost of a new House of Lords or Senate, as it will become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman and I obviously have different opinions on the definition of that legitimacy. There is a type of legitimacy that is very important—the legitimacy of being able to look people in the eye, having stood for election, and hold the mandate of being elected. Equally, there is an issue of accountability. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) were here, I am sure he would stand up and say that the most accountability and legitimacy he would have would be with Mrs Bone, because he has a particular one-to-one relationship. [Interruption.] Obviously, I should not speak about him when he is not here. I hold a level of legitimacy and authority with the constituents I represent—100,000 or so—and believe that that would be an unfair level of legitimacy, accountability and authority to bestow on the other place in its new and revised form. I think that that indirect accountability is probably the best way to achieve the balance between having an elected House and not threatening the rights and responsibility of Members in this House to represent their constituents. I think that a party list system would probably be the best way to achieve that. There are many arguments for and against it, and I look forward to the Joint Committee looking at that in more detail.

I want to discuss one other area in relation to which I feel that a 100% elected system would be best: the selection of bishops in the House of Lords. I am a Christian. I am quite overt about that and very proud of my Christian faith. I want to see more Christians and people from other faiths coming into Parliament, but I find it very difficult to defend a system under which we choose a certain group over-represented or to always have a seat in that Chamber. I buy into the liberal idea that there is a round table around which we all get to come together and make our voices heard, and, although I do not feel that that position is always held in this Chamber or in the other place, I believe that that second Chamber could be a place where people go with their own representational legitimacy to make their case, and to make it well, without relying on the fact that they are there simply because of who they are in their own organisations or through right of birth.

The proper way to get more people of faith into our institutions is to encourage more people of faith to stand and make their case for election.

[Stephen Pound]

I am extremely impressed, as I am sure the House is, by my hon. Friend’s speech. I do not claim to speak either ex cathedra or for the Roman Catholic Church, but I can confirm that it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church not to seek Catholic bishops in the House of Lords, because quite simply we believe in the sound Augustinian principle of the separation of Church and state. There should be good Catholics in the House of Lords, but not as bishops.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend speaks as a good Catholic.

In summary, we will need to resolve the issue of whether 80% or 100% of Members should be elected, and we will need to ensure that this Chamber is predominant in our discussions, while extending greater legitimacy to the other House so that its Members can look people in the eye and say that they have been elected and chosen to go there.

I believe that 100% elected is the best way as we choose to go forward as a House with the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend anticipates the remarks that I hope to make in a few moments.

Several weeks ago I was in Poland, where I was fortunate to meet the Speaker of the Polish Senate. That country saw its Senate abolished under the Communist totalitarian regime but, happily, had it democratically restored approximately two decades ago, and again it is a system that works very well.

My main point—I hope this answers my hon. Friend’s question— is that I do not look to the rest of the world to tell me the best way to construct our Parliament; I look to our proud British history. We have had Parliaments in these islands for the best part of 1,000 years, and I am struck by the coincidence that 2015 will be the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, which is probably one of those points that set us off on our constitutional journey.

Since then, we have had the civil war, which in a greater way established the sovereignty of this Parliament, the Bill of Rights, the Reform Acts starting in 1832, the Parliament Act exactly a century ago, universal suffrage for women following the first world war and the Parliament Act 1949.

We are an evolving constitution, and we are a country that to its credit has proudly developed the principles of liberty and participative democracy over the best part of many centuries, but, as we are at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, an evolving constitution to my mind says that the only legitimate second Chamber for this Parliament is a wholly elected second Chamber, because 100% is the most legitimate and best way forward.

I do, however, want to make a couple of remarks about the draft Bill. I am pleased to note that it is a draft Bill, and I congratulate the Government on that and on the Joint Committee, because it is important that we feed in as many views as possible to what is an important constitutional change.

Time does not allow me to elaborate too much on the pros and cons of 15-year terms, but I suggest, first, to the Government that there should be a power of recall over any future elected Member of the House of Lords. I am sure that the vast majority of them will diligently carry out their duties on behalf of this Parliament and the country.

[Stephen Pound]

Just as Bagehot said that

“the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it,”

may I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the House of Lords record on those occasions recently when recalcitrant peers have been identified as breaching the rules? He will suddenly see that the wagons circle around them and, far from a power of exclusion, there is a power of holding tight to the ermined bosom. That comes across loud and clear.

[Henry Smith]

I wish I had the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, based on that final comment. There are some infamous examples of noble Lords who have behaved in a less than noble way, but most Members of the other place do a very diligent job, and I am sure that future Members, under whatever system, will do so as well. It is important, however, that we have a mechanism like that in local authorities, whereby, if somebody does not participate for six months, excepting ill health or some other legitimate reason, there is a power of recall or replacement for that individual.

My second remark is about an 80% versus a 100% elected second Chamber. I think that 300 Members is about the right number for a second Chamber, but my concern is that if only 80 Members are elected at the beginning of every Parliament, that will not be terribly representative of the smaller regional constituencies proposed in the draft Bill. Having 100% election and 100 Members elected at the start of every Parliament would ensure that there was far greater representation in the other place. It would also mean that we had a second Chamber that was not dominated by any one party, not only because of the system of single transferable votes but because of its term stretching over the course of three Parliaments.

With regret at not having more time to elaborate on my arguments, I very much support the Bill and look forward to Members’ contributions making it even better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

In years to come, when the proud constituency of Camborne and Redruth is mentioned, one speech will spring to the memory: the glorious suggestion of the Saga Chamber or the pensioners’ Parliament, where the old, the tired and the formerly famous can shuffle off to some distant spot where they will do no harm; where the dust will slowly settle, the clocks gently unwind and the ermine capes float through the detritus of torn Order Papers and House of Lords Hansard; where, like in the dying days of the court of Emperor Haile Selassie, no wages are paid; and where, like in the great zoos of Addis Ababa, giant pachyderms sink to their knees and surrender to starvation. There, in the House of Lords, a few people with their last breath will say, “Well, at least we weren’t out there causing trouble. We had been put somewhere safe. And who have we got to thank for it? Let us look to Camborne and Redruth.”

I suggest that there are other, better ways. I am not entirely sure that we suffer from a democratic deficit; I think we suffer from a flipping democratic surfeit. I, as an honest burgher of a sophisticated west London borough—Ealing, obviously—am represented by three first-class councillors; an MP of certain qualities, that is to say myself; a member of the Greater London authority; Members of the European Parliament; and Tony Blair, who certainly represents me in some forum somewhere, because he represents us all all the time. Do I really want somebody to be trailing his escutcheon through my constituency every few years, touting for votes, presumably on vellum and hand-engraved? There would be nothing so vulgar as an election, but I am sure that there would be some process, which would no doubt be worked out in North East Somerset. Do we really want that? I think that we probably have too much democracy.

There have been a few occasions on which people have sat down and thought about whether they actually needed a second chamber. One thinks obviously of the great Philadelphia convention, but some of us also think of the 1937 constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Those great legislators sat down and said, “Do we need a second chamber?” They came to the conclusion that, by and large, it was a fairly good idea to have one. I will not ascribe any ignoble motives to that, but it might have been a form of care in the community. To this day, Ireland has the vocational panels. The original idea was that there would be vocational panels to represent all aspects of modern Irish life. That is why people such as Oliver St John Gogarty, in between being thrown in the Liffey, and W. B. Yeats were Members of the Seanad Eireann. To this day, Ireland has the cultural and educational panel, the agricultural panel, the labour panel, the industrial and commercial panel, the administrative panel, and, of course, the national university of Ireland panel and the university of Dublin panel. I miss people such as A. P. Herbert who were elected to this place from the universities. Why does the university of West London not elect someone? If it cannot elect them to here, let it be to the other place.

Let us ask ourselves the most simple, basic, obvious question: is it really true that the only way in which experts can bring their light to bear is in the upper place? Did the noble Lord Ara Darzi achieve more as one of the finest and most famous surgeons in Europe than as a Member of the House of Lords? Look at the single greatest social change of the 20th century. The person behind that—Beveridge—was not in the House of Lords. He did not have to sit as a Member of the upper House to come up with the extraordinary idea of the national health service. The upper House is not the sole repository of wisdom, and it is not the only place where the great, the good, the bright and the brilliant can go and shine. There are so many other ways.

So do we need the House of Lords? I am not entirely sure, in all honesty, that we do, but as with so many things in this country, let us leave well alone. It is some glorious, great Gormenghast of a building that no one would ever build nowadays, but around which accretions, crenellations, towers and ramparts have emerged over the years. Hardly anybody knows what the original purpose was, but it does little harm, it is attractive, and on occasion it can actually add to the limited pool of intelligence and expertise that exists in this place.

I want to say that I have no ambitions whatever.

[Mark Durkan]

For now.

[Stephen Pound]

At least not this week, no. The difficulty, obviously, would be what level of expertise I would bring to the House of Lords. However, I have to say that I am instinctively opposed to the idea of a replicate second Chamber. We cannot have a dual mandate and have the same level of accountability in two places at once. Man cannot serve two masters; Parliament cannot have two masters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members who will serve on the Joint Committee for listening to the contributions of other Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who I believe have listened to every contribution.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), I did have one constituent—a gentleman from Kelsale—bring up the issue of Lords reform when I was canvassing in the general election. As I told him then, although I had not had a thought about it and did not feel particularly strongly about it, I would listen to the debate—and that is what I am doing now and for the future.

I agree with several things in the Bill. If we are to reform the House of Lords, for example, I agree with capping the number. I agree with the idea of its Members not being for life, and I agree with the idea of the transition. I quite like option 1. My favourite is the option to move to a smaller Chamber straight away, and I firmly rule out option 2 in favour of aspects of option 3.

As my hon. Friends have already said, it seems peculiar to say that there is accountability when people are not re-elected. There is, however, an opportunity to include recall powers, perhaps if Members do not show up. That happens in councils: if people do not show up for a certain period of time, they are automatically disqualified.

I welcome the idea of having ministerial Members, but will the Minister clarify whether these would be voting Members? Otherwise, there is nothing in the draft Bill to stop the Government of the day packing the upper House with a huge number of Ministers who could then vote.

I am not so sure of the need for Lords Spiritual. As others have suggested, there could be a role for a chaplain and it would be possible for people to speak as non-voting Members. As for having appointed Members, although I respect people’s expertise, there is as much of it in this House as in the upper House. So-called experts could be called as witnesses, although there is a risk of Buggins’s turn. A large number of ex officio appointments seem to be made when people retire from certain roles. That is wrong. Today, the Secretary of State for Defence has ruled that out for elements of our military forces.

As for where I strongly disagree, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), I believe that having the single transferable vote is wrong in this context. I would go further and suggest to the Minister that if we are having the elections on the same date, why bother having two separate votes? Having two voting systems on one day is completely unnecessary. We could use the proportion of the national vote—or the vote within a region, if regions are insisted on—to determine the election of Members to the upper House.

On the issue of whether we need regions or electoral districts, I strongly support other Members’ views on how, frankly, we do not want people floating around our constituencies, especially when they can say that they are also the representative in Westminster. I am not suggesting that our electorate is not intelligent enough to know the difference, but—how can I put it?—one election leaflet after another can sometimes be put across in a certain way. I will not go any further; I think hon. Members know what I mean.

[Stephen Pound]

Printed in yellow!

[Dr Coffey]

I could not possibly comment on that.

Let me move on to deal with the powers. I made this point when the Deputy Prime Minister originally raised the issue. I disagree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), as I think we should be careful before we say definitively what the powers are going to be. I sympathise with hon. Members who are worried that giving legitimacy to the House of Lords by making it elected will lead its Members automatically to accept the idea that that is their lot in life so they will not look for any more. The European Parliament used to be appointed, then it became elected and over time it has gradually grabbed more and more powers. Indeed, it has an insatiable desire for more power, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned earlier. During this Parliament, we have seen the Welsh Assembly gaining more power and the Scottish Parliament demanding more power.

People will be elected for 15 years on the basis of a common manifesto. As I may learn, perhaps to my downfall in future, manifestos change every five years. If someone were elected for one term of Parliament, they might not feel bound to support the Government later on in their time. That said, Members elected for 15 years will at least be able to say to the Whips, “This is what I was elected on; this is my credibility; I will vote as I choose.” On that note, I support further discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The Secretary of State and I have been very clear. We said we would return to this after the election of the new Assembly, which has now happened. The right hon. Gentleman might not be aware of the commission on a UK Bill of Rights, and the Lord Chancellor has written to the First Minister asking for two people from Northern Ireland to advise on the implications for Northern Ireland. The Executive need to initiate a parallel process to come to some consensus on what specific rights that recognise Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances might look like.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

When members of the United States Congress asked the same question, perhaps not as elegantly as it was phrased by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Prime Minister replied in a letter that he stood “ready to facilitate agreement”. Will the Minister tell me what steps he and the Secretary of State have taken in the past six months specifically to facilitate this agreement?

[Mr Swire]

We have talked to a number of people, not least the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and we are currently advertising for replacements. The Secretary of State and I have been quite frank and have said that we want to return to the issue after the election and to move forward on it, which the hon. Gentleman’s party, I point out gently to him, did not do for 12 years.

Big Society

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), his party and his Government to the big society, which is something that we on this side of the House have been involved in since birth. It was what brought many of us into politics. Reference has been made by Members on both sides to Burke, Paine and Hobbes as the people who invented the big society, but it goes back a long way beyond them. It goes back to the time when man was a hunter-gatherer on the plains, when co-operation, camaraderie and esprit de corps mattered because people’s lives depended on them. This was reflected in all the great religions. Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs all make reference to the concept. They all declare that there is such a thing as society, that the worship of mammon works against society, that we are our brother’s keeper, and that we should do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves.

The Prime Minister had a Damascene conversion five years ago, and I welcome that if it was a true conversion. If, however, it was about countering the Tory dictum that there is no such thing society, about domesticating the rabid right of his party for the purpose of electoral gain, or about airbrushing his party’s past, it will not wash. The Conservatives’ philosophy in the 1980s was that greed was good, that unemployment was “a price worth paying”, and that people should get on their bikes when they became unemployed. Many people on this side of the House, and in the community and voluntary sector, find it hard to believe that they honestly believe in the big society.

We remember the Conservatives’ record of voting against measures to promote unity, cohesion, equality and inclusion. Many of them might have changed their position over the past 10 years. Let us take the issue of gay rights. Where did the Conservatives stand on that, 10 or 15 years ago? I do not think that there are any Conservative Members here tonight who voted against that measure; those here now are mainly new Members. Where were the Conservatives on the issue of the minimum wage? Where were they on the issue of help for the most persecuted and the poorest in society? The Conservatives coined the term “broken society”. We remember Lilley’s list, and his singing and vilifying single mothers. We remember the damage done to mining, to the steel industry and to inner city communities. We remember hooray Henrys awash with money and champagne stepping over the homeless in the west end. That is the historical perspective.

I shall turn now to the present big society. The Minister’s Department has made a number of big mistakes in introducing the concept of the big society. The first was the terminology that it used. The term “big society” does not resonate with the person on the street. People do not live in a society; they live in a community. Perhaps the Conservatives used the term “big society” because it had some resonance with the term “broken society”. Perhaps they thought that the big society could heal the broken society. It sounds so simple and easy, but it is so trite.

The Department’s second mistake involves the need to apologise for past actions and show a little contrition. It was the Conservatives who broke society in the 1980s. It was they who increased inequality and gave the green light to greed. It was they who denied the very existence of society. I shall give the House an example. The story from the holy book of the Good Samaritan was perverted when Mrs Thatcher said that it was not about being good but about being rich. She suggested that if the Good Samaritan had not had the money to pay the innkeeper, the poor man would have died. That totally misses the point.

The Government’s third mistake was to party politicise this agenda without even having the support of their own Back Benchers. Where are their big beasts? I do not want to disparage anyone sitting on the Government Benches tonight, but they are all newcomers. Where are the big beasts? Many of them do not support this agenda.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

They are having several suppers.

[Chris Ruane]

Indeed—[Interruption.] Ah, I see a big beast there.

[Stephen Pound]

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is more beast than big.

[Chris Ruane]

He is indeed.

The Government are presenting the big society as a simple solution to a highly complex issue. There are big issues out there around which we can build consensus. It can be built around defence, for example, or around Northern Ireland or Iraq. Those issues can be depoliticised. Another example is pensions. We all came together over pensions, except that the consensus was broken by the Conservatives just before the election when they tried to make party political points on the matter. There was also consensus on the constitution in Scotland, when we had the convention.

That is how this important issue should have been approached. It is probably the biggest issue that western society will face this century. The fact is that, across the western world, we are atomised and alienated. There are many theories to explain that. They have been put forward in cogent arguments with statistics to back them up. Oliver James, in his book “Affluenza”, traces the cause of the problem to advertising and the promotion of an ideal that we can never attain. When we get on to the treadmill of trying to attain it, we lose our sense of direction; we lose contact with our families and communities as everything becomes about ourselves.

Robert Putnam’s fantastic book, “Bowling Alone”, identifies television as one of the biggest reasons for the problem. He found that an individual today spends more time in front of his TV than he spends at work. That has consequences for the amount of time he can allocate to his community, to his family and to society. Wilkinson and Pickett’s book traces the causes of the present situation back to inequality, which increased rapidly in the 1980s. Are we going to be able to get on top of the issues of advertising, TV and inequality without coming together? The Government think that they have come up with a great idea, but we have known about it for thousands of years. They have party politicised it.

The Government’s fourth mistake was to introduce this idea at the wrong time, when they knew that they were going to make cuts. Some of those cuts are necessary, but many of them are ideological. The budget for the voluntary sector last year was £36 billion, of which £6 billion came from local authorities alone. Labour doubled the amount going to the voluntary sector over 13 years. If the present Government are going to cut that budget and make voluntary sector workers unemployed, they are not going to win the argument with the Churches, with the trade unions, with the community and voluntary sector or with the Labour party. They need to build consensus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and a particular delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), who counts my mother, father and brother among his constituents. They routinely tell me what an excellent job he is doing as their Member of Parliament.

[Stephen Pound]

Get on with it.

[Richard Fuller]

I shall, indeed.

It has been interesting to hear people’s different perspectives on what the big society means, so at least we know that the big society is something. We might not agree on our perceptions of it, but I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) in being quite comfortable with that difference of approach. For me, however, the point of the big society at this moment is about building institutions—other than state bureaucracies—that can deliver effectively the social goods and services that we all desire.

The bureaucracy was, as we have heard, always only one model, not the only model, for the provision of social goods and services, but over the years it has come to dominate the space in social goods provision. In so dominating that space, it has created other organisations that are less sustainable and resilient because of their dependence for their continuation on state funding.

Under the previous Government, new forms of charitable organisations evolved, and in fairness institutional forms will evolve over time. It takes time to create institutions; we have only to look at the construction of different forms within the private sector and other aspects of organisational theory.

It is also important to recognise the imbalance between bureaucracies on the one hand and charities, social enterprises and so on, on the other. Over the past 10 years, charities have in many ways been co-opted by the Government. If we look at the earned income of charities in 2000, we see that 40% came from statutory Government sources. Within just seven years, that percentage had risen to 52%. How does that help the independence of those institutions? How does it help to create resilience within them?

Not all charities are the same, however. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) heralded the women’s institute as the paragon of a big society organisation, but as Government Members know, women’s institutes do not claim Government money at all. Smaller charities have a far greater reliance than larger charities on individual donations: 64% of the income of very small charities comes from voluntary donations and private sources, and only 5% comes from statutory sources. For the large charities, those that are pretty good at cosying up to the Government, 34% comes from individual sources, and 38% comes from Government sources.

That mirroring of the state can also be seen in senior executive pay. On many occasions in the House, we have heard people talk about the growth in senior executive pay in local and national Government, and, as we look to the big society, people will have questions about whether the chief executive officer of Barnardo’s should be paid £166,000 a year, whether the chief executive of Action for Children should be paid £130,000 and whether we should really allow the chief executive of World Vision to sneak in at £99,994 a year without pointing to it. These are areas where we have to say that we need change. Do we see these social organisations as institutions in their own right or just as agents of the Government? If it is the former, we need to enhance their institutional strength.

I have some suggestions, many of which are already emanating from our Government. It is sometimes argued that giving people a tax deduction for their charitable donation will have the same result as gift aid, but I think we should change the system. People will respond more positively if they know they are going to get a tax deduction for their charitable donation. We do it for venture capital trust contributions and for the enterprise investment scheme, so why cannot we change the system to do it for charitable donations too? We need to look at ways of simplifying the rules and regulations. In particular, can we ease the rules on mergers and acquisitions between charities so that they can be done more effectively? Looking at the big society bank, can we ensure that we limit its scope to focus on those who are most important for society as a whole?

Most importantly, can we use this opportunity to create centres of excellence for non-profit bidding expertise? ConsortiCo in my constituency has brought together 35 charities to help them to bid for local government contracts. That is important, because many charities find it hard to access Government contracts. These organisations will become the platforms for outcome-based financing in future, and we need local centres of excellence to appear with their local government authorities in order to gain the experience of writing contracts that can be used for outcome-based financing. Fundamentally, the fight between charities and bureaucracies is not fair because bureaucracies hold all the cards. If we do not give charities the strengths to compete effectively with bureaucracies, we will not achieve the big society at this time.

It is a challenge for Conservative Members to implement the changes of the big society in this period of office, and it will govern and colour the context of our time. For Labour Members, however, the challenges are even more significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, they have to decide whether they want to continue to move forward with the reform agents in social enterprises and charities or to remain as guardians of the status quo.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I am grateful to have been brought into this seminar, as it has been called, on the big society and what it means. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was keen to get involved earlier when there were endless discussions about what Baroness Thatcher said and did not say; I know that he has quite positive views about that. I am going to have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who so brilliantly introduced the debate and got it off the stocks. He said that we would be talking about the post-bureaucratic age—well, I, for one, do not understand the post-bureaucratic age. I have learned from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) about episodic volunteering, which I think must be a psychological disease.

I will deal with one or two facts about my constituency and what we are trying to achieve in making the big society play out a bit further, particularly in terms of regeneration. I also have a suggestion to top some of the practical suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford about what may help in increasing volunteerism.

We are all agreed, across the patch, that there is nothing new about the basis of the big society. As Members of Parliament, whether new or old, we all have a great deal of admiration for the voluntary groups that we meet, the numerous people we see volunteering, and their involvement in the committees that they sit on. I have often thought that one of the great defences of this country is that if Parliament fails and we get a dictator, no dictator would ever be able to cope with the quantity of committees and voluntary groups and control them across the country. Even getting on to the agenda of some voluntary groups would be difficult for any dictator. They stand there as a bulwark against future takeovers of this country, and they do a brilliant job.

I want to mention a couple of examples from my constituency. On Friday, I went to St John’s church, which is a redundant 18th-century church in the middle of Lancaster—a beautiful building that I knew nothing about, and to which I had been invited. Mary Halton, a neighbour of the church, singlehandedly created the Friends of St John’s and singlehandedly checks to ensure that the clock is working every day. She is not religious, but she lives near the church and values it. She opens it to other groups and is working actively with what was the Redundant Churches Fund to get things moving. She has not been compelled by the Government or asked by the council; she did it herself. We can all recognise such people in our constituencies and what they have done.

The Opposition have rightly asked what is new about the big society. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Margot James) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) that all that is new is the recognition that there needs to be a rebalancing between the state, community and the individual. I am not talking just about the past 13 years and I am not going into the history of the Labour party, although I have learned from this debate or seminar that the left is still alive and kicking in the Labour party. That a Labour Member can stand up and say, “We on the left,” has taught me something valuable: we now have a real ideology to play with. Congratulations should probably go to the new leader of the Labour party for allowing that to function; it has not been allowed in the past 13 years.

My party agrees that the Government clearly play a valuable role and we do not underestimate that. However, individuals and communities feel that over the past 40 or 50 years, whichever party has been in power, the state has got bigger and bigger and has squeezed them out. I think that there is some truth in that.

[Stephen Pound]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting, even for a moment, that ideology plays any part in the modern Labour party? I ask him to weigh his words with great care before making such assumptions or—dare I say it—accusations.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thought that I was being positive. I take the hon. Gentleman’s strictures and accept that ideology does not play a part in the whole Labour party. I was saying that I am pleased that it now seems to play a part in part of the Labour party, and I regard that as novel.

I will give an example of what I was saying about the state. All that we have heard about from the Opposition is cuts, cuts and cuts. I hope that Opposition Members who criticise the Government will put the same criticisms to the Labour council leaders who are responsible for the balance of the present budgets. I remember from London politics in the 1990s, when apparently we had all the money, the massive amount of regeneration money that was poured into the east end. As a councillor in Hackney and as a member of the Greater London authority, I saw endless attempts to deal with problem estates when there was real money. Usually, that meant that outsiders came to the estates and that consultants were appointed. The Government passed the money to the development agency, which passed it to the council, which appointed administrators, who went in and sorted out what had to be done. I am not saying that no good was done, and there was certainly a lot of good capital work. I am talking in particular about the social regeneration schemes.

In particular, I remember one social regeneration scheme on a problem estate because it was examined by academics at East London university. It had the laudable aim of training the youth of the estate to use computers so that they could get better jobs. It took three to four years, the outsiders came in, the hardware was brought—it is probably still at the back of the estate community offices somewhere under lock and key—and the money was spent. The council ticked off the scheme as having done a good job. The development agency ticked it off as a good job with everything done. The Government who had spent the money—I think it was Department for Communities and Local Government money—ticked it off. Academics then chose it at random as a scheme to look at. When they went through the statistics of what had been done, the only conclusion they could come to was that either there were twice as many young people on the estate as the census said, or every young person on the estate had been trained twice on the same computers. They could never reconcile the figures.

To me, the big society is about the message that we missed in the ’50s and ’60s with the great slum clearances and again in the ’80s and ’90s with regeneration. That is the fact that however bad an area seems from the outside, it still possesses something of the big society and there is some community there, however bare it is. We have to work with that community, not introduce something from outside on top of it. We as a Government have to learn that lesson.

Labour Members say, “You can’t do this now, because times are bad”. I would put it the other way around. We want to be in such a position that when times are good, we have the structure on the ground to avoid the same mistakes. That is the purpose of the big society, and it is why it more important now than ever before that community organisers train volunteers.

The big society can be described as plain common sense—shall I say Lancashire common sense?—or localism, or whatever. I have tried to think of an alternative term to “big society”, but I cannot, so I will go with it, because it means the restoration of the balance between communities and individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

This debate is ideological. It was a Labour Cabinet Minister who said that the man in Whitehall really does know best. What we are talking about here—it is one of the reasons the Liberal Democrats are such an important part of the coalition; it is one of the biggest areas where we agree—is the philosophical split between those of us in the coalition who believe that the state is built bottom up, and our socialist friends who think that the state is created top down.

If we go back to the beginnings of society—man in a state of nature—we see that there is no government, but there is society. Man is a political animal. There is society in our earliest history and forms. Government comes later. The problem with government is that, when it comes, it binds. Let us recall the image of Gulliver when he is bound down by the Lilliputians. Thousands of little people have crawled all over him and tied his hair to the beach. They have put ropes over him so he is stuck—he is tied down. That is what we saw in 13 years of socialist Government. The view was that, if it was not done by the state, it was bad.

We have heard a great array of examples from my right hon. and hon. Friends of what that means: the insurance policies for referees; and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) needing £2 million of insurance. We have heard about the CRB checks. Bell ringers in my constituency are worried about having any children come to ring bells. Although large numbers of them ring together, they are frightened that the big state may not approve and may not say yes. We have data protection. I know that fellow rotarians are here in the House this evening. My own rotary club, Midsomer Norton and Radstock, takes old people shopping—a good thing to do, one would have thought. Members of the rotary club go around to local churches and ask, “Are there any elderly people who might need a hand?” What is the response? It is, “We are not allowed to give you the names of the old and the lonely because of data protection, because the man in Whitehall, who knows best, is fearful that you have evil intent and he will not allow that to happen.” That is why the big society is so important.

If we believe that society is built by individuals, their families, through communities, they are the ones who should make the decisions, raise the money and spend it according to the needs of their communities. One of the great cankers of socialism was that it took over the funding as well. Then we get into the argument about cuts, which is the great confusion in relation to the big society. It is a bad idea for charities to receive most of their funding from Her Majesty's Government because, as soon as they do, they become agents of the state and lose their independent action. They become subject to the rules, regulations and disbursement requirements that are set upon them by Governments. All that must be swept away. The Minister must cut Gulliver free. Gulliver’s hair must be released. He must be unbound. He must be able to stand up and stride forth.

[Stephen Pound]

As ever, the House is so much in the hon. Gentleman's debt as we move from the noble savage to “Prometheus Unbound”, spanning as we do Somerset rotary clubs. The logic of his comments would appear to be, and I speak as a proud member of Greenford rotary club, that we should, for example, get rid of the Charity Commission, because surely the dead hand of the state would apply just as much to that commission. Is he suggesting that it be cast into the dustbin of history?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman and fellow rotarian makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will consider thorough reform of the Charity Commission—set the people free!

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We made it clear that a bid has been made by the Justice Minister, whom I met on Monday and talked to this morning on the phone. We are raising this at the highest level of government and we are determined to stand by Northern Ireland and do the right thing.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It would be churlish of me to let this occasion pass without congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of State, on his elevation to the Privy Council, and I do so with pleasure.

It would be negligent of me—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there is real pressure on time, so let us get on with the question.

[Stephen Pound]

It would be negligent of me, Mr Speaker, not to remind the Secretary of State that the request for additional funding has been with the Treasury since last year—for months. The signal that we send to dissident terrorists is the most important thing here. Will the Secretary of State fight for Ulster, fight against the dissidents and fight with the Treasury to get this money, which the PSNI needs now?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations to my right hon. Friend. He is not quite right about the request—[Interruption.] No, he is not right to say “months”. The Minister of Justice has negotiated within the Executive and got a significant increase from his fellow Ministers, which we welcome. Having resolved where he stood with the Executive, he then wrote to me with a request calling on the reserve. That letter came to me in January.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Stanley]

There is an important point on the status of MPs, to which I shall come later. If they were self-employed, they would determine their own expenses scheme. They emphatically are not doing so.

The second point is that in its expenses scheme, IPSA produced a schedule of what it described as “fundamental principles”. An important fundamental principle is fundamental principle 2. It reads:

“Members of Parliament have the right to be reimbursed for unavoidable costs where they are incurred wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties, but not otherwise.”

It is an illustration of the sad and regrettable fact that the IPSA board members have not adequately informed themselves about what is involved in the work of an MP that that principle, which IPSA says is fundamental, has not been complied with in a number of cases. I want to explain one such case.

As all of us know, what are deemed to be outer London Members—which includes a huge swathe representing constituencies in the home counties—regularly make day visits to their constituencies wholly for parliamentary purposes, such as to attend a school or a meeting with their health authority, but none of the travel costs for such trips are reimbursable under the IPSA expenses scheme unless the Member goes to his or her constituency office, which might be wholly irrelevant to the purpose of the journey. That is one illustration of IPSA failing to comply with what it describes as a fundamental principle, and I have no doubt that other Members can think of further situations when they have incurred expenses

“wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties”

that have not been reimbursed.

My third point is about a term with which we are all very familiar: maladministration. In the Westminster Hall debate initiated by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), countless examples of maladministration by IPSA were given. It is very regrettable that in putting together the legislation that is the basis for IPSA, the previous Government failed to apply to IPSA as a statutory quango the same right of redress as applies in respect of a host of similar bodies—namely, the right for an individual to make a complaint of maladministration, in this case to the parliamentary ombudsman. It is equally regrettable that the current Government have thus far failed to address that.

I submitted a written parliamentary question on that point to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, which was answered this week:

“The remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Parliamentary Ombudsman) is updated annually. As part of this exercise, consideration is given to whether bodies established in year should be brought within the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s remit.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 560W.]

The parliamentary ombudsman’s remit is under constant examination, and I believe IPSA should forthwith be brought within its remit so that Members of Parliament—and possibly others, such as Members’ staff—can make a complaint of maladministration against IPSA to the parliamentary ombudsman.

My fourth point is that in any properly functioning democracy it is, of course, essential that Ministers and Members of Parliament are not in any way above the law, but equally in any properly functioning democracy Members of Parliament should have the same rights in law as are available to other individuals who are engaged in their occupational work. Under IPSA, however, Members of Parliament are uniquely disadvantaged in law. IPSA is effectively performing the functions of the employer: in any walk of life it is the employer who determines what expenses can be claimed for, how they should be claimed for and so forth, and those are exactly IPSA’s functions. In any other walk of life, the employee—the person working—would be able to go to an employment tribunal. Members are not self-employed; we have employed status for tax purposes. IPSA is the employer in that it determines the expenses framework, but Members are, I believe, the only occupational group in this country who have employed status but no right of recourse to an employment tribunal. That should change, and we should have the same rights as every other occupation group, solely, I stress, in relation to IPSA and the performance of its expenses function and emphatically not—I repeat, not—in relation to the electorate.

My fifth and final point is about parliamentary privilege. Of the privileges that we have, one of the most important for the benefit of our constituents is the fundamental privilege of freedom from obstruction in the performance of our parliamentary duties. In our debates about IPSA, Member after Member has referred to the way in which they as Members, or their staff assisting them, have been obstructed by IPSA—by its bureaucratic processes, failure to answer the telephone and the 1,001 things to which Members have referred—in terms of the severe loss of time while dealing with the authority and its procedures. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, in his House magazine article on 8 November, said of IPSA:

“It actively obstructs Members in their efforts to represent the people who elect them,”

and he was absolutely correct.

I am in no doubt that this issue—the relationship between IPSA and parliamentary privilege—should be brought before the Standards and Privileges Committee. As the House knows, under current procedures, which in my view are outdated and urgently need to be reformed, the only way in which an individual Member can put a complaint about a breach of privilege in front of that Committee is by means of making a precedence motion application to Mr Speaker. Most right hon. and hon. Members know that I have made such an application because there is no doubt whatever in my mind that many Members are being materially obstructed in the performance of their parliamentary duties by IPSA, but my application was, sadly, unsuccessful.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will not be deterred by the fate of my application; I hope that other Members will consider making an application to Mr Speaker; and I very much hope that their persuasions in relation to Mr Speaker on this issue are superior to my own.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In view of the tragic news from Zurich and the sounds of celebration being carried on the chill eastward winds from Russia, has any approach been made to you, Sir, or to your office to disseminate that sad information throughout the Palace?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The country is suffering sub-zero temperatures, towns and villages are being cut off, some people are isolated, airports are being closed, and I was wondering what piece of news could depress me more. I was wondering also which Member could bring that news to me, and I am not surprised that it is Mr Pound.

I am sure the whole House wishes Russia well in holding the World cup and to send its thanks and gratitude to the presentation team of the United Kingdom, with His Royal Highness Prince William, the Prime Minister, David Beckham and others. They did as best as they possibly could, and we are all somewhat depressed that football is not yet coming home, but we look forward to the day when it does. This is clearly not a point of order for the House, though.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I apologise for not having touched on it. He is entirely right to say that the work of the likes of Madison and Hamilton was crucial, but that there was also a great debate. They did not try to rush their proposal through.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

We are certainly being educated here tonight. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Philadelphia convention was conducted on the basis of a tabula rasa, and that those people were starting from a base point? What we see here before us today is a foul, expedient hotch-potch of crisis and chaos spatchcocked together to try to allow the coalition to limp on into the future. To compare it to the great towering genius of Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison is to do them a disservice and to give the present coalition Government rather too much credit.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. When I look at those on the Government Front Bench, however, I see some nuggets of hope and principle, and I am sure they will listen carefully to the points that we are making.

The Minister might be interested to know that, when the Americans were considering term lengths for their parliamentarians and for the presidency, they originally considered a three-year term for the House of Representatives and a seven-year term for the presidency and the Senate. Before the Minister gets too excited about the idea of a seven-year term, however, I should tell him that they also considered making it for one term only. Indeed, they argued that the Executive branch should not sully itself by seeking re-election. I suspect that he would be less keen on that principle. Slowly, however, over that summer, they moved towards a settled will among the 13 colonies. In fact, I should say 12 colonies because, as hon. Members will know, Rhode Island did not attend any part of the convention. They settled on a system of two-year terms for the House of Representatives, six-year terms for the Senate and four-year terms for the presidency. However, the elections for the United States Senate have always been staggered—a point that I regret the Government have not taken on board—so that each voter in every state has the opportunity to cast their verdict on the Senate no more than four years apart. That point seems to have passed by some of those on the Government Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

The bulk of the evidence that the Select Committee heard was that what is being asked is not a lot. It seems to be simply stubbornness—perhaps it is about political advantage above all else—to stick to the same position in the face of all the arguments that we have heard. I hope that it is not too late, even now, for the Government to rethink their position and to allow the Bill to pass through the House with the agreement of all parties because we have reached genuine consensus.

[Stephen Pound]

It is a delight and pleasure to serve under you, Miss Begg. This evening has been an extraordinarily educative process. We have looked very far back into the past and I should like to imagine some time in the future. I imagine a group of fresh-faced young students in some constitutional history class at some as-yet-unbuilt school—perhaps the Tony Blair faith academy, the Ann Widdecombe college of dance and drama or, hopefully, the Eleanor of Epping college of education for the daughters of gentlefolk. In one of those as-yet-unbuilt but glorious buildings, some pernickety pedagogue will turn to the class and say, “Let us go back to November 2010 and see what the House of Commons was debating.” The pedagogue will say, “They were discussing the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill,” and someone will ask, “What was the context?” The Government amendments before us refer specifically to compromise, but the key point is the context in which the Government are bringing the Bill before the House tonight. It is based on expediency, not ethics. Just as no good fruit can grow from a diseased tree, the coalition is like the upas tree, poisoning the soil all around it. They are trying to poison our very constitution with this appalling Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Miss Anne Begg)]

Much as I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, I remind him that we are in Committee and that he must address his comments to the amendments before us, rather than the Bill in general.

[Stephen Pound]

I stand abashed, ashamed and corrected, but, as ever, eager to serve, Miss Begg. I was about to turn specifically to the amendment of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who speaks for Plaid Cymru. The amendment is supported by a broad coalition of the better brains in the House, including the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), whose constituency is possibly the most unpronounceable in Scotland. The amendment offers an alternative to the centralist, Stalinist, steel-like structure of a five-year Parliament. It offers something that we are prepared to support for the good of the nation although not all of us believe in it entirely in our hearts—a four-year fixed-term Parliament.

To see the amendments in the specific context, we have to think of what happened in May this year, when two groups of people were trying to buy a house. They were trying to bid for that great mansion of state that is this United Kingdom, and they found that even as the previous occupants were leaving with dignity from the front door, neither of them had enough money to buy the house, so they both moved in at the same time. Maybe they daubed the soffit with a bit of yellow and put a touch of blue on the eaves, but they had no choice.

You will no doubt be asking yourself, Miss Begg, how this relates to the amendments before us. That is precisely what I was coming to. I do not wish to comment on the sleeping habits of Liberal Democrats. That is far too exotic an area for me, but the camp bed in the living room and, in the master bedroom, surrounded by damask silken curtains, the great four-poster bed that the Conservatives occupy represent a compromise, which is the basis of the coalition.

The Bill on the Floor of the House today at the Committee stage refers to the creation of a structure that will bind together two disparate groups of people—the people who virtually bought the house and the lodgers on the camp bed in the front room. You may think that that is not relevant, and I would have to say, Miss Begg, that I agree with you, but the point that I am trying to make is that the Bill must be seen in the context from which it comes.

[Chris Bryant]

Is not the point, in relation to five-year or four-year fixed-term Parliaments, the one that was made by the professor of constitutional law at King’s college London, Robert Blackburn who, in his evidence to the Select Committee, said of the genesis of the Bill that

“it is, I think, fairly clear that it is driven by the political self-interest of the coalition Government. They want to fix the lifetime of this Government—not the Parliament, but the Government”?

[Stephen Pound]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) will have seen from my body language that he is not pleasing me. He is continuing with a Second Reading speech. He must address the amendments—not just mention them, but address the content of the amendments.

[Stephen Pound]

Miss Begg, I am, as ever, attendant to your body language and I am interpreting every flicker of that elegantly sculptured eyebrow, even as we speak.

The Septennial Act 1715, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, is the Act that we will lose, should the Bill reach the statute book. The key point is that if, in the interest of expediency and of pleasing the coalition, we bring in a five-year fixed-term Parliament in contra-indication and contrast to the existing legislation, we place this country in peril indeed. The Bill at present on the Floor of the House at Committee stage, which I read with great care a few moments ago, is hedged around with all sorts of caveats so that an election may not be held on a day of national mourning or thanksgiving or on Christmas day. The Bill is limiting.

I support the amendment because that limitation restricts the right and privilege of the House to decide, under certain circumstances. There are emergencies or there may be some dramatic situation where an election has to take place. The removal of the royal prerogative, on this day of all days, is not something that I wish to comment on.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentions days when the election can take place. Does he agree that the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom should be given proper respect, and therefore that new clause 4 should be supported? That would allow them to see whether particular days did not suit them. Whether it be Christmas, Burns night, Hallowe’en or whatever, they should be given the choice if there were a clash between the elections to this place and to the great Parliament of Scotland, and the attendant media were unable to cope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

Today is Eid al-Adha, and that is an important factor that should be taken into consideration. At the risk of offending my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and being too London-centric, there are different times in different parts of this United Kingdom when an election may not be appropriate. Judging by the results, it seems we may have had an election on Hallowe’en on a few occasions, but there are certain days on which demonstrably we should not be doing so. However, by limiting ourselves in this way, by applying this template of centralism to the whole structure, we put ourselves in danger, which is why new clause 4, an elegantly crafted piece of work, which stands by itself in all its wonder and majesty, is something that we should happily support.

Clause 2(4), to which the amendments relate, shows the dreadful problems that we have. It states:

“Before issuing a certificate, the Speaker of the House of Commons must consult the Deputy Speakers (so far as practicable).

What thought has gone into this, when it says “so far as practicable”? The amendment addresses that specific point.

[The Temporary Chair]

The amendments that we are debating relate to clause 1, not clause 2, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendments on clause 1.

[Stephen Pound]

You are absolutely correct, as in all things, Miss Begg.

[Nic Dakin]

I am following my hon. Friend’s argument very carefully, as all hon. Members will be. Is it not true that all the evidence is that in their fifth year Parliaments run out of steam and get tired, and the country is impatient for democratic renewal, and is not that why we should have four-year Parliaments or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued, three-year Parliaments?

[Stephen Pound]

One reason why I support clause 1, page 1, line 13, is not because I am massively enamoured of the joys of four-year Parliaments as opposed to five-year Parliaments, nor because I think that there is a natural rhythm in the political cycle that means that every few years we get exhausted and have to have an election, but because it is the least-worst option. It is unfortunately a fact that sometimes we have to present that option. I happily present the hon. Gentleman from the constituency that one day I will be able to pronounce.

[Mr MacNeil]

There has been confusion in the House that somehow five years is bad and four years is good. It is almost Orwellian. The fact that five years in the UK has turned out to be bad is because people tend to leave it to five years. The reason I support four years is not because I think five years is particularly bad, but four years is long enough to spend without going back to the people to ask for another mandate. It is a democracy, after all, and ultimately the people, through the ballot box, rule. Politicians and elected people are stretching the credulity of the electorate to go beyond four years. The example of Scotland again is tremendous for Westminster.

[Stephen Pound]

Amendment 11 addresses these points. The reality is that if we had a fixed-term Parliament—I appreciate I am arguing for a fourth year rather than a fifth year—what dreadful temptations would come the way of susceptible politicians? Legislation would be front-loaded, knowing that there was never the possibility of an early election by which they might be made accountable to the people. I appreciate that clause 1 may be influenced by future legislation on recalls. We could find ourselves with so many recall petitions that we in fact have a new Parliament in the middle. There are certain aspects in the Bill later—not specifically relevant to clause 1, before you mention it, Miss Begg—which refer to the power to dissolve. But the most important, most salient point here is that if we locked the system into a four-year or five-year cycle, we would lose that glorious uncertainty of the democratic oversight. We would lose that concern, may I say, even, on occasion, that fear of the electorate, which is the honest emotion that parliamentarians should always feel.

[Mr MacNeil]

The reason we want a fixed-term Parliament, particularly those in minority parties, who are never in the party of government in this situation—in Scotland we made sure that it is far more democratic—is not the fear of the electorate, it is the fear of the Government, using the particular wins that they have created for their own advantage in a narrow period of time. There is an advantage in a fixed-term Parliament. Some people prefer five, some people prefer four. I am in the four camp—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because mention was made earlier—perhaps too much mention for many of us—of the American political system, where, by having fixed terms, there is permanent campaigning and fundraising, a permanence that takes away what I referred to as the glorious uncertainty borne of the possibility and potential of hearing the people’s voice. The voices of the funding committees and various other supportive bodies are heard, but that sword of Damocles, which should be hanging over the head of every politician in a modern democracy, is somehow removed, because it is winched slowly down by clockwork, instead of dangling from a piece of monofilament.

Now, I think that the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) wanted to intervene.

[Mr McLoughlin]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Pound]

Are you sure?

I hope that I have expressed tonight a sincere and heartfelt view that, just as everything must be seen whence it sprang, this Bill, which we are considering in Committee, has sprung from a coalition that is fundamentally unsound and based not on political realities but expediency. The group of proposed changes before us, which would set the date, elections and length of a Parliament, would go some way towards mitigating this—I dare not say “evil”, because that would be too strong a word—sordid, mean, pettifogging, limp, expediency of a Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I confess.

My hon. Friend makes the point about the number of amendments in this group, and they aim to ensure not just that the term is fixed at four years, but that the cycle of fixed terms does not clash with the cycle of fixed terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elections. This Chamber has already imposed a UK referendum on those elections next year, and now, under this Bill, the Government want to impose a UK general election on the devolved elections in 2015 as well.

[Stephen Pound]

My hon. Friend, not for the first time and almost certainly not for the last, makes a very powerful and pertinent point. If the Bill proceeds tonight without the benefit of the amendments that we are discussing, it will be not just the political cycle that is locked into a four or five-year time frame, but the economic cycle and so many other aspects of life. They will then be locked into a fixed term. That fixed term will apply not just to Parliament, but to the country, and that is dangerous. It is dangerous if we always assume that, no matter what a Government do, they can get away with it, because there will be no election for three, four or, heaven forbid, five years.

That is the danger, and that is when the markets start to build in an assumption of front-loading and when other countries assume that, although there may or may not be a change of Government in the future, there will not be one at that moment in time. That is when offence is given to all parts of this nation with different traditions, different histories and different days of great and signal importance. There are so many fears, so many concerns, so many worries, and the case made for the group of amendments is so powerful and so much a matter of righteousness that it would be otiose of me to continue to press it any longer.

I sit down, Miss Begg, with apologies if I may on occasion have strayed slightly from the purity of the amendments before us, but I hope profoundly that this House will tonight agree that the people matter more than political fixes, and that somehow this is about the constitution, not about the coalition.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to speak with you, Miss Begg, in the Chair.

A number of Members said that they thought that the Government would be running out of steam, but it is a very clear sign that the Opposition are running out of steam when they have to wheel members of the Whips Office in to argue a case—a case, actually, against their own Front Benchers. Their Front Benchers are in favour of four-year terms, so the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) would have done a better job if he had troubled to read the Bill, the amendments and clause 1.

In addressing the amendments that deal with clause 1 on the proposed length of the fixed term and the date of the next election, it might be helpful to explain at the outset why the Government have taken the approach that we have set out in the Bill. The Government announced in the coalition agreement our intention to introduce a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments, and I have listened to a good number of arguments for and against the proposed five-year term, not least today. The Government strongly believe that a five-year fixed term is right, not only for this Parliament but for subsequent Parliaments, as it will provide the country with the strong and stable Government that it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

Diolch, Mr Hoyle. We have had an interesting and informative debate. I shall quickly run through some of the contributions. As ever, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made some passionate and honest points. He is always respected throughout the House. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued coherently and in detail. I cannot support his amendments, but I am glad that he will support ours this evening. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made excellent points about the need to ensure that UK general elections are held separately, and I am glad that the Minister accepted those points. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made pertinent points about the Bill essentially entrenching the coalition rather than being concerned with democracy. I can only apologise to him for getting to the Table Office before him.

With her usual eloquence, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) highlighted the views of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and I thank her for her comments. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke passionately about the political motives behind the Bill. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) gave an insightful historical lesson on the US constitution and relevant comparisons. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) reminded us of the 147,000 spoiled ballots in Scotland in 2007 due to the coupling of the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), as ever, made a compelling and entertaining speech, and I only wish that I had his oratorical talents.

[Stephen Pound]

My wife is Welsh.

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is important. It must be the Maesteg blood.

The Minister made the Government’s case, which was also made on Second Reading. I welcome his comments on consulting the devolved Administrations about changing their dates by six months. That is a significant step forward. If he were able to promise that he would legislate following the consultation on the National Assembly elections—in the case of Wales it would not be the Secretary of State who would determine that matter but the Assembly, as the sovereign body—I would press only amendment 12 to the vote tonight on the point of principle that the Committee should decide whether we should have a four-year or a five-year cycle. Diolch.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the numbers—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Graham Stringer]

Unfortunately, I think that my hon. Friend may have encouraged the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to attempt to intervene. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).

[Stephen Pound]

I think that the House is at one with my hon. Friend on that particular point.

Like me, my hon. Friend represents an urban constituency. I have three surgeries a week and more than 50% of those who attend are not on the electoral register because they are homeless, asylum seekers or simply incapable of being allowed to register. Does my hon. Friend agree that were we to proceed—as I sincerely hope we will not—with this crude numerically simplistic stitch-up we would be ignoring the reality of life in urban constituencies?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I have similar experiences in Blackley and Broughton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane]

I think that that is a question about registration, so I can certainly address it. It has always been the case historically that, in deciding on constituency boundaries, we have looked at the number of people who are eligible to vote; that is, we have looked at electorates as the basis on which to draw the boundaries. Opposition Members have raised the issue of registration in this debate, with some amendments asking for a report on the issue and others going further, making the radical proposition that we should look at the number of adults who are eligible to register in a constituency when drawing up the boundaries.

That may well be a debate of principle that we need to have at some point, but it seems to me that the arguments of Opposition Members have varied and have been based on a number of different potential categories. We could look at electors, the number of people over 18 who are eligible to vote, or the total adult population over 18, but when the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was quoting his figures earlier, I think he was actually quoting the figures for the adult population over 18. I do not know any data sets that can give an accurate figure for the number of people over 18 who are eligible to vote, which is an entirely different thing, because there will be many people who are not UK citizens—and who are therefore not eligible to vote—but who will appear on the census. Or we could go even further and look at the total population in each part of the country when drawing up boundaries.

My real concern is that the amendments before us suggest that we should draw up constituency boundaries based on a guess. They suggest that we look at the census data, but many Members—particularly those who represent urban constituencies—will be aware of the real problems relating to the accuracy of those data. The census is carried out only every 10 years, and there are often gross inaccuracies in the published figures, certainly for London.

[Stephen Pound]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a coherent and cogent case. I must point out, however, that there are empirical data out there, and that we do not have to rely on guesswork. As any Member of Parliament will tell him, his or her constituency roll will show EU and Commonwealth citizens who can register but cannot vote for their Member of Parliament. Bizarrely, even though those people will surely come to their Member of Parliament for advice and assistance, they will not count when it comes to classifying the size of a parliamentary constituency. Surely that cannot be right.

[Gavin Barwell]

Well, there we go. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting, with his customary eloquence, that we go even further than the hon. Member for Swansea West did. I think he is arguing that we should use the whole over-18 adult population as the basis for deciding the boundaries. Indeed, in an earlier intervention, he said that he had a significant number of asylum seekers in his constituency who, although they were ineligible to vote, still gave rise to casework.

There are many different proposals for ways in which we can develop these figures. My point about the hon. Member for Swansea West’s amendment is that we cannot come up with a definitive figure. We can start with the census and take into account the electorate, and we can then use other data sets to refine that information, but we cannot come up with an accurate figure.

My own view is that we should stick with the current basis, which looks at the published electorate, but that we should also take action to deal with under-representation, which affects certain parts of the country more than others. The hon. Member for Swansea West talked about poverty, and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has now left the Chamber, referred to work carried out by the Electoral Commission that showed that the transience of the population—the churn—was the key factor. There are certain groups within the population, including the black and minority ethnic community, young people and people who live in the private rented sector, that are much more likely to move frequently, and that is the main causal driver of this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House many matters that have arisen from people who come to his constituency surgeries, but he also has a role in raising points of principle on the subject of politics, the constitution and so on—I have seen him do so over many years—that are nothing to do with the casework that comes to him. I therefore do not accept his point.

[Stephen Pound]

I thank the hon. Lady for nobly offering, in a way that is typical of her, to support my special pleading to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for additional staff. Together, we will be unbeatable. May I also apologise for perhaps inadvertently misleading the Committee earlier when I referred to Commonwealth citizens not having the right to vote? They do, of course, have that right. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have immediately spotted that I was referring to European economic area citizens, in the context of increased casework with no chance of a vote at the end of it.

[Mrs Laing]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. First, I do support his special pleading to IPSA. Secondly, I am glad to have given him the opportunity to put the record straight on the EEA; we are all better educated for that.

Our duty is not to try to amend the Bill to make life easier for Members of Parliament. What matters is not our certainty about where the boundaries of our constituencies will be drawn, but how the democratic process works. I have thought to myself, “Why have there been so many illogical arguments this evening?” I realise, of course, that it is because of special pleading.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I give way to the right hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated that on this issue the Opposition have put opportunism before principle, and it will not get them very far.

The boundaries argument is straightforward. The Government believe seats should be of more equal size so that votes are of more equal value. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) have both said at different times that they agree with that principle. They say that, in theory, they believe in it; however, they oppose it in practice. That is not, of course, on principle; it is because they believe our proposals correct a bias in favour of them in the current system—another example of opportunism.

Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke powerfully in favour of our proposals, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) in an excellent speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn cannot have it both ways. He tried to argue that our boundary proposals were purely arithmetic and did not take anything else into account, and simultaneously that they were about gerrymandering the system to suit us. Those arguments cannot both be true.

A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Neath, referred to a likely reduction in the number of seats in Wales from 40 to 30, as did the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). That simply corrects the fact that at present Wales is over-represented in this House. Once the measures in the Bill come into force, Wales will be treated in exactly the same way as England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will be represented in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, which, it seems to me, is extremely fair. That is my response to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) as well, who made exactly the same point about Northern Ireland. The reduction in the number of seats simply corrects existing over-representation, which also used to exist in Scotland and was largely corrected at the last election, although there is a little more still to do. Every part of this United Kingdom will be treated in the same way, and most voters will think that that is eminently fair.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about the linkage between Westminster seats and those for the Northern Ireland Assembly. They will both know that the Assembly is under a statutory duty to consider its operation by 2015, including the size of the Assembly. The Government are committed to bringing forward further legislation during this Parliament to reflect the wishes of the Assembly. The Government have no intention of dictating the size of the future Assembly. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations.

Boundaries will continue to be drawn by the independent boundary commissions in each part of the United Kingdom. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we will replace local inquiries with a much longer period—increased from one month to three months—for local people to be able to make written representations. The academics’ opinion on this is very clear. They have described oral inquiries as

“very largely an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek influence over the Commission’s recommendations—in which their sole goal is to promote their own electoral interests.”

They also say that

“it would be a major error to assume that the consultation process largely involves the general public having its say on the recommendations.”

That is not a convincing argument, therefore.

Electoral registration was raised by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)—who, I know from the number of written questions of his that I have answered, takes a great interest in the subject. He will know that the registration rate in the UK is about 91 or 92%, which is broadly in line with that of comparable countries. The boundary review will use the electoral register, as it always has in the past. As the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged, there are issues with the registration system. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when we announce our plans for speeding up individual registration he will find that the fears that he expressed this afternoon are misplaced. The Government have no intention of worsening the situation—quite the reverse; we plan, by the measures that we will introduce, to reduce the number of people who are not registered to vote and to improve the system.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue about the number of Ministers that will be in the House of Commons after the size of the House has been reduced, and they will know that the Public Administration Committee produced a report on the issue before the general election. That Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, is undertaking another inquiry to examine what Ministers do. When it reports, the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will look closely at it to see whether the Government want to take forward any of the proposals about the number of Ministers in this House.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) talked about foreign nationals and EU nationals not being able to vote in parliamentary elections and therefore not counting for these purposes. That is not a change introduced by the Bill; that is the existing position. It is perfectly normal in most countries that in order for someone to be able to vote for the national Parliament they have to be a citizen of the country concerned. That is a perfectly normal process and we are not changing it in this Bill. It is the existing system and I feel sure that Mrs Clegg will cope with it perfectly well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents. I know that he received a reply to his letter before today’s Second Reading debate, although I accept that it was unacceptably delayed. An apology has been made to him for that, and I can assure him that either the Deputy Prime Minister or I will visit the Isle of Wight to listen to the concerns of his constituents in person.

[Stephen Pound]

Let us leave the Isle of Wight and turn to the island of Ireland. In view of what the Minister has just said, do the coalition Government have any plans to tear up the long-standing arrangement and reciprocal understanding between this country and the Republic of Ireland on voting?

[Mr Harper]

No, we do not.

I can assure the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that the reference in the Bill to “counties”, which she discussed, does include unitary authorities. So the Boundary Commission for England will be able to take into account the boundaries of all the unitary authorities in Berkshire as it draws up new constituency boundaries, subject to the issues relating to parity.[Official Report, 20 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 8MC.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) raised the issue of spending limits and broadcasting rules for the referendum. The Electoral Commission will determine whether campaigning is relevant for the elections or the referendum and will issue guidance. This is not an unusual issue to face—we face it with European, London mayoral and Greater London authority elections, as was the case in 2004. The Electoral Commission will work closely with broadcasters to make sure that the rules are clear and fair.

This is an important Bill. As I have said, the Government have made available five full days’ debate in Committee and two days for the Report stage, and we want to ensure that the key issues are both debated and voted on by the House. The Bill will start the process towards having seats of more equal size, so that votes are of more equal value, and will make a modest reduction in the size of this House. It will give the people the choice over the voting system for electing Members to this House of Commons. Whatever our views on AV and first past the post—many views are held by those in this House and it is no secret that members of the Government will be campaigning on different sides—we should have nothing to fear from letting the people decide, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Saville Inquiry

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the inquiries. Standing back from it all, however, I would say that we can take some pride—as can the former Government—in the fact that, in the end, the British state has gone to huge lengths to get to the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday, and that an earlier report from an earlier inquiry has effectively been laid aside and replaced by a much fuller and clearer one. Not many states in the world would do that, and I think that we should see it as a sign of strength that we have done it.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

May I also thank the Prime Minister for the painful honesty of his statement? I salute him for that. In respect of the families, he is absolutely right to talk about issues of redress being for another time. However, this is a very raw day for the families. Will he assure the House that he, his Government and the Northern Ireland Office are doing everything possible to provide advice, assistance and access to those friends, families and neighbours who have never forgotten what happened in 1972 but who are today being reminded almost unbearably of it?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It has been a difficult day for the families; it has been a difficult 38 years for them. We thought very carefully about this, and we wanted to build on the arrangements that were put in place by the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the families could see the report some hours in advance of its publication today, and in a way in which all their needs would properly be met, because this is an incredibly stressful document for them to read. I pay tribute to the former Northern Ireland Secretary for what he did to put those arrangements in place, and to my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what he has done to build on them, as well as for meeting the families, as he has done, and for offering to meet them again in the future, which he will also do.