Electoral Law

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

[John Penrose]

I am not sure of the formal status of our reasoned opinion, but as I plan to state later on, we disagree with large chunks of the proposal, so I cannot see that we will approve it in any form.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

These are, of course, early days in terms of negotiations on what has been suggested by the European Parliament. I think the proposals will initially be considered under the Dutch presidency. Will the Government commit, rather than simply waiting until the end of the process and exercising their veto then if necessary, to contributing positively to make sure that we have allies among other member states on what the European Parliament has suggested?

[John Penrose]

Everybody in all parts of the House keeps telling one another—and the Government—that we need to engage early in any deliberations going on in Brussels to influence what is happening before it is too fully baked—before proposals start to harden. I hope that we are contributing constructively, but in this case, quite critically, to what is proposed. I would expect that with the aid of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we will continue to do so during the passage of this proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Howarth, to serve under your chairmanship. For 10 years I was a Member of the European Parliament.

[John Penrose]

Our deepest condolences.

[Wayne David]

I hope I have recovered from that experience, but obviously I have learned from it. Certainly by the end of the 10 years I was there, I was a convinced European—and still am. I think Britain’s future lies in co-operation with our European partners, and that makes good practical sense, in the modern world especially. But I have to say that does not make me uncritical of the European Union—indeed, I am not uncritical of the European Parliament.

One of the concerns I had then, and still have now, is about the desire of the European Parliament, as an institution, to continually obtain more powers for itself, almost irrespective of the subject under consideration. The automatic position was to gain more powers. Sometimes that is correct, but quite often it is incorrect, because I firmly believe that the European Union fundamentally is an association of independent, democratic states, which come together and pool their sovereignty from time to time, where appropriate. I think that is the essence of the European Union, and I think that should be respected by all the member states, but also all the institutions that make up the European Union.

Fundamental to that concept of the European Union is the principle of subsidiarity. Decisions should be taken at the most appropriate level, but as close to the people as possible. That implies a clear role in the construction of Europe for local and regional government, but also member states, and also, where appropriate, the institutions of the European Union. Given that over the past few years the principle of subsidiarity has become, by common consent, more and more important, the European Scrutiny Committee believes that, on this occasion, the Government have not attached sufficient weight to it. That worries me greatly, because although I do not agree with the European Scrutiny Committee on everything, nevertheless I recognise that a great deal of time, effort and detailed consideration have gone into its deliberations. It worries me that, in its view, the Government have not paid sufficient attention to that principle.

Equally, it also worries me that the European Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the Government have not given due weight to the financial implications of the European Parliament’s suggestions. All the measures are practical and they have a cost implication. It is very important that when the Government set out their case, they consider the financial ramifications. Unfortunately, the Minister has not really touched on those, and I hope that he will have an opportunity in the debate to give us some indication of the cost implications should the measures be adopted in part or in whole.

I am also concerned about the European Parliament’s innate desire always to accrue more powers for members of that Parliament. Linked to that is my concern that, all too often, the European Parliament believes in the desirability of uniformity across member states. Of course, one of the great things about Europe is that it is a celebration of diversity, and we should not only recognise that but be proud of it. That certainly holds in terms of our commitment to democracy. We are all in favour of the universal franchise. In the case of the European Parliament elections, we have all signed up to a system of proportional representation for elected Members of the European Parliaments, but that differs markedly from one member state to another, as does the system of election. There are certain traditions and practical reasons why that should be the case, and therefore I am concerned that the European Parliament should propose basically a straitjacket by suggesting that all member states should adhere to a rigid set of proposals that the Parliament thinks is appropriate. I do not think that there is any logical, intellectual reason for that bland uniform approach. It would be far better to adhere to the principle of recognising that there are different ways of conducting elections, domestic or for the European Parliament, in democratic countries.

Can the Minister tell us what is the member states’ position on this, in particular that of the British Government? What is the role of the European Commission, because I understand that it is currently engaged in its own review of the last European Parliament elections, and that it will make proposals to improve the system in respect of next elections to that Parliament? The European Commission has its own proposals, but the European Parliament, another European institution, has its proposals as well. It will be interesting to hear how those two sets of proposals fit together, assuming that they do, and what the response of the Council, representing the member states, will be to that other institution’s response.

More specifically—I do not want to go through all the points listed by the Minister that have been made by the European Parliament—I shall focus on two points. First, on electronic and postal voting, as the Minister said, postal voting is used widely in this country and, increasingly so in the past few years. Not only is it popular but it is an effective way for voters to express their democratic view. Clearly, on electronic voting, there are cost implications and, as he suggested, there are security implications too. I do not think that technology is sufficiently advanced for me to say, hand on heart, that it is possible, perhaps in any member state, to have a watertight system that would ensure full participation along with security and confidence in the system.

Will the Minister look to the future and say whether or not the Government are considering more generally the issue of online voting to enhance the democratic process in this country? We are all surprised by the way in which technology has advanced in the past few years, and the Government should give active consideration to whether that is a feasible option in the not too distant future.

I should also like to raise the issue of the President of the European Commission and the spitzenkandidaten. To be honest, I was slightly confused when I read the recommendation from the European Parliament. I understood the first proposal that European Parliament elections should be contested by formal EU-wide lead candidates, but I did not understand precisely what was meant when I read that a joint constituency should be established in which lists were headed by each political family’s candidate. The Government are not inclined to adopt any of these suggestions, but will the Minister shed some light on what the European Parliament meant? On the face of it, it appears to be a radical suggestion that is not in keeping with custom and practice in most member states, and certainly not in this country.

I would appreciate clarification on those points, and I should like in general terms to have a cast-iron commitment from the Government that they will do everything possible, rather than simply waiting until the end of the process and exercising a veto, to engage actively with other member states, which I am sure share our concerns that the proposals should be put to one side, so that the EU can focus on more consensual and immediate matters.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Like him, I am a convinced European, but I am convinced about it as a geographic entity, rather than as a political one—I have rather more suspicions than him about that, and those suspicions are highlighted by the documents that we are considering.

The text adopted by the European Parliament is something to which all hon. Members should pay careful attention, because it sets out with great clarity and honesty the ambition of the European Parliament: how it views itself, and what it wants to get out of the process. It is a fascinating document, because although the view it expresses is the opposite of mine, that is the reality of where the European Union aims to go. It is clear in the document that the European Parliament sees itself at the forefront of creating a single European state.

Looking at the 35 reasons for why this proposal is necessary which are set out by the European Parliament, a common thread runs through them of our fundamental nature as citizens not of the United Kingdom but of a state called Europe. I promise that I will not go through all these points. Although the time is available, it would try the patience of hon. Members. Point B states that the aim is to,

“reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate”.

It is about giving the European Parliament more power and more authority because of this concept of citizenship. Point E addresses voters’ lack of interest, with a particular concern for younger voters, stating that,

“voters’ lack of interest in European issues is posing a threat to the future of Europe, and whereas there is therefore”

—that is a particularly ugly construction, even considering that it must have been translated from several languages. I hate to think what the Finnish might be for “whereas there is therefore”—

“a need for ideas that will help to revive European democracy”.

I do not believe in European democracy. I believe in the democracy of the United Kingdom and of France and of Germany coming together as nation states, not in this broader concept. However, the European Parliament is quite clear about it. The document continues with a statement, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, of the power of the European Parliament, which,

“now has equal status as co-legislator with the Council in most of the Union’s policy areas”.

The European Parliament’s competencies have been gradually increasing, so it has got a long way towards what it wants to achieve with these advancing competencies. Point K sets out that the concept of citizenship of the Union,

“includes the right of Union citizens to participate in European and municipal elections”.

This focuses on the creation of citizenship of a single state, with the concern that electoral campaigning remains national. In this country it is entirely national, and there was hardly any mention of what was going on in continental Europe during our last European Parliamentary elections. That is because we believe in the nation state. The European Parliament is pushing again and again towards the creation of a single state. Point M states that,

“European political parties are best placed to ‘contribute to forming European political awareness’”.

Well, I am a member of the Conservative party, as people may have realised, or, if hon. Members prefer, the Tory party—that may in some ways be more suitable for me. It is technically a European party. It has a function within the geographic continent of Europe, but I must confess that I have never thought it was my role to contribute to forming European political awareness except as something to object to. The European Parliament has adopted a European awareness about Europe as a single state. This is made clear in point U, which states that,

“establishing a common European voting day would better reflect common participation by citizens across the Union, reinforce participatory democracy and help create a more coherent pan-European election”.

It is trying to create a legitimacy that is certainly not there at the moment for their scheme to create a single federal state. This is of the greatest importance. Point AI, which is the last point to which I shall refer and indeed the last point in the document, refers to,

“the principle of degressive proportionality”.

Again, I do not really know what “degressive proportionality” means. This is one of the problems with European documents. One has to get into the interstices of these documents to try to find out what they might mean in plain English, and then reveal that as far as one can in these Committees. It continues,

“the principle of degressive proportionality enshrined in the TEU has contributed significantly to the common ownership of the European project between all Member States”.

We all know what that European project is. It is about the advance to a single state in which the European Parliament is the Parliament of the European Union and we become a mere assembly within it, perhaps somewhere between a county council and the Scottish Parliament but not a proper national assembly. This document shows the route of travel of the European Union. That is where the current context is so important, because the Government are trying to paint a picture of it going our way—that over there, they are not as ambitious as they once were and they accept that closer European integration was yesterday’s story. We hear it again and again—with magnificent renegotiation, we are finally halting the tide of pro-Europeanism.

Then we have an unnumbered European document, a European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union, that gives the game away. This is a usurping and pretending Parliament that seeks to take powers from us and is looking towards fulfilling its ambition of a single European state. The Government must oppose it by veto and we must send forth our clear concern about subsidiarity, but most importantly—above and beyond all the technicalities that we get from reading these papers—we must understand what is happening, what the aim is and what the ambition is. If we quietly discuss it in a Committee of a dozen people, and we do not make sure that it is more widely known that this is what is happening, we will find—regardless of renegotiation or referendum—that we are in a greater European state.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to keep things in perspective? What we have here is a view from the European Parliament, expressed—I suspect—by just a few MEPs who happened to get together in a Committee. It does not reflect the view of member state Governments or the people of Europe.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is brilliant, and it is always a pleasure to take his interventions and hear his wonderful exposition of how this is all fine. He says it is a very mild document from the European Parliament, and that the European Parliament does not really matter. I am sure that he did not say that when he was sitting in Strasbourg or going back and forth between Strasbourg and Brussels.

This is a document that has been approved by the European Parliament. The European Parliament is one of the three pillars of the European Union, alongside the Commission and the Council. The idea that this is a quiet paper put forward by a few MEPs on the European Parliament equivalent of an all-party parliamentary group, to be read in a village hall in Surbiton—if it has one—is absurd. This is a really serious document that has gone before the Council and is now a Council proposal. It is within one unanimous vote by the Council of being adopted as law across the European Union.

Fortunately, the Government have a veto and have indicated that they will use it. That is extremely good news, but it is a wonderful concoction to suggest that the document is something mild that can just be ignored. I wish it were so and that the European Parliament could be so easily dismissed, but regrettably it has become a major player in the development of the European project—understandably, because MEPs want power for themselves. That is probably why they stand for election and, as the hon. Gentleman said, Parliaments are always looking for more powers. But since Lisbon, it has a lot of them and this is a further push. What is so important about it is that it shows the reality of what is aimed for in the EU—the direction of travel has not changed. We may go down the road at a slightly slower pace—we may be on a bicycle when other members of the European Union are in Ferraris—but the destination is the same.

draft Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) regulations 2016

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 General Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.

The Recall of MPs Act 2015 is an important piece of legislation. For the first time, Members of Parliament are subject to being recalled by their constituents if they have failed to uphold the standards expected of them in three key respects. They may be recalled if they have been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of up to 12 months, if they have been barred from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days or more, or if they have been convicted of providing false or misleading information for allowance claims under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The explanatory memorandum explains that if one of those transgressions has occurred, a recall petition is automatically triggered.

The regulations create the detailed procedures for that petition to occur during a six-week period. If 10% or more of the MP’s constituents sign the petition, there will be a by-election.

I have spent the past three days reading every single dot, comma and line of the regulations and I have some succinct questions seeking explanation and, I hope, clarification from the Minister. May I make it clear that, as the Minister suggested, the Opposition support the principle of recall? If the trigger is pulled, we want the process of the petition to be conducted fairly and to be expedited.

On the matter of signing by post, I understand that the electoral register will be published and distributed to each of the signing locations—one or 10, or any number in between—before the closing date for postal applications. If that is the case, no check can be made before the end of the process as to whether people have signed in person or by post. It is possible that, over a six-week period, some people may have inadvertently, or perhaps deliberately, signed twice. Am I correct in assuming that there will be a period of time before the result is announced to ensure that the necessary checks and safeguards were in place?

The second question concerns the running total of people who sign the petition. It is sensible not to make public the results of daily verification, as it might fuel a campaign rather than allow a genuine expression of public opinion. The Government have changed their position on that due to objections raised in the other place. I question the wording of the last sentence in paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum. I ask the Minister to read that sentence and agree with me that it is surely misleading at best or wrong at worst:

“Importantly, the results of daily verification will not be made public so as to allow for a tally to be made on the number of persons that have signed the petition.”

Surely the tally will take place afterwards, not during the course of events. I would like the Minister to comment on that, and provide some clarification.

Thirdly, I am pleased that the Electoral Commission was fully consulted, and that it is largely content with the regulations, but there are two issues on which the Electoral Commission’s advice was not accepted. The first relates to allowing accredited observers to observe all stages of the petition process. The statutory instrument allows for accredited observers to be present only at the count. The Electoral Commission has made the point that there is no real reason why petition observers should not have exactly the same access as observers at an election: that is, they should have access to postal petition packs and admission to the signing place as well as to the count.

The second issue relates to user testing of the petition notice letters. The explanatory memorandum says that the original intention was to have a notice card similar to a poll card. That was user tested with members of the public. Sensibly, as it was thought that the cards could inadvertently prompt electors into signing the petition, just as a poll card prompts electors to attend a polling station, it was decided to use a letter instead. That is all well and good, but the new letters are new voter materials. They may have the same wording as the notice cards, but it will be a new experience for electors to have such a letter. I therefore think that the letters ought to be user tested, as the Electoral Commission suggests. That seems to me to be a perfectly fair point.

Fourthly, on the more general point about petition notice letters, I understand that the Electoral Commission indicated to the Cabinet Office that the petition notice letters were “cluttered and too long”. As it stands, they still seem quite verbose, and possibly too long. How were the letters reduced and made more intelligible following the Electoral Commission’s representations?

Fifthly, I am glad to see that the letters to and forms for Welsh-speaking electors are included in the statutory instrument, and that we will not have the embarrassment that we had during the first police and crime commissioner elections, when the Government did not realise until late in the day that they needed bilingual forms for people in Wales. Sadly, I am not very conversant in Welsh, the language of heaven, but I ask the Minister whether the various forms in Welsh have been properly tested with Welsh speakers. As I am sure the Minister knows, there is BBC Welsh and more colloquial Welsh, which many people in Wales speak. If the intention is to communicate effectively with people, it is often better to use the latter rather than pristine BBC Welsh.

The only sure way to determine the most appropriate form of Welsh to use is to test it with Welsh speakers. The Minister referred in passing to taking the needs of Welsh people into account, but will he indicate specifically whether proper testing has been done in all parts of Wales, with various Welsh speakers, to find the most appropriate Welsh to use on the forms? Assuming that the Minister will fully and comprehensively respond to these questions, we will support these regulations.

[John Penrose]

I will endeavour to respond to each of those points as we go, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will interject if he feels that I am skating too lightly over any particular point of detail.

First, I offer huge congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on being one of the very few other people who have actually read this whole thing, including right down to the end of paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum. That attention to detail is very impressive indeed.

Let me start with the hon. Gentleman’s point about signing by post. He will be aware that during any election there is a process, which is normally condensed into a single day, when people who have voted by post can, in theory, turn up on the day of the poll with their postal vote form and present it, saying, “I am eligible to vote by post, but I am choosing to vote in person. Here is my postal vote form.” They hand it in at the polling station and that is then a valid vote.

The signing process takes place over a period of up to six weeks, and there will therefore have to be a continuous check to ensure that, when we get to the end, people have not had a chance to sign twice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, normally the registration forms that are held at individual local polling stations are adjusted to make sure that it is clear whether someone has a postal vote, so that the person who issues the ballot papers can make the necessary checks if required and then the necessary reconciliations can be made.

We will have to make sure that, in the case of signatories, the necessary reconciliations can happen, albeit over a longer period—so it is actually easier in some respects to ensure sure that these checks are being made. It should be easier to make sure that people cannot sign twice, in the same way that we do not allow people to vote twice on a polling day. However, the checks and the principle underlying the process—the mechanics—will, of course, still be the same

The hon. Gentleman asked about running totals during the signing period of six weeks. He asked specifically about the final sentence in paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum. It might help the Committee if I read the entire sentence, which I think is clear. However, if it is not clear, we may need to adjust latter guidelines and so forth to make sure that it is clear. The sentence reads:

“Importantly, the results of daily verification will not be made public so as to allow for a tally to be made on the number of persons that have signed the petition.”

Providing that the emphasis is put in the right place as one reads that sentence out, I think that it is clear that the results are not being made public so that people cannot do that. However, if it later seems that there is scope for confusion among people outside this place, of course we will need to make sure that any advice and guidelines are adjusted as we go.

[Wayne David]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but having spoken to a number of people, I know that they share my concern that that is slightly unclear, at the very least, and slightly ambiguous. It would be helpful if he went away and devised a clearer form of words so that we do not have that ambiguity.

[John Penrose]

We will try to ensure that there is plenty of opportunity for further guidelines to be issued by bodies such as the Electoral Commission. We need to make sure that everyone is aware of this particular important point, so that future guidelines and commentary are as clear as they can possibly be.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a number of points that the Electoral Commission had suggested. While we followed the commission’s advice in many areas, there were two areas where we differed slightly.

One was on the question of accredited observers and where they will be allowed to observe. We decided that they should be allowed in to things such as the count and so on and so forth, but not to the actual signing places themselves because, as I mentioned in my initial remarks, the difference between an election and a petition is that, if someone goes in to sign a petition, it is very clear which side of the argument they are on. Therefore, one of the central principles of our democracy—that every ballot should be secret—is very hard to maintain given the fact that, if someone goes in to sign a petition, they are, by definition, on one side, and if they do not turn up, they are on the other side. We thought that the danger of eroding the secrecy of the ballot box in an election, and not maintaining that properly in a petition, was quite great, and therefore we felt that it was inappropriate to have people observing that stage. Once a petition has been signed and safely consigned to the petition box, it becomes anonymous, and at later points in the process it is therefore safer to have accredited observers, such as at the count, in the way that the hon. Gentleman and I have just discussed.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister clarify what would happen if a person went along to the signing station and signed the petition, but then decided to spoil their paper? Would their vote be counted one way or another?

[John Penrose]

The regulations lay out what has to happen. In the same way as for people who spoil a ballot paper in a regular election, I presume there will be the equivalent of a bad and doubtful ballot paper process, which the hon. Gentleman and I, and I am sure every other candidate, has had to go through—it would have to be clear that a clear opinion and a clear intention has been produced. If that is not clear on the signing sheet, the presiding officer will have to take a view, and presumably the accredited observers in the room will also have to have a look. Broadly speaking, the same underlying principle, which is that a clear intention has to be visible, will be applied here, too.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about user testing the notice letters versus the notice cards. When the petition is first begun, we need to make sure that everybody knows that they can sign, but not that they need to sign, particularly if they disagree and feel that the MP concerned should not be subject to a recall by-election. As I mentioned earlier, the content of the words has been extensively user tested. As a secondary, follow-up point, he said that he feels that some of those words are perhaps a little verbose. All I can say is that they were extensively user tested. They may be longer than he and I might have started off with, but they were felt to be the ones that worked, with feedback from genuine voters, which is probably the safest and most fact-based approach that we could possibly take. The content was extensively user tested.

We went with letters rather than cards, principally to distinguish a petition from a poll. Clearly, many people will understand that those of us who are democratically responsive and responsible feel a certain duty to go and use our democratic rights when it comes to a poll, and we do not want to establish that when it comes to a petition because the very fact of feeling under pressure to go to sign a petition actually pushes people towards one side of the argument rather than the other, which could, if done wrongly, prejudice the underlying fairness of the petition. The letter was therefore felt appropriate, having road tested the contents of the piece of paper to ensure that its format is clearly different from a poll notice card so that people will have an additional, perhaps even subconscious, mental cue that this is not quite the same as an election, albeit that it is similar in many respects.

[Wayne David]

I agree with much of what the Minister says but, nevertheless, he is talking about a letter being used for the first time, rather than a polling card. As he tested the words on the poll card, surely it would have been sensible to test the words on the letter, too.

[John Penrose]

I find myself in something of a cleft stick at this point, because the hon. Gentleman and all here will realise that we are now several months on from the end of the last Parliament. Everybody here wants to ensure that the Recall of MPs Act 2015 is fully in force promptly. We can carry on testing things until we are blue in the face, but we have tested an awful lot of this in huge detail and with huge care. At some point we have to stop testing and start doing. I am not aware, and I am sure he is not aware, of any pending cases, but it would be truly contrary to the spirit of democracy—he and I would both be very upset were this to happen—were we still to be dotting i’s and crossing t’s on this stuff if a case came up tomorrow, next week or soon without these regulations being in place. Both he and I would be accused of dereliction of duty were that to happen. We have tested the substance, the guts, of this in huge detail. If it later transpires that there is some question over this, of course we can come back to it, but at some point we just have to get on with it. Otherwise we will be accused of delaying things in an attempt to protect the livelihood of MPs, which of course is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Welsh forms. I am sad to hear that my ignorance of the language of heaven is perhaps only exceeded by his, but I can reassure him that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments now includes a Welsh speaker. I am not sure whether that member is familiar with what I hesitate to call the Queen’s Welsh.

[Wayne David]

BBC Welsh.

[John Penrose]

BBC Welsh, as opposed to more colloquial Welsh. I am not sure whether that Welsh speaker can do either or both, but it is noticeable that the JCSI’s scrutiny of such things has moved up a notch since that has happened. We are therefore probably better placed than we ever have been. Beyond that, as the hon. Gentleman might expect, we check with a number of other Welsh translation services, too. We have covered as many bases as we humanly can but, given the fact that neither he nor I are quite as fluent in Welsh as might be required to make this perfect, we will have to take it on trust. I am sure that the Welsh people will let us know very loudly if they feel that we have let them down in any way, but I hope that we have not.

Question put and agreed to.

House of Lords Reform

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin John Docherty]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. For as long as I am the Member for West Dunbartonshire and a member of the Scottish National party, that is what I will be sticking to—saying no to seats in the unelected, unaccountable House of Lords.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what has so far been a very colourful speech. He has been very clear about the SNP’s position, but his partners in this House are Plaid Cymru, which does have Members in the other place.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We do not have a separate jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Paterson]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are a number of things we could do and that suggestion is certainly one of them.

One of the many problems with the House of Lords is that it is stuffed to the gunnels with former politicians who failed to win seats but are none the less looked after by the powers that be. One of my predecessors as MP for Stirling is one such. Michael Forsyth has not won an election since 1992. In his 14-year career as MP for Stirling, he was democratically chosen by the people of the constituency to serve in that role. He has now spent 17 years in the unelected Chamber along the corridor. This illustrates a fundamental problem. There is a long, long list of such former political big beasts out to pasture at the end of the corridor; former elected politicians of such inestimable stature as Jeremy Purvis, for example. There are then those apparently picked at random, perhaps for saying the right things at the right time to help the party in government, or making the requisite donation to their political party.

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman makes many trenchant criticisms of the other place, a number of which I agree with. In the interests of even-handedness, however, does he accept that the House of Lords does some good and effective work in holding the Government to account, and that from time to time it makes a very principled stand, such as on tax credits?

[Steven Paterson]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that does not mean you do not need a new clock.

Margaret Thatcher, at the end of her term as Prime Minister, said:

“I calculate that I was responsible for proposing the elevation to the Lords of some 214 of its present numbers.”

My problem is that some of those 214 are still there after all this time: unelected spectres interfering in legislation to this very day. The serious point here is that they have legislative authority over the lives of millions of people across the UK with no democratic mandate whatever. Radical democratic reform or outright abolition of this tired, antiquated and undemocratic institution is necessary and long overdue. Just as successful reform was passed in 1911, reform in 2016 must effectively represent the necessary change to bring our democracy, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on securing a debate on this most overdue of reforms to the UK’s political system. As he said, what might seem like Celtic hyperventilation and hyperbole to some, to others is passion to mend that which is wrong.

As we have heard, membership of the House of Lords is fast approaching 1,000. As we have also heard, it is one of the largest Chambers on earth, second only to that in China, which, it is worth remembering, has a population 28 times the size of the UK’s. Of course, not one of the 1,000 peers in the other place is elected by the public, although a few are elected by their peers, which is interesting. The House of Lords does not reflect the political views of the people or society in general. Over three quarters of peers are male and over half are over 70. I wanted to work out their combined age, but it was far too difficult, and we would have got into dinosaur aeons, I suspected. Seats are guaranteed for bishops of the Church of England, but not for the Church in Wales or the Church of Scotland, let alone for any other faith. Do the Government consider a non-Christian to be less of a citizen than a Christian? I hope not, but the existence of the House, in its present form, suggests otherwise.

I was astounded to learn that the fudged compromise whereby 92 excepted hereditary peers, who survived the cull of 1999, not only continue to attend the House of Lords and influence the democracy of the UK, but are replaced by yet more hereditary peers in in-house elections. I thought they were a tail that would gradually disappear, but, no, they are self-perpetuating. The evident democratic injustice of people being there because they were born to that position is perpetuating itself. The House of Lords is crying out for reform.

Plaid Cymru sees no place for a patronage appointments system in a modern democracy. None the less, for as long as decisions affecting Wales continue to be made there, we will push for Wales to have an equal voice in that Chamber. After all, we are not as fortunate as Scotland. Wales has not had a separate legal jurisdiction since 1536.

[Wayne David]

I hear what the hon. Lady says about the Acts of Union in 1536 and 1542, but what on earth does that have to do with membership of the House of Lords?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Most of the laws made here also affect Wales, and if we are to influence them, we must take part. We have long been cursed with the “for Wales, see England” mentality, although things have changed since 1999 and might well change again in the elections this spring.

The House of Lords should be elected through the single transferrable vote system, with a Welsh constituency and weighting to ensure that Wales is heard in all matters. Some value the apparent freedom with which the second Chamber can hold the Government to account, but I remind them that more than 70% of peers vote along party lines and that 25% of those appointed since 1997 are former MPs who either resigned or were voted out by the public. It is the only legislature in the world where losing an election helps a person win a seat.

I appreciate that many in the other place are considered experts in their fields, but we have heard mention of the ex-experts. I do not accept that this is an argument against democracy. If they are experts in their fields today—as opposed to 20 years ago—they should be persuaded to stand for office in a local public election. I also suggest that the House takes note of figures from the Electoral Reform Society, which found that 27% of peers had “representational politics” as their main profession prior to entering the Lords. Most of them were MPs. A further 7% were political staff, and twice as many peers worked as staff to the royal household than worked in manual or skilled labour, which is extraordinary, given that most people work in the latter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on opening the debate and on his very colourful and well-informed speech. I must say that many good points have been made. I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), which is that we must have a debate. It is very important to recognise the complexity and difficulty of reform, and we must begin by having an honest debate.

I congratulate Scottish National party Members on the consistency and uniformity of their arguments, by and large. They showed discipline. The number of times I heard reference to China’s National People’s Congress, I would not like to say. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) did talk about reform, rather than abolition. I welcome that because it is healthy to have a difference of emphasis within a political group, if not a complete difference.

Few people would genuinely say that our parliamentary system does not need fundamental change. It is important to remember that the biggest change to the composition of the second Chamber came under a Labour Government, when we secured the abolition of most of the hereditary peers. That was the start of a reform that we must complete as soon as is practicable, and it must be a radical reform. I say radical reform, rather than abolition of the second Chamber, because I am not convinced that we should move away from a bicameral parliamentary system.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Clearly we have a difference of view on this. My hon. Friend says that there has not been enough discussion about reform. There has been a lot of talk about reform, but there has not been much of a debate about the alternative of having a unicameral Parliament. That is what I want to see.

[Wayne David]

I respect my hon. Friend’s view. That is one of the discussions that we need to have in this Chamber. He is perfectly right that we need to discuss not just how reform might be brought about, but whether we even need a second Chamber. I am of the view, although I am willing to take part in a debate, that we should have a bicameral system. There is a need for a second Chamber to scrutinise, modify, suggest amendments to and delay legislation, although I think that legislation should always emanate from this House.

It is deplorable that we are seeing two sustained attempts not to introduce more democracy into the second Chamber, but to exercise control over the second Chamber’s ability to hold the Executive to account. It is important to remember that this Government have appointed more Conservative peers than Margaret Thatcher did in her 11 years as Prime Minister. There is also a debate taking place about Lord Strathclyde’s report, which I would argue is all about undermining the ability of the other place to hold the Government to account.

We know why the Government are trying to control and weaken the Lords. It is not because they believe in democracy or because they have accepted the arguments of the SNP, but because they do not like to be scrutinised or challenged, no matter where it comes from. The issue is not the primacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords; this is about the Government trying to minimise challenge and push aside opposition.

In the last Parliament, a great deal of time and effort was spent on debating reform of the House of Lords. Sadly, it came to nothing because the Liberal Democrats refused to have a constructive dialogue with reformers on the Opposition Benches and because—it is important to remember this—the Prime Minister did not deliver on his promise and Conservative Back Benchers defended the status quo.

What is needed now is a nationwide debate about the kind of democracy we need for the 21st century. The 19th-century, highly centralised nation state based on London is surely a thing of the past. Decentralisation must be the order of the day, not just to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but to the regions, cities and localities of England. There is therefore a strong case for a second Chamber—call it a senate if you like—made up of representatives of the nations and regions of the UK, possibly with people drawn from local government as well. Such a second Chamber might be made up of indirectly elected representatives or directly elected representatives. It would have the advantage of providing informed scrutiny by individuals drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. It is a shame that most Members of the other place are either drawn from, or have a focus on, London and south-east England. That cannot be acceptable.

When we talk about fundamental change to our constitution, it is important to remember three things. First, there must be debate and dialogue between all political parties and, if possible, a high degree of consensus about what kind of changes are needed. If it is believed that political advantage is a motive behind any constitutional change, that change will not work effectively and will ultimately fail. Secondly, it is important not to see Lords reform in isolation from other changes that are needed for our democracy. I have already referred to devolution, but I believe that in our country there is a widespread thirst for popular engagement. No longer are people prepared simply to sit back and allow those who are unelected to make important decisions. It is therefore important to have a broad perspective when considering changes to our democracy.

Thirdly, we must not believe that there can be a top-down approach towards political reform, or that we are the repository of all knowledge on these matters. The people of our country need to be fully engaged in the debate on democratic renewal, and that is why we believe that there needs to be a people’s constitutional convention. Such a convention ought not to be made up of the great and good; rather, it should draw in people from all walks of life and all parts of the country. It must be focused in its discussions, and it must also inspire and enthuse people so that we give our democracy fresh life and inspiration.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

That is very helpful in clarifying the SNP’s view and it leads me to talk about opportunities for reform. I, and the Government, would certainly favour keeping a second Chamber and making it more effective if the opportunity ever presented itself. There are huge advantages to having an effective second Chamber here. I say that because often the level of scrutiny imposed on any Government by the second Chamber is not a comfortable experience. It has not always been a comfortable experience for previous Labour, Conservative or even coalition Governments. Even though it is not necessarily easy or comfortable—on occasions it can be incredibly frustrating—I believe it is democratically justified and desirable, and that it results, at least in Westminster, in better law. I went along to the Lords yesterday and stood at the Bar, listening to its debate on the Strathclyde review. I challenge anybody to say it was not a high-quality and capable discussion, conducted at a high level and very clearly expressed. It has a great deal to offer, regardless of its legitimacy, and our democracy would be the poorer without a revising second Chamber.

As colleagues on both sides have said, however, we need to be careful about the Lords’ powers and composition. The problem is agreeing not on the need for reform but on how we do it. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) said, we should be discussing not whether change is needed but what kind of change could be achieved. That is where we all come up against a serious and fundamental practical problem. While many people agree that some kind of reform and improved democratic legitimacy for the upper House is vital, agreeing on its form and creating a democratic consensus about what it should look like—as opposed simply to agreeing that there should be something—is a great deal harder. And that is what politics is all about; it is about forging the necessary democratic consensus. I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) mentioned the need for a democratic debate.

We need to forge a democratic consensus not on the need for change but on the form it should take. That is where the previous attempt in the last Parliament came unstuck. There were far too many competing recipes for what the revised House of Lords might look like and a plethora of different approaches. It came unstuck not because of a lack of ideas but because there were too many ideas and not enough people agreed on any one of them, and therefore the opponents of reform won through.

[Wayne David]

I agree with the Minister. Do we not need to learn the lesson that, if any good fundamental reform is to take place successfully, there must be cross-party dialogue and debate and an attempt to find consensus across the House?

[John Penrose]

I would broaden out that point. It is hugely helpful, although not essential, for any constitutional change to be made with some cross-party agreement, if only because—this is one of the fundamental points of Britain’s unwritten constitution—people need to be happy not just with how things work when they are in government but when the shoe is on the other foot and they are in opposition, because they need to bear it in mind that at some point they might not be in government. Good Governments and good Oppositions remember that point and proceed with caution and agreement wherever possible. It is not always possible, but when it can be done, it should be.

The challenge is not to agree that change is necessary but to define precisely what form it should take and to form a sufficiently large consensus to overcome the forces of inertia, which, if we are not careful, naturally tend to win—I do not know whether it is inertia or entropy, but either way, it is what happened last time.

Electoral Integrity and Absent Votes

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main.

I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing this important debate. All of us who are democrats and who believe in the efficacy of elections also believe that those elections must be above board and entirely fair, and that all the participants in those elections must respect their integrity. That is important in itself, but it is also important that elections are seen widely in a democracy to be fair and beyond reproach.

The various issues that the hon. Member for Peterborough has brought to our attention have to be taken very seriously. He mentioned the Electoral Commission. Indeed, the Electoral Commission, among other bodies, has taken the allegations and examples of corruption and fraud very seriously, and it has presented to the Government’s anti-corruption champion—the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—detailed measures about how the electoral system can be tightened up. Those are very positive measures.

The Electoral Commission has suggested four measures, and I would like the Minister to respond to those recommendations. Before that, however, it is worth noting that it is not simply what we have in terms of regulations and electoral law that matters. A fact that needs to be highlighted is that a lot depends on the political parties themselves to make sure that they police their own candidates, to ensure that those candidates and their supporters are aware of the law and fully respect it. That is very important. Responsibility rests not only with the Government, the Electoral Commission and others, but with the political parties themselves and the individuals concerned.

As has been mentioned, we are seeing the introduction of individual electoral registration. It is to be welcomed in principle, because one of the key aspects underlying IER is the new emphasis placed on individuals rather than the head of a household, which accurately reflects society’s changing nature. IER is more modern and also puts greater responsibility on the individual in recognising the importance of the electoral process as a whole and their role within it, although we all regret—at least, Labour Members certainly regret—that its introduction has been rushed. We have our own reasons to believe why that was the case.

The essential point I want to make is that although all of us are united in total condemnation of electoral fraud, it is important to keep such fraud in perspective. The perception among many sections of the electorate is that electoral fraud is quite widespread, which is damaging to democracy. However, it is important to make the point that that perception is not based on concrete fact. As the Electoral Commission said in the evidence it submitted to the Government’s anti-corruption champion:

“The evidence currently available to us does not support the conclusion that electoral fraud is widespread in the UK.”

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is making his remarks in a typically eloquent way, but is it not a matter of regret that the chief executive of Woking Borough Council and the electoral returning officer for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) said on “File on 4”, the programme I referred to in my remarks, that in 12 years he had never presided over a wholly clean election in that borough? I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but surely that is a lamentable state of affairs.

[Wayne David]

Elections have to be clean, of course, but quite often there is a fine dividing line between the rough and tumble of electoral politics and actual electoral fraud. When we talk about fraudulent activity, we have to rely on evidence and hard facts being presented. If in that programme and elsewhere there have been actual examples of fraud and clear evidence of it, then it is right that an investigation is made and action taken. However, I return to my central point. Yes, there is plenty of tittle-tattle, plenty of suggestions and plenty of accusations, but all too often there is very little hard and fast evidence, and we have to go on evidence.

It is important to keep our debate in perspective. Of course that must not be used as an excuse not to do anything, and of course the system must be tightened up, but at the same time let us recognise that our democracy is one of the finest in the world, and we must do everything to defend it, while at the same time making sure that it is as watertight as possible.

Finally, as we move to a system of IER, it is important that we have, above all else, the desire to encourage and to make as easy as possible the participation of our voters in the electoral system. There is a fine dividing line, but we have a system that is open and fair, and that encourages people to vote and facilitates their involvement in the democratic process, and at the same time our system must be monitored and policed effectively.

Surely none of us would want to see a system in place that was as onerous as some Members have perhaps suggested, which would be a disincentive to people to go along and cast their vote. If we made the system too cumbersome, that would undermine the democratic process itself. Therefore, in the interests of democracy and democratic participation, we always have to strike a balance between what is reasonable to do in order to encourage as many people as possible to engage, while at the same time having a system that is above reproach and that is based on fairness and integrity.

draft European Parliamentary Elections (Miscellaneous Provisions) (United Kingdom and gibraltar) order 2015

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 General Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I recognise that the order is technical, but nevertheless I have a couple of questions to get more information from the Minister.

As the Minister has said, the order essentially replaces references to the House of Assembly of Gibraltar with references to the Gibraltar Parliament, and there is a change regarding building societies and one or two other small technical amendments. I would like more information on two areas in particular. First, on electoral finance, the explanatory memorandum states that

“registered parties may declare that they intend to contest a European Parliamentary election in the combined region so that they may receive donations and loans from Gibraltar-based donors.”

For European Parliament elections we have the unusual situation of the south-west of England being linked with Gibraltar. What arrangements are there for an individual who receives donations from Gibraltar but spends the money in another part of the region—in other words, the south-west of England?

The financial situation in Gibraltar is different from the one in the United Kingdom. I will not go into the detail of whether Gibraltar is a tax haven, which is a moot point, but I will simply say that a person who lives in Gibraltar pays tax only on income earned in Gibraltar. They are classed as a resident if they spend the majority of their time in the territory or, if they are British or of Irish descent, if they work in Gibraltar. There is no capital gains tax, VAT or sales tax in Gibraltar, so the territory is attractive to those who are quite well off. It has been rumoured that quite a number of Conservatives live there—I cannot think why. An individual can apply for category 2 status, which limits the amount of tax they need to pay. I refer to that simply to highlight the point that Gibraltar is very different from the United Kingdom, but for European Parliament elections it is part of the electoral arrangements for the UK. What are the regulations regarding money that is raised in Gibraltar but spent in these elections in the south-west of England? That is my first question.

My second question is about the conduct of those European Parliament elections. We all know that, as far as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are concerned, there are quite rigid regulations in place, monitored in large part by the Electoral Commission. The Minister referred to the fact that the Electoral Commission has been consulted about these regulations. Will he say whether the mandate of the Electoral Commission also applies to Gibraltar, especially for elections to the European Parliament, where there is a joint constituency covering the south-west of England and Gibraltar? If that is the case, can he give me some practical examples of how the Electoral Commission monitors the situation? Many people suspect that electoral arrangements in Gibraltar are not as hard and fast as we would perhaps like them to be.

The Opposition will support these regulations. Gibraltar is sometimes forgotten when we talk about elections. In the case of European Parliament elections, Gibraltar is to all intents and purposes part of the United Kingdom, and I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[John Penrose]

I am glad to hear that the Opposition are supporting the regulations, and I am happy to answer the questions as part of that process. The hon. Gentleman made a point about electoral finance. Broadly speaking, the European Union Referendum Bill tries to ensure that the status of any kind of donor is on all fours, whether they start from Gibraltar or Devizes or anywhere else in the south-west. He is right to say that some of the legal background in Gibraltar is inevitably and necessarily different.

I am that sure the hon. Gentleman will have observed that in the EU Referendum Bill we have tried to apply the general principle that, no matter whether someone is making a donation from the UK or from Gibraltar, broadly the same principles apply in every case. Nothing about that is changed by anything in this set of provisions. I can reassure him that we are not doing anything that would alter any of that. I do not want to try your patience, Mr Hanson, by straying too far into the detail of the Bill, since that is a separate point. Broadly speaking, the principles laid out in the Bill are as I have said they are, and they are not altered by what we are discussing.

On the mandate of the Electoral Commission, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, unusually for referendums—is it referendums or referenda?—effectively the returning officer for a national poll of that kind is the head of the Electoral Commission. They have a legal position and duty in relation to referendums, which is normally taken by individual constituency returning officers and counting agents.

The entire referendum will be administered legally and led by the Electoral Commission in that respect. That will apply for the mainland UK and all other applicable areas. Again, because of the different legal background in Gibraltar, that may need to have some different legal mechanisms to be delivered, but broadly speaking the principle is clear and applies throughout.

[Wayne David]

I do not want to try the patience of the Chair. I appreciate that that answer is specific to the EU Referendum—is it an Act now or still a Bill?

[John Penrose]

It is still a Bill.

[Wayne David]

My comment, which takes its cue from the explanatory memorandum, is slightly broader than that, relating to elections more generally, and to European Parliament elections in particular, which in many ways are unique. The explanatory memorandum refers to them in the background section, if not in the specifics of the draft order. Would the Minister care to comment on those elections?

[John Penrose]

I am happy to do that. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that for these electoral purposes, and particularly for European parliamentary elections, as he mentioned, Gibraltar is part of the south-west region and, broadly speaking, the Electoral Commission’s legal functions in Gibraltar are the same as they are in the rest of the UK. I hope that explicitly clarifies that point.

With that, Mr Hanson, I commend the order to the Committee and hope that we can move on and count it as passed.

Question put and agreed to.

The Economy

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announces his autumn statement next week. Because of the difficult decisions that we have been prepared to take since 2010, the country’s economy for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents in north Wales is going from strength to strength, and the overall UK economy is now 12% larger than it was when we took over from the Labour Government. As we reach calmer economic waters, it is worrying that some seem to have forgotten the lessons that the crash of 2008 taught us.

In recent months we have seen the resurgence of familiar but dangerous ideas. First—we heard it here today—is the idea that the deficit does not really matter, that it should not be a priority to rein in unsustainable public spending, and that it is fine to kick difficult decisions down the line. Those views were put to the British electorate in May, and the electorate rejected them overwhelmingly. People looked at the 1,000 jobs that the UK economy had created every day since 2010, and at the highest growth figure in the G7 for the last two years in a row. They looked at rising wages, rising living standards, and falling inequality, and they said, “Your long-term economic plan is working, so we want you to continue the job.” Since the election, national debt has been forecast to fall this year as a share of GDP for the first time in more than a decade.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is the Minister pleased with the appalling level of productivity in this country under her Government?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman knows that productivity has been a long-term issue for the British economy, and I shall be talking in more detail about our productivity plans in a moment.

DRAFT Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015 Draft Representation of The People (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 General Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. The amendments in the regulations, although relatively straightforward and modest, are important, and I would like to put a few points to the Minister and hear his response. Generally, we are supportive of the changes; we think that they make practical, good sense. I also welcome the fact that there appears to have been a wide measure of co-operation, co-ordination and advice given and taken by the Government.

I am particularly pleased that there appears to have been a fruitful co-ordination with transgender organisations, which expressed concern about the Government’s initial suggestions. Is the new formulation that the Minister is presenting in the regulations acceptable to the transgender organisations that initially made representations of concern?

My second question to the Minister arises from the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission. As we unfortunately saw during the efforts to bring forward the date of IER’s full implementation, the Government do not always take on board the Electoral Commission’s advice, even though it is well-meaning and well-founded in fact, but it seems that on this occasion at least, the Government have taken on board the commission’s worries. I would like to press him slightly on that.

I understand that the Electoral Commission made three observations, to which the Government have responded. The first concern was about the suggestion that no formal communication need be issued where the ERO has determined that someone has ceased to satisfy conditions for registration. I am slightly concerned about that. I understand the Government’s desire to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork, but clarification is necessary.

Another concern was that when there are formal objections to a registration application, the objector will not be informed of the result of their objection. That is a little strange. There cannot be that many objections by individuals or organisations to people being on the electoral register; they should be informed of the outcome of deliberations, especially if they have been involved in the hearing. The Electoral Commission has other concerns, but I would respect the Minister if he could give clarification of what he has said to the Electoral Commission on those points.

The situation in Scotland might be dealt with separately, but it makes sense to raise it at this point in our discussion. The Scottish Government have expressed concerns that apply to both the English and Welsh situation, as well as the Scottish situation.

[The Chair]

May I clarify something for the shadow Minister? We are taking both the regulations together, so we are discussing the relationship to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. Scotland is highly relevant.

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Mr Hamilton. I have a general request for clarification from the Minister. A large number of measures regarding electoral arrangements are devolved to the Scottish Government. Has the Sewel convention been put into effect here? If it is necessary for whatever reason—perhaps to maintain a degree of uniformity and coherence—for the UK Government to make legislation applying to the Scottish Government, was a formal submission made by the Scottish Government under the Sewel convention? That is a general point.

On the detail of the proposals before us, will the Minister respond to two points made by the Scottish Government about both sets of regulations? The first concerns a need expressed by the Scottish Assessors Association and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, bodies with which I am not particularly familiar. They made the point, echoed by the Scottish Government, that they are slightly concerned about the need to reduce communication, and about the stipulation that those who have made submissions expressing concern about people being on the electoral register will not be informed of the result of deliberations.

The Scottish Parliament had a more general concern that the Government were perhaps putting fiscal constraints and the need to save money ahead of the need for clarity and as much straightforwardness in the process as possible. I read carefully what the Scottish Government wrote, and I detected concerns—perhaps not explicit—that the Government in London are passing measures, not wholly warranted, that smack a little of penny pinching, rather than enhancing democracy. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to those points. Provided that his responses are satisfactory—I see no reason why they should not be—Labour Members will not oppose them.

Individual Electoral Registration

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is worth emphasising that being on the electoral register is absolutely fundamental to democracy in this country, but for obvious reasons unless someone is on the electoral register they cannot decide whether they want to vote. Whether they wish to exercise their franchise is up to them, but to deny people that choice undermines the concept of British democracy.

Individual electoral registration is a sound principle and makes good sense. When the Labour party was in government, we brought forward the concept of individual electoral registration, which was subsequently taken up by the coalition Government. Individuals within a household should have responsibility for their registration, rather than relying on the head of household to do it for them. It is a good means of empowerment and of bestowing responsibility on individuals.

As I cast my mind back to the passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, however, I remember that we the Opposition expressed practical concerns about how the laudable principle of IER was going to be put into practice. Many of those concerns have been borne out by the passage of time. We had a concern that the Government were placing an undue emphasis on the suggestion that there was widespread fraud. As we all know, there are occasional instances of fraud, but, by and large, our system has been transparent, straightforward and honourable given how people have behaved under it. Instances of fraud are few and far between. We felt that that had been elevated into a principle to allow the Government to introduce measures that would make it very difficult for many people to register. That is worth bearing in mind in our discussion today.

Secondly, we were concerned about how the dovetailing of the present system would work with the introduction of a new system—the move from household registration to individual registration. We thought it important to have sufficient resources to ensure that that was done properly and also that there was a sufficient period of time for that to happen. My concern, therefore, is why the Government have decided, despite what was agreed by Parliament, that a full implementation date for IER would be December 2015. Why have they decided to bring it forward by a year? I will return to that point later.

Individual electoral registration is important for next year because we are concerned to make sure that we have as many people as possible on the register to participate in a whole raft of important elections. Also, it is possible that we will have the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. That is very important indeed. So there are good electoral reasons to make sure that as many people as possible are on the register.

My concern is about bringing forward the date for registration for the full implementation of IER from December 2016 to December 2015. Throughout the passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, we had a lurking suspicion, which reared its head frequently, that the Government were really interested not in democracy and full participation, but in political advantage. We had that concern all the way through the passage of the Bill. Occasionally, the Government blew the gaff and it was pretty clear what they were trying to do. It has to be said. There is no clearer example than when the Government tried to introduce full IER without the necessary preparation and safeguards for December 2015 so that it would happen to coincide with the boundary review beginning on exactly the same date. We all know the Boundary Commission takes as essential and fundamental to its work the state of the electoral register at the point it starts its work.

Is it simply a coincidence that the two processes are coming together? I suggest not. If we look at the work done by the Electoral Commission, we see clearly that despite the rhetoric and the warm words of the Government, many people will not be on the electoral register by December this year. The Electoral Commission says that the number could be as high as 1.9 million, although we accept that that number will deplete as we move closer to December this year. Other people have suggested the number will be slightly less. Some have suggested it could be as low as 1 million people. Nevertheless, it is true that a heck of a lot of people will not be on the electoral register—not because they have been on it fraudulently, but because, for reasons well explained by others, they have not been able to register and will therefore not be included on the register. They will not be able to vote and will not be taken into account when the next boundaries for the parliamentary elections in 2020 take place.

Why have the Government decided to ignore the objective and impartial advice of the Electoral Commission? There are plenty of instances where the commission says things that Labour does not like. It is not a Labour poodle, but an objective body. It has looked at all the information, analysed all the facts and figures, and come to the best conclusion. I will quote from its detailed report issued in June this year:

“If the transition ends in December 2015, there is a potential benefit to the accuracy of the register–with any retained entries which are redundant or inaccurate being removed”—

I accept that—

“but also a risk to the completeness of the register and to participation, with retained entries relating to eligible electors being removed...In contrast, if the transition continues to December 2016”,

as Parliament wanted,

“the main benefit relates to completeness–with entries for any eligible electors who are not registered individually retained on the registers”.

Surely we all believe in democracy and that there should be as many people as possible on the electoral register. We should not seek to manipulate this critical democratic process for party political reasons. I know the Government have decided to bring forward the date for full implementation, but even at this late stage I ask them to keep in mind the democratic principle that our election method should be above party political considerations. We are talking about the democracy of this country and, dare I say it, that is more important than the Labour party’s interests—or, indeed, the Conservative party’s. We are talking about democracy and that should be of concern to everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I cannot, partly because I have not given the speech yet, and partly because, as I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), registering people who are not on the register needs to happen, regardless of when the transition from the old system to individual electoral registration ends, because the transition will not affect people who are not already on the register. It is a parallel process that needs to be done anyway.

[Wayne David]

That is missing the point entirely. We are asking the Minister to give us one good reason why it is better to introduce IER in December 2015, rather than December 2016. We are still waiting.

[John Penrose]

I was just coming on to that. I want to address the fundamental point about how we are going to deal with the problem of under-represented groups on our registers, which is crucial and underlies many of the concerns.

Let me move on to the timing of the transition to IER. As we have heard in many speeches today, there is a presumption that this process is going remove eligible voters from the electoral roll. I want fundamentally to question that presumption. During the course of a year a large number people on the electoral register—a very large number in some places, and in other places fewer people—move house. Some sadly die, and there are fraudulent entries in some parts of the country, although not in all—the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) rightly said that fraud is not an issue in all parts of the country. That is the natural state of any database. It is natural for any electoral register to contain such data errors.

We have to sort through the 1.9 million people whose entries are incomplete and who had not made the transition as of the general election date of May this year to find which are genuine voters with a pulse—people who are eligible to vote. We need to identify them, confirm their ID in the way that we have been discussing and ensure that they are confirmed on the electoral register. Then the only entries left will be the people who are no longer there—the people who have moved, died or were never there in the first place because they were fraudulent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) talked about the fundamental importance of registration for our democracy. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) had some good ideas about voter vouchers for 18-year-olds. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) talked about how exciting campaigns can boost registration, which is the gold standard for us all.

We want exciting campaigns that energise our voters and promote democracy. We had interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Christina Rees), for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) probed an important point about student registration.

In this important debate, I have tried to emphasise that bringing forward individual electoral registration at this time is a body blow to our democracy. Colleagues have highlighted under-registration in their constituencies, where key groups of people, such as those in rented accommodation and young people, are being squeezed off the register. The Minister made some constructive comments, and I look forward to reading his speech once he has given it in a few days. I would be grateful if he sent me a link.

[Wayne David]

He could send a copy to all of us.

[John Penrose]

indicated assent.

Scotland Bill

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Clause 15 makes changes to ensure that a proportion of the VAT that is attributable to Scotland may be assigned to the Scottish Government’s budget. The Smith commission set the objective that more devolved spending in Scotland should come from tax raised in Scotland. Control over setting VAT rates is not being devolved to Scotland, because EU VAT law does not allow for differential VAT rates within a member state. The changes made by clause 15 will, however, ensure that a proportion of the VAT that is attributable to Scotland may be assigned to the Scottish Government’s budget. Clause 15 sets that proportion at the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate of VAT and the first 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT. On the basis of current VAT rates, that would be exactly half, representing, very approximately, £4.5 billion.

Clause 15 will link Scotland’s share of VAT to economic activity, providing incentives for the Scottish Government to promote growth. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have considerable levers to do this, for example on skills and education policy, and it is now for them to set out how they will do that. Assigning VAT to Scotland’s budget will strengthen the financial responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and strengthen its ability to pursue its own visions, goals and objectives.

Let me say just a word or two about new clause 20, although I am sure the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will be saying more about it shortly. It requests a review of VAT refund schemes in Scotland, with a particular focus on how they affect Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. In 2012, Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service restructured in order to streamline and modernise. As a result, eight local police and fire authorities became one. The restructuring stopped the duplication of support services, potentially saving £130 million, according to the Scottish Government. Like other people and organisations, fire and rescue services and the police pay VAT on the taxable goods and services they purchase, but because they are largely not engaged in business activities they cannot recover this VAT through the VAT system in the same way as businesses do. However, there are, in certain clearly defined circumstances, existing schemes that refund some or all VAT.

Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 was introduced to ensure that VAT is not a cost borne by local taxation. There are two long-established criteria for inclusion in this scheme. First, that a body must undertake a local government function—we accept that the successor bodies of the former fire and rescue service authorities do this. Secondly, the body must have the power to draw funding directly from local taxation. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is funded by the Scottish Government rather than through any legal call on local taxes, and so does not fit under that criteria. In 2011, the Scottish Government were explicitly advised of this consequence of changing from regional police and fire services to a single authority. The expected benefits in the Scottish Government’s business case far outweigh the loss of any VAT refunds, and so the Scottish Government understandably continued restructuring with that in mind. The restructuring was the decision of the Scottish Government, made with the full knowledge of the VAT consequences of their decisions. This is a historical request and is not a matter that the draft clause regarding VAT assignment should address. Having set out the background, in anticipation of the arguments we may hear from the hon. Gentleman, I urge him not to press his new clause to a Division.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

The Smith commission’s report was very clear about VAT, particularly in paragraph 84. The Government have spelt out in the Bill how this arrangement will work in practice. The Opposition support the Government in implementing this part of the Smith agreement, but we have a real concern about the position of Police Scotland and the fire and rescue service in Scotland. A number of organisations have expressed concern about VAT relief schemes in Scotland, and I very much hope that the Government will accept our new clause 20 and that the review will be sufficiently broad based to cover a wide range of organisations, including charities.

I wish to focus my remarks on the situation, which has already been referred to in part, regarding Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Surprisingly, none of the 43 police forces in England and Wales, or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, pays VAT—not even the National Crime Agency has to pay VAT—but both Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service do. There is widespread indignation at this unfairness in Scotland. Sir Stephen House, Scotland’s chief constable, has said, in unambiguous terms:

“It simply isn’t correct. It is not right. It’s unfair and it shouldn’t be allowed to continue”.

The eight police forces and the eight fire and rescue services, before they were amalgamated, were exempt from VAT, but now Police Scotland has a huge annual bill—a bill that is unfair and unique in the whole of the UK. At a time when Police Scotland has no alternative but to make significant cuts, it is a liability that every year it has to put forward a forfeited bill of about £10 million—the figure for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is approximately £11 million.

Why has this situation arisen? The Government’s position was spelt out in some detail in a letter to Cathy Jamieson, the then Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 9 March. The letter from the Financial Secretary explained that the fire and rescue service, and by implication Police Scotland, pays VAT on the taxable goods and services it purchases, but because these bodies cannot recover VAT through the system in the same way businesses do, there are special schemes in place. He then explained that there are two schemes relevant to fire and rescue services. The first, as set out in section 33 of the 1994 Act, made sure that VAT is not a cost borne by local taxation. There are two criteria for inclusion in this scheme. First, the body must undertake a local government function—and the Treasury did accept that was the case with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Secondly, the Treasury claimed that the body must have the power to draw funding from local taxation. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is funded directly by the Scottish Government rather than through any legal call through local taxes. Hence, the Government have argued that a “key condition” of the section 33 VAT refund scheme does not apply.

That was the first refund scheme, but there is a second one, which is for Departments and the NHS. It is doubtful whether the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service would be in a position to claim refunds on outsource services, but the Treasury made it clear that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service would not be eligible in principle because it is not a “central government” Department. To be honest, those reasons might be technically valid, but they are also morally suspect and unjustifiable. I am a great believer in the saying, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Clearly, the situation in Scotland with regard to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and to Police Scotland is an anomaly, which applies to only one part of the United Kingdom.

I very much hope that the Treasury can muster the wherewithal to address that anomaly, and to do it through our proposed new clause 20.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I note that Highways England and London Legacy, which was created after the Olympics, have both been granted VAT exemption. They also fall into the same group. Surely Highways England is in exactly the same boat, yet it is given VAT exemption. We are not talking about something that is chiselled in stone or set in concrete, so surely it can be changed.

[Wayne David]

Well, things can be changed through political will. As I have said, where there is a will to make that change, a change can be made. A way can be found, if there is the desire to do so. I very much hope that the Government listen carefully to what has been said this evening.

I must say that something else worries me, too. I refer again to the letter to Cathy Jamieson from the Financial Secretary. The penultimate paragraph says:

“In 2011 the Scottish Government were explicitly advised of this potential consequence of changing from regional police forces to a single authority as part of the proposed revised funding model for Police Scotland. At the time they took the decision to make these reforms they would have known they would no longer be eligible for the VAT refunds as a result.”

There we have it in black and white: the Scottish National party Government were warned that their plans to reorganise emergency services would, in effect, cost millions in VAT refunds. Yes, cost savings might have been made; but they knew the situation and they were prepared to see that loss occur. They still pressed ahead with their plans. This is in part a mess of the SNP’s own making, compounded by an indifferent and apathetic Tory-led Government here in Westminster. The sensible thing surely would have been for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to have come together and sort out this problem before Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service were constituted on an all-Scotland basis. That is the common-sense thing that should have happened. But that is in the past.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten this Chamber as to whether the situation we have here is what the Labour party has in mind when it talks about the pooling and sharing of resources?

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman is really stretching things to try to make that point. What I am suggesting is that for devolution to be effective, there needs to be a consensus, a coming together or an agreement on the best way forward. I quoted an excellent example. Both services would have materially benefited if both the Government of the day and the SNP Government had had the wherewithal to come together and work things out sensibly.

[Dr Whitford]

The SNP Government had written extensively to the Government to try to deal with that issue. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service should have been left in eight divisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

No, of course not. What I am saying is that it would have been far better if the Government in Scotland and the Government in London had sat down maturely and worked things out for the benefit of services in Scotland rather than pursue a fixation with the idea that things had to be brought together on a centralised basis in Scotland, irrespective of the consequences. The Government were absolutely adamant on this. Presumably they could not find parliamentary time, or did not have the political inclination to bring forward an amendment to have a scheme that would have benefited everyone.

The sensible thing would have been to do precisely what I have said, but that is in the past. The important thing now is to move forward and resolve this situation. Our proposed new clause 20 calls for a review of the situation. It is a modest request, which I very much hope that the Government will accept. If they do accept it, it could provide an opportunity for everyone to get together and, hopefully, resolve the issue.

It has been suggested by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations that VAT rebates should be devolved so that they better conform to devolved policy to support society and public services. A suggestion has been made that the UK Government could allocate a Barnett formula-based share of the VAT rebates to the Scottish block grant. That is one possibility, but, like all the other suggestions, it needs to be soberly and carefully discussed. It could be a part of the review that we propose. I hope that the Government will accept our amendment so that we can have that meaningful discussion and reach a decision for the benefit of Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on clause 15 stand part and proposed new clause 20 in the name of the Labour party.

Let us turn to the way that the Smith commission has spoken about the assignation of a proportion of VAT. It said:

“The receipts raised in Scotland by the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate…will be assigned…All other aspects of VAT will remain reserved.”

The Scottish Parliament Information Centre analysis for the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee referred to it in its interim report on the draft Scotland Bill clauses. It said:

“Draft clause 13 [now 15] would give effect to the Smith Commission recommendation that the Scottish Government be assigned receipts from the first ten percentage points of VAT. With the agreement of both governments it also proposes to go slightly further by notionally assigning 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT as well…The amount of VAT receipts attributable to Scotland is to be the subject of an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government.”

It did point out that there are no draft clauses in relation to the corresponding adjustment to the block grant. Hopefully, the Minister will confirm that that does not require legislation. In effect, the Scotland Bill proposes the assignation of half of VAT receipts to the Scottish Parliament. However, that will provide no actual control of VAT.

The Devolution (Further Powers) Committee had no particular concerns with the draft clauses, but it did want details of the assignment of VAT revenues and the share of any benefits to be produced—the mechanics of the assignment—before the Scottish Parliament could be expected to give its legislative consent. The committee said:

“There is still significant uncertainty on how the assignment of a share of VAT revenues will be calculated and whether the Scottish Government will be able to reap the rewards of any economic stimulus that yields higher VAT revenues.”

It is also worth noting that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s analysis paper, which set out the differences between the draft clauses and the published Bill, noted that:

“No further detail is provided on the assignment of VAT revenues, or the corresponding block grant adjustment.”

There are a number of technical issues for consideration notwithstanding the fact that there is no particular issue with the legislation as such.

The committee’s interim report considered the evidence on VAT assignment from a range of sources. It said that the bulk of the evidence received by the committee, while welcoming the principle, called for greater clarity in how the assignment of revenues would work. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland told the committee:

“Clause 13 in the ‘Draft Scotland Clauses 2015’ regarding VAT delivers the mechanics of the assignment of VAT, but with the large caveat that it applies ‘where there is an agreement between the Treasury and Scottish Ministers’...The rules for agreeing this have not been provided and it may not be easy to identify ‘Scottish VAT’”.

I take on board what the Scottish Secretary said earlier about not giving a running commentary, but on that specific point—and I shall have more specific questions—at least I hope we can get clarity.

In oral evidence to the Scottish Parliament committee, Charlotte Barbour of ICAS elaborated:

“The assignment of VAT offers more opportunity for discussions on how that might be calculated. It slots in with the difficulties with the fiscal framework”—

we discussed those in the last debate—

“and some of the no-detriment issues”—[Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 5 February 2015; c. 4.]

I mentioned those previously. The Scottish Trades Union Congress was broadly supportive of the assignment of VAT. Its deputy general secretary told the Committee that

“I am quite a fan of assigned revenue”,

but he took the point that

“it is not a power in the sense of being usable to promote particular behaviours”.

However, he said:

“A degree of assigned revenue clearly rewards the Scottish Government for economic growth and, in our view, the closer we get to an amount of revenue that is derived from positive actions undertaken by the Scottish Government, the better.”—[Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 15 January 2015; c. 13.]

I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. We want responsibility, which rather prompts the question that given that there is no control over VAT, why assign only half of it? Why not assign it all? The Scottish Government could then quite rightly benefit, if there was a benefit, from the entire rise in VAT in Scotland rather than just half of it and could take responsibility if there was a shortfall, not just for half the shortfall.

Speaking to the committee, John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, highlighted two issues for discussion with the UK Government, which are both important:

“One is establishing the analytical base for how VAT should be apportioned and the other is the policy question of guaranteeing that if those estimates are exceeded, Scotland retains the benefit of that improved economic performance”.—[Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee 12 March 2015; c. 26.]

The former Secretary of State for Scotland also commented on the issue of VAT in a letter to the Committee, in which he said that he could

“confirm that VAT assignment will link the Scottish Government’s budget with economic activity in Scotland, providing incentives for growth. The amount of VAT to be assigned…will be based on an estimated share of the total VAT generated in the UK...The UK and Scottish Governments will need to agree a methodology”.

Will the Minister provide further details, not on the specific discussions with the Scottish Government but on the themes? What are the options for how VAT will be assigned? Will it, for example, be a consumption-based approach? How can we improve the robustness of the measure and the timescales, for example by improving the survey data? What will be the costs of implementation and how will they be met? Does there need to be a proxy measure over a transition period until the methodology is robust? Has any thought been given to indexation and comparable measures of growth? What has been said about governance and accountability, for example developing a separate strand to the memorandum of understanding with the HMRC on VAT to expand the role of the project board?

The question of the robustness of the survey data is vital. At present, VAT is estimated by the Scottish Government in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report, based on a household survey of expenditure, therefore missing tourism spend entirely. That is corrected by a percentage share adjustment, meaning that the Scottish Government estimate what percentage of UK tourism happens in Scotland, but if the Scottish Government managed to increase tourism spend through other actions, such as reducing air passenger duty, that would not show up according to the current methodology. We therefore need to agree a new robust methodology and, perhaps, an interim measure until that methodology is in place.

As the Minister has said, VAT cannot be varied within a state and we understand and respect that. So let me repeat the question: why give only half rather than all, unless to camouflage the fact that the tax over which Scotland will have control will be such a small share of our tax base? Could the assignation of VAT revenue be designed simply to make that number seem a little bigger?

Let me turn to new clause 20, on the subject of VAT on Police Scotland and the fire service. We heard the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) describe the amendment, which proposes a review of the application of the VAT refund scheme for business in Scotland. It has been tabled with the intention, it would appear, of addressing the anomaly of the inability of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to reclaim VAT. Although we agree that that is an inequitable position for both services, we do not necessarily believe that a review is the way to address it. Instead, the UK Government—as the hon. Gentleman said, where there is a will, there is a way—should simply amend the VAT status of the single police service and fire and rescue service in Scotland.

There are some technical issues with the new clause. VAT is UK-wide, so any review could not be confined solely to Scotland. Proposed subsection (1) requires a review of VAT refund schemes for “businesses” but there is no business VAT refund scheme as such. Subsection (2) would make the VAT refund scheme applicable to central Government bodies that sit outwith EU law but are the subject of an EU-wide consultation process. The reference to Police Scotland should instead be to the Scottish Police Authority, which is the legal entity and VAT-registered body; Police Scotland is the part of the SPA relating to police officers. However, notwithstanding all of that and the fact that the new clause simply proposes a review, it never does any harm to find out that what we thought we knew was correct—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

In a moment. We think that the better approach to fix the problem might be through a forthcoming Finance Bill after the Budget in July, but nevertheless we are happy to back the new clause today if Labour presses it to a vote.

[Wayne David]

I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman if he was going to support us, but he has pre-empted me. It is very good that he will, because, of course, the SNP did not table an amendment on this issue. I thank him.

[Stewart Hosie]

We did not table an amendment because there was not an amendment that we could table to fix the problem. As I have just said, that requires an amendment to a Finance Bill. One might have thought that an experienced old hand like the hon. Gentleman might have known that and advised his younger and less experienced colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, on how things work. Having said that, and that we are happy to support new clause 20, I will sit down and hopefully we can move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

But the reason for that is the decision that the Scottish Government took, with full information. This did not come as a surprise or as an unexpected consequence of a decision. It was a decision that the Scottish Government made, fully informed and understanding the situation. I am not criticising the decision because, according to the business case made by the Scottish Government, the benefits far outweighed the costs. But the costs were there and identified to the Scottish Government in advance.

[Wayne David]

I am sure the Minister would acknowledge that devolution is based on mutual respect. With the benefit of hindsight, does he agree that it would have been far better if the Government here in London and the Scottish Government had sat down and worked out a way forward?

[Mr Gauke]

A request was made of the UK Government and we provided information on what the position was. As I was saying a moment ago, there are many calls for an expansion of section 33 and the refund scheme. The cost of the scheme being widely expanded could be substantial. At a time when there are considerable constraints on the public finances, we have to be careful about responding to every request and claim, however reasonable it might be.

European Union Referendum Bill

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

I have read the work by Open Europe. My hon. Friend is right to say it has made an assessment, but it is one assessment among many—there have been many others. As I go, I will explain why I think there is merit in Government Departments taking a proper look at this.

There has been much talk of whether the UK would adopt the Norwegian model, the Swiss model or some other model of being outside the EU. The Committee will be glad to know that I am not going to go through all the costs and benefits of those models today, but they all raise questions about being outside the EU that have not yet been answered.

Amendment 4 calls for a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility on the implications for the public finances of a British exit. Few would dispute that since the OBR was established it has gained a reputation for both independence and quality. The reports it produces on the Budget and the autumn statement are valued across the House and have helped to inform the debate about fiscal policy in the past five years. In the run-up to the recent election, my party called for the OBR to assess the tax and spending promises of each of the main parties, a demand supported by the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament, although there was some debate about whether the request had come too late in the Parliament to be brought into being in time for the election.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has mentioned some of the work of Select Committees, but he will also know that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has done some work on the possibility of Britain leaving the EU and following the Norwegian or Swiss models. Will he find a way to ensure that those ideas and findings are brought into the national debate as well?