[Relevant document: The Second Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436.]
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister and I invite him to introduce the measure and address the House.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should like to thank the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for its report on the Bill. The Committee has raised a number of important issues in its report that I shall seek to address one by one in my comments today.
The Bill has a single, clear purpose: to introduce fixed-term Parliaments to the United Kingdom to remove the right of a Prime Minister to seek the Dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain. This simple constitutional innovation will none the less have a profound effect because for the first time in our history the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of Governments. There will be no more feverish speculation over the date of the next election, distracting politicians from getting on with running the country. Instead everyone will know how long a Parliament can be expected to last, bringing much greater stability to our political system. Crucially, if, for some reason, there is a need for Parliament to dissolve early, that will be up to the House of Commons to decide. Everyone knows the damage that is done when a Prime Minister dithers and hesitates over the election date, keeping the country guessing. We were subjected to that pantomime in 2007. All that happens is that the political parties end up in perpetual campaign mode, making it very difficult for Parliament to function effectively. The only way to stop that ever happening again is by the reforms contained in the Bill.
As we hammer out the detail of these reforms, I hope that we are all able to keep sight of the considerable consensus that already exists on the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments. They were in my party's manifesto, they have been in Labour party manifestos since 1992, and although this was not an explicit Conservative election pledge, the Conservative manifesto did include a commitment to making the use of the royal prerogative subject to greater democratic control, ensuring that Parliament is properly involved in all big, national decisions—and there are few as big as the lifetime of Parliament and the frequency of general elections.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the general election campaign the present Prime Minister said he thought it was desirable that were there to be a change of Prime Minister during the course of a Parliament there should be a general election within six months? Where has that proposal gone to?
I do of course recollect what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the general election campaign. What he said has been improved upon and superseded by this Bill. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it has been improved upon because it gives the House the right to decide whether it wants to dissolve Parliament for any reason that it wishes. If the House decides that it does not want to continue to express confidence in a Government when a Prime Minister has changed, the Bill will give it the right to dissolve Parliament and trigger a general election.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Let me make a little more progress.
Although I understand that some hon. Members have expressed unease at the speed with which we are advancing, let us remember that we are not starting from square one. People have been debating the length of Parliaments since the 17th century and all the parties now agree on the principle of fixed terms.
In advancing his rather remarkable theory about improving the powers of Parliament, can the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance—indeed a guarantee—that in order to ensure that Parliament as a whole could properly make a decision on any such motion, there would be a guaranteed free vote on it?
The hon. Gentleman is a great expert in expressing his views regardless of what the Whips say. Whipping is of course a matter for the parties. I question his suggestion that there is something unorthodox or unwelcome about giving the House more power. We have a Prime Minister who is the first in history to relinquish the right to set the date of the general election. Surely the hon. Gentleman, who has always fought so valiantly for the rights of the House, welcomes that shift of power from the Executive to the legislature.
The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement that the Prime Minister has made on a number of occasions—that he is giving away a power that no previous Prime Minister has chosen to do. Why do the right hon. Gentleman and our Prime Minister think that they are wiser than their 40 predecessors?
As I said, the virtues of a fixed-term—[Interruption.] It is not a question of wisdom; it is a question of the weight of history. We have been talking about this for decades, the Labour party campaigned on it, as did other parties, and at a time when we are trying to restore people’s confidence in politics after the expenses scandals, one of the essential ingredients is to strengthen the rights of the House at the cost of the excessive powers of the Executive.
Several hon. Members
I want to make a little headway on the detail of the Bill.
The Bill makes provision for the next parliamentary general election to be held on 7 May 2015.
Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of anything else happening in May 2015? National elections perhaps? Did he consider them and reject them? Why is he holding an election on the same day as the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly?
If the hon. Gentleman can be patient, I will turn to that issue as it is a legitimate one. We had a debate last week about the coincidence of the date of the referendum being the same as that of the elections for the devolved Assemblies, but, as I shall acknowledge later, if he can hold on, I recognise that concerns about the coincidence of two parliamentary elections are qualitatively different and need to be examined further.
Each subsequent parliamentary general election after 7 May 2015 will be expected to occur on the first Thursday in May every five years, dovetailing with new arrangements that will see parliamentary Sessions run from spring to spring from 2012, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
On parliamentary Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman heard his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that there would be opportunities during debates on this Bill to debate his announced decision this morning in respect of abolishing one Queen’s Speech and having a two-year Session, until May 2012. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how those debates on the proposals made by the Leader of the House will arise during the Bill, because there is absolutely nothing in it that relates to them? To facilitate such provision, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure, if necessary, that the Government move new clauses providing for the dates of Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech so that we can have those debates?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a legislative matter so such provisions would not be necessary. As I am sure he will acknowledge, these matters are linked. If we adopt this legislation on fixed-term Parliaments, which I understand he supports—unless he has changed his mind—it will have a knock-on effect: we need to align the Sessions of this Parliament to the new fixed-term provisions. Instead of hyperventilating about the abolition of a Queen’s Speech, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that all we are doing is introducing a one-off, transitional arrangement so that those two facts are aligned.
Of course I understand why it is being done, but there is a lot of objection, and not just from the Opposition, to having a Session lasting two years. That has not happened for the last 150 years and it has implications for the power of the House. As the Official Report will show, the Leader of the House told the House just a few minutes ago that there would be opportunities to debate his proposal under this Bill. Could we know how that will arise?
The right hon. Gentleman is already doing it, so I am sure that there will be more opportunities for him and his colleagues to do so in Committee. I would like to point out a fact to him. The extension of this Session will last in practice for five months. It is a one-off, transitional arrangement to make sure that we have reliable annual Sessions from spring to spring, in keeping with the fixed-term Parliament provisions that we have introduced in the Bill.
May I remind my right hon. Friend of the comments by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who said that the whole issue of whether we should have a Queen’s Speech every year or every two years—and in fact, whether we should divide Parliaments into segments—should be considered? The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has argued that we should not put that in the Bill, because it needs to be considered by the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.
It is not in the Bill, but it is a consequence of it. If we have fixed-term Parliaments, we need to revisit the way in which Sessions are organised.
We must retain flexibility on an exceptional basis, allowing us to deal with unexpected crises or conditions that make it necessary to move the election—for example, a repeat of the foot and mouth crisis, which led to the postponement of elections in 2001. In such circumstances, the Prime Minister will, by affirmative order, be able to vary the date of Westminster elections by up to two months, either before or after the scheduled date. Such a move will require the consent of both Houses, thereby preventing this power from being abused in a partisan manner.
May I put it to my right hon. Friend that these proposals, whatever the merits of fixed-term Parliaments—personally, I do not support those proposals—smack of gerrymandering the constitution in favour of a particular coalition? That is definitely a bad thing. It is a subjective judgment to suggest that this is giving power to Parliament, as it can be argued that it is taking it away from it. Does this not smack of constitution making on the hoof? What we need is a proper constitutional convention to consider such a major change to our constitution.
I do not agree that this is an innovation made on the hoof, as it has been discussed for decades. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not recognise that taking a power away from the Executive after years in which they have been too dominant in relation to the legislature is a step in the right direction, providing more powers to Parliament that do not exist at present. It is also fully in keeping with democratic practice in many other democracies.
I am astonished by the Deputy Prime Minister’s comment that he would build flexibility into the legislation so that if something such as foot and mouth occurs, changes can be made. Is that not giving back to the Prime Minister the prerogative to call an election, although the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to take that prerogative away from him? Surely it was a political decision not to hold the election in May 2001, not a constitutional one.
With respect, the right hon. Lady is reading too much into something that is a perfectly practical, common-sense solution to what happens if, in exceptional circumstances, as we saw in 2001, the election simply cannot be held on a proposed date.
Well, the right hon. Lady shakes her head, but she would not have liked elections to be held in the middle of the foot and mouth crisis. We need to respond to such things. The decision would be made by affirmative order, so the House of Lords, too, would have a say, preventing the politicisation of that decision.
Several hon. Members
I should like to make progress before giving way again.
Some hon. Members have asked, quite reasonably, why Parliaments will run for five years, not four. That is one of the issues that has been raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report. Let me explain: five years is the current maximum length for which our legislation provides. Five years is the length of Parliaments in France, Italy, and South Africa, among others, and it is the maximum length of Parliament in India. In the United Kingdom, three of the past five Parliaments have run for five years. Leaving aside the very short Parliaments, half of all Parliaments since the war have run for more than four years, so five years is both in keeping with our current arrangements, and has international precedent.
But if the right hon. Gentleman is to give us all the statistics, he must add that since 1832 the average peacetime length of a Parliament has been three years and eight months—nowhere near five years, which has been pretty exceptional across that time. On the international comparisons, none of the other countries that he mentioned has the same structure with the Executive coming out of Parliament, so ours is a very different system. I urge him to look again at four years.
I am not entirely sure whether that last assertion is correct. The hon. Gentleman wants to give the House a history lesson, so perhaps I may refer him to the Parliament Act 1911, which introduced the current five-year maximum. The then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, told the House that five years would
“probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1749.]
That is a quote that I picked up from the Committee’s report, rightly pointing out that when a Parliament is expected to last for only four years, as is now the case, it very often ends up, in effect, a three-year Parliament. So our view is that by fixing the cycle at five years, we help to mitigate—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that that is a ridiculous decision. He knows as well as anybody else that for 12 or 18 months before an election is held, work in the House is blighted by all the parties politicking in advance of polling day. Therefore, if we want Governments to govern for the long term, we think five years is the right period of time.
Several hon. Members
I should like to make some headway on the next issue—
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Second Reading speech by Herbert Asquith in February 1911. I am very grateful to the House of Commons Library for drawing this to our attention. I have the full speech. The right hon. Gentleman cannot use that quotation to justify something that was never the sense that Asquith was putting across. What Asquith was suggesting was that Parliaments within the five-year bracket would normally last from beginning to end for four years. That was the Liberal party policy as late as 2007. Why is it not now?
I will not compete with Herbert Asquith as well as with the right hon. Gentleman. The wording, as I said, makes it clear that he was pointing out something that we all know: that politics becomes consumed by electioneering in the run-up to a general election, and that therefore, if we have a five-year fixed term, as we are advocating in the Bill, in reality the Government of the day have at least four years to govern for the benefit of the country.
I will go back not 100 years, but 10 years. Have the Government considered the other three nations of this country, which have decided on a four-year period? Surely four years fits, so that there will not be a conflict in the future. The current term should be either four years, or six years, moving back to a four-year cycle, otherwise there will be a conflict that is insurmountable.
As I said earlier, I recognise that there is an issue there, as the hon. Gentleman says. That coincidence of UK elections to the House and devolved elections will occur every 20 years. If he will allow me, I will return to the issue in greater detail in a while.
The date of the next election specifically—
I should like to make some headway. The date of the next election, Thursday 7 May 2015, has also raised some questions, as Holyrood, the Welsh Assembly and Stormont will all be holding their own elections on the same day. The issue of combining polls came up last week when we were debating the decision to hold a referendum on 5 May next year, as that referendum will coincide with elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Let me be clear. We believe that holding a referendum on the same day as a parliamentary or Assembly election is entirely justifiable. It allows us to avoid asking people to traipse back and forth to the ballot box, it is an uncomplicated event in which people are simply being asked to say yes or no to the referendum question, so it avoids any confusion or overlap with the elections to the devolved Assemblies, and of course it will save money. However, as I said, I accept that holding elections to different Parliaments or Assemblies on the same day is altogether more complex—
I shall explain. It is not a simple yes or no choice to a referendum question, but raises a host of questions about how people are governed at the UK-wide and devolved level by different parties and different politicians. With elections to the devolved legislatures every four years and to Westminster every five years, such a situation would occur every two decades. With the next occurrence in five years, we have time to plan for it, but we need to give the issue proper further thought. There is already scope in legislation to vary the dates of elections to devolved legislatures, and the Government are now actively considering whether those powers are sufficient. We have not yet reached a conclusion—we will be very interested to hear the views of others—but if we decide that further powers are needed, we will put forward proposals for an alternative.
With the Prime Minister having the power, subject to resolutions of both Houses, to vary the date of the general election, would a condition for varying that date be the date of a devolved Assembly election, and would it be for Westminster or the devolved Assembly to make the variation?
As I explained earlier, the purpose of that exceptional power is to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, so that is not the intention. What I have just tried to explain is that there will be an issue, once every 20 years, with the coincidence of elections to this House and to devolved Assemblies. The devolved Assemblies, as I said, have powers to adjust that date, and we are considering whether those powers are sufficient to deal with this. [Interruption.] There is a lot of harrumphing from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I am trying to be very open and to acknowledge that there is an issue that people understandably feel strongly about in Cardiff, Edinburgh and elsewhere, and we want to work with him and others to find a solution.
Surely it is not in the interests of this Government or anybody else to have two major elections within four weeks. That is the point, because there is a leeway of only four weeks within the devolved Administrations.
That is exactly what we need to look at, and it is exactly why we need to consider whether the existing provisions are sufficient. The hon. Gentleman implies that they are not.
I would like to make progress. I have given way plenty.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. Is he saying that the problem occurred to the Government after the Bill was drafted? If it had occurred before the Bill had been drafted, surely some provision should already be in the Bill, but he will have to bring forward some new provision.
As I was seeking to explain, our approach is first to acknowledge that there is a legitimate issue—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady could just listen to me, she may find satisfaction in the explanation. We believe that the answer to that does not necessarily lie in this Bill, but in the powers enjoyed by the devolved Assemblies in Holyrood and in Cardiff. That seems to us to be the right way to proceed.
I note today that the Electoral Commission has highlighted that an extension to the electoral timetable would support participation by overseas and service voters, and support the effective administration of elections. The Government are considering this issue and I have already indicated to the commission that we think there is a great deal of merit in exploring the potential for a change to the timetable. As the commission said in its statement today, the matter requires a thorough review to ensure that any change is coherent with the arrangements for elections across the piece. We will set out our proposals and the timetable once that review is complete.
I want now to focus on the issue of early Dissolution. The Government of course recognise the possibility of exceptional circumstances that would make it appropriate for Parliament to dissolve before completing its full term. Currently, the House of Commons may vote—by a simple majority—to say that it has lost confidence in the Government, and there is a wide expectation that this will result in Dissolution. That is an important convention, which will be not just unaffected by the Bill but strengthened, a point that I will come to in more detail shortly.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. If the measure is genuinely a transfer of power from the Executive to the legislature, can he explain the reason for clause 2(1)(c)?
The right hon. Gentleman may be referring to the continuation of the existing powers to prorogue Parliament, which will remain in place, particularly after the House has been dissolved for exceptional reasons. In addition, the Bill provides for a new power for the House of Commons to dissolve Parliament early by means of a motion, passed by a majority of two thirds of the total number of seats in this House, which states that an early general election should take place. This new power ensures that Parliament will be able to dissolve itself in any eventuality, regardless of whether the reasons relate to the merits or failings of the Government of the day.
As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, these votes have already been the subject of considerable discussion. I shall therefore take a little time to explain to the House exactly how they will work. First, on the new power of early Dissolution, the defining principle of this Bill is that no Government should be able to dissolve Parliament for their own political advantage. So as I said, in order to secure a Dissolution motion, a vote will need to be passed by a majority of two thirds of MPs— the same threshold that is required in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Hon. Members will remember that originally the coalition proposed a threshold of 55%. That was not found to be satisfactory by many Members of this House, who feared that it would not provide a sure enough guarantee against a Government with a large majority triggering an election for partisan gain. We listened to those arguments and we agreed that the bar should be raised. At two thirds, we have settled on a majority that no post-war Government would have been able to achieve. It will be possible only if agreement is secured across party lines, thereby preventing any one party or the Executive from abusing this mechanism.
On powers of no confidence, no-confidence votes have until now been a matter of convention.
Before my right hon. Friend moves on to his next point, can he explain why, when he is putting forward a Bill of the most enormous constitutional importance, almost revolutionary in concept, there is not a single Conservative Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench to support him?
I am sure that they have other things which they need to attend to.
As I said, no-confidence votes have until now been a matter of convention. Although it has been widely accepted that a no-confidence vote would require a Prime Minister either to resign or to call an early election, there has been nothing to date to enforce this. So for the first time, the Bill gives legal effect to a motion of no confidence passed by this House. Such motions will continue to require only a simple majority.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the courts do not end up determining issues arising from Dissolution, and is he satisfied that the Bill as drafted ensures that that awful nightmare will never happen?
I am absolutely confident of that. I will shortly explain why in further detail, because that possibility was raised in a memorandum by the Clerk of the House to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.
Such motions of no confidence will continue to require only a simple majority. Following the passing of a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days during which a Government may seek to gain the confidence of the House. If, during the 14-day period, a Government emerge who can command the confidence of the House, then they will be free to govern for the remainder of the five-year term. We believe that a period of 14 days strikes the right balance, allowing enough time for an alternative Government to be formed while ensuring that there is not a prolonged period without an effective Government.
Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was partly about restoring the public’s confidence in Parliament, but is it not correct that we could witness a change of Government without there being a general election, which surely will not satisfy the public?
The point of this change is that if the House no longer has confidence in the Government of the day it can pass a vote of no confidence under existing provisions, but legally enforced, and that any new Government who then try to reconstitute themselves would have to enjoy the confidence of this House—and therefore also, by extension, the confidence of the people we all represent in our constituencies, until the end date of the fixed-term Parliament comes around.
At the moment, the situation is that if there is a vote of no confidence, the Queen will decide whether Parliament is dissolved, and she then has the right to look for an alternative Government. Why do we need to mess around with the constitution, changing something that seems to work very well?
We are seeking to strengthen and reinforce the powers of this House. The motion of no confidence will be passed by this House, and it will be up to this House to decide whether any subsequent Government constituted within a very short period of time—within two weeks—deserve to continue to be supported by this House. If Members of the House do not wish to provide that support to that Government, the House can say no. That seems to me to be strengthening the powers of the House.
I am obliged to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will not all we have in those 14 days just be an auction of offices and promises and the usual making of a Government? [Interruption.] No, I did not mean it in that sense.
In Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, a succession of Caesars were bought and sold by the praetorian guard. Is that what this constitutional reform programme amounts to?
I really think that my hon. Friend is reading too much into the provision. The existing arrangements on votes of no confidence are fairly similar to what we are proposing. First, the vote will be precisely as it is now—50% plus one. Secondly, a new Government can be asked to be formed after that vote of no confidence.
But we have an election.
No, not necessarily; that is not an automatic consequence of the existing provisions. We are giving the House a new power, passed by two thirds, that would force an early election and the Dissolution of the House.
I would like to make some progress.
In the event of an early Dissolution, under whatever circumstances, the decision will be confirmed by the issuing of a Speaker’s certificate, meaning that there will be no ambiguity about whether the House had voted for a Dissolution with the requisite majority or whether a vote of no confidence in the Government should trigger a Dissolution. It will also mean that procedures of the House will determine whether the triggers are satisfied, rather than that being in the hands of either the Executive or the courts.
As I said earlier, I know that the Clerk of the House of Commons has expressed concerns about these arrangements in a memorandum to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The memorandum suggests that the courts may be able to intervene in parliamentary business. The suggestion is that we would therefore be better off implementing the changes through Standing Orders rather than primary legislation. I would like to reassure the House that the Government have looked into the issue in considerable detail. We are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill will not allow the courts to question the House’s internal affairs.
The Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has placed in the Libraries of the House a paper setting out our views. Briefly, we are satisfied that the courts will continue to regard matters certified by the Speaker as relating to proceedings in Parliament and therefore falling under the protection of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The memorandum refers to the legal challenge in 2005 to the Hunting Act 2004 as authority that courts will interfere in parliamentary proceedings. However, that case was concerned with the validity of the Parliament Act, not the internal proceedings of Parliament.
I shall finish what I am saying about this detailed and involved point.
During that case, the House of Lords reiterated that courts cannot interfere in those proceedings, so far from leading us to believe that courts may intervene under the provisions of the Bill—
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, as “Erskine May” makes very clear, when a Minister seeks to quote in detail from a document, it must be laid on the Table of the House?
I understand that “Erskine May” states that, but how much detail has just been given is open to debate. I call Mr Clegg.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have merely referred in passing to a court case, which, as I said, confirms that courts will not involve themselves in internal parliamentary proceedings.
The Bill explicitly confirms that the Speaker’s certificate
“is conclusive for all purposes.”
So the decision is for the Speaker, not the courts or the Executive.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
Not yet, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman might want to raise the point that I am about to mention.
It is also a power that falls totally outside the remit of the European courts. On that note, I give way.
It was not that point at all. I assure the Deputy Prime Minister that I am very much more concerned about our domestic arrangements in this House in this respect.
The Clerk of the House, a very distinguished expert and our pre-eminent expert in the House on matters of procedure, was quite clear in his evidence. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it, to say the least, a little curious—even bizarre—that he should be using this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Clerk of the House of Commons about a matter of vital constitutional importance, without our having had the opportunity to see the counter-evidence? In addition, does doing that in this way not undermine the integrity and standing of the Clerk of the House?
First, it is worth acknowledging, as the Chair of the Committee would do, that many other distinguished experts and academics in this field explicitly demurred from the analysis provided by the Clerk when the evidence was provided to the Committee recently. Secondly, the Clerk’s memorandum was provided to the Committee and it is therefore available to everyone in the House to examine for themselves. Thirdly, we have today placed in the Library of the House a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, that sets out in detail our reasoned views. I do not think that this is a question of scientific doctrine. It is a matter of some significant judgment, and our judgment, based on important precedent, is that there is nothing in the Bill that will invite the courts to intervene in the internal proceedings of the House.
This is a very important constitutional question. The Deputy Prime Minister has just implied that there could well be a dispute. The letter—which I have not yet had an opportunity to see—itself disputes the view of the Clerk of the House. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not concede that this matter could well be referred to the courts, even if he and his Government take the view that it could not, and that their view does not preclude the courts from intervening in certain circumstances? This is his view, and the view of the letter writer, but it is not necessarily the view of the courts.
As I have said, it is not only our view in the Government; it is also the view of a number of very distinguished constitutional experts who gave evidence to the Committee on this very point just a short while ago. As I was seeking to point out, we have looked at the court case on the Hunting Act 2005 specifically cited in the memorandum from the Clerk, and found that it arrives at exactly the opposite conclusion.
Perhaps the Chairman can help us on this point.
In the very limited time that we had to look at this matter, the Clerk was the only person to raise this question, and the academics who have been referred to—Professor Hazell, Professor Blackburn and others—completely disagreed with the view put forward by the Clerk. This is simply a question of whether the power exists in statute law or in Standing Orders. I should like to quote from the Committee’s report, in which we said:
“It would be a pity if the Executive gave up the power to call an election at a time of its own choosing only for the legislature to hand it back by a simple suspension of Standing Orders to that same end.”
In other words, we all know that the Standing Orders of the House can be suspended at any moment on the whim of the Executive. It would be a shame, were the Executive finally to give up that power, for us simply to hand it back again.
I am grateful for that clarification. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we agree with the Committee’s conclusions on this point. Given the constitutional significance of the Bill, which has been underlined by many Members during the debate, it would be inappropriate for those significant constitutional provisions to be translated into Standing Orders. They need to find their way into primary legislation, and into law.
In the event of an early Dissolution, and an early general election, the new Parliament will run until the first Thursday in May in the fifth year of its existence, unless, of course, it too is subject to early Dissolution. Questions have been asked about whether the new Parliament should run for the full time, or whether its life should be limited to whatever period its predecessor had left on the clock. Our view is that resetting that clock is a more sensible proposition. That is the arrangement that will be most natural to voters; people do not expect to elect a Parliament knowing that it will last only a short time. When they hand a Government a majority, they are giving them a mandate to govern for up to five years.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being assiduous, and the House appreciates that. I put it to him bluntly, however, that the Bill takes away from a simple majority in the House the right to cause a general election and puts into the hands of, perhaps, himself leading a minority party the ability to withdraw his support from one party and give it to another in order to form an Administration, without the risk of a general election. Is that really fair?
First, that is precisely the position now, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Secondly, he is viewing the Bill through a prism of—how can I put it?—suspicion, which really is not justified. It gives new powers to the House, and I hope that he will come to that view himself as it is examined on the Floor of the House, as it should be. The Bill is giving new powers to the House in addition to the powers of no confidence that do not already exist, which we are also strengthening in turn.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if, God forbid, our friends and Liberals were to walk away from the coalition and if the Bill were passed, there is no doubt that our Prime Minister could call an immediate election? Is there any doubt about that?
The Bill speaks for itself. With respect, this is genuinely not about the internal dynamics of this coalition Government. [Interruption.] I hear from the groans and the roars that that view is not widely shared. I hope that anyone who has listened to what I have said today will reasonably conclude that the Government are doing something that should be welcomed in this House—strengthening its powers, while weakening those of the Executive. We are surrendering the Prime Minister’s right to set the date of the general election—a power that has been used and abused and has become the plaything of Prime Ministers of all parties for far too long.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister not being somewhat disingenuous in stressing that the Dissolution of Parliament is a spectacular new power to be given to this House, when just a few moments ago he stressed that the very high threshold for that power would make it virtually impossible to attain?
What I was trying to explain was that the existing powers to pass a motion of no confidence will not only remain exactly as they are, but be given legal force so that they will be strengthened. In addition, to cover any exceptional circumstances that might arise, we are giving the House new powers—I stress that this is a new power, which currently does not exist—to dissolve Parliament altogether and trigger a general election. The only institution whose power is being seriously curtailed by the Bill is that of the Prime Minister.
This Bill is modest in size—it has just five clauses and one schedule. Clause 1 relates to polling days for parliamentary general elections, including the setting of the date of the next election on 7 May 2015, and sets out the five-year term. Clause 2 provides for the circumstances in which an early parliamentary general election can be held. Clause 3 makes the key necessary changes to electoral law and the law concerning the meeting of Parliament in the light of fixed days for elections. Clause 4 deals with certain supplementary and consequential matters—preserving the Queen’s power to prorogue Parliament. Clause 5 sets out the short title of the Bill and provides that it will come into force on Royal Assent. The schedule contains consequential amendments to a number of Acts of Parliament. In contrast to the previous Government, who aggressively programmed their Bills, we propose not to curtail debate on each clause, but to allow two full days on the Floor of the House for Committee stage.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister mindful of unintended consequences? One aspect of fixed-term Parliaments and fixed terms in general elections is that costs are often associated. Campaigning often starts earlier—in North America, for example, where there are seats for the Senate, the House of Congress and presidential seats. General elections and primary elections start very early, so perhaps an unintended consequence of the Bill could be additional costs for campaigning, not to mention apathy among the general public.
I would argue that the real cost is incurred by all of us when we are constantly on tenterhooks about whether or not the Prime Minister of the day is going to call a general election. That is precisely what happened in 2007. At the last general election, we all promised the voters that we would seek to provide stable, good and strong government not constantly hijacked by the ducking and weaving of the Executive trying to second-guess what people are thinking and trying to choose a date in the political calendar to suit their own ends. That is what the Bill delivers, and it seems to me that, in one way or another, we all promised that to the voters at the last general election.
Clearly, there are strong views across the House on the best way to implement fixed-term Parliaments, but everyone can surely now acknowledge that the Prime Minister has, through this Bill, become the first Prime Minister in British history to agree to relinquish his power to trigger elections.
I want to finish now.
That is a hugely important break with the past, and exemplifies the reformist spirit at the heart of our new politics. Let me finish by reminding hon. Members that although we might disagree on some of the detail of the Bill, we are united on the principle that underpins it. Fixed-term Parliaments constitute a major transfer of power away from the Executive and a major strengthening of Parliament’s authority over its own lifetime. The Bill is a major step towards the more legitimate, stable political system that we have all promised to the British people.
The Labour party manifesto contained a commitment to legislate for fixed-term Parliaments, as did that of the Liberal Democrats, as we have heard. The Conservative party manifesto included no such commitment whatever, and as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) reminded the House at the beginning of the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, the proposition from the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, was directly contradictory to that contained in the Bill. His proposition was that, were there a change of Prime Minister during a Parliament, that change should trigger a general election within six months of the new Prime Minister taking over. As a direct consequence of the Bill, that solemn commitment at the general election has been not just bypassed but wholly contradicted.
I am quite sure that the process that led to the Bill, following the general election, was entirely one of cerebration and consideration of the balance of the intellectual arguments—
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments from a sedentary position, and he is often right about these matters. I am quite certain that the process had absolutely nothing whatever to do with horse trading about a deal.
Of course not.
Of course not. That kind of thing might go on in Stoke-on-Trent, but certainly not in Witney and the prosperous bit of Sheffield.
Whatever the provenance, the Bill is proof that Conservative Members made a Pauline conversion on the issue—
Some of them.
From a sedentary position, again, my hon. Friend prompts me to correct myself: Conservative Members in the Government have made a Pauline conversion, although it is palpable from today’s debate that, unlike St Paul, they have taken few voluntary converts with them.
If the Government and the House get the Bill right, it will be a positive innovation for our democracy. I do not share the Deputy Prime Minister’s hyperbole, but I certainly share his belief that it is a step forward, not a step back. We intend to work constructively to deliver what would be a significant constitutional change. For that reason, we will not divide the House tonight. However, let us be clear from the outset: the Bill as currently drafted does not stand up to scrutiny, even the limited scrutiny that the Government have permitted the House to date. The Bill will need substantial revision if we are to be able to support it on Third Reading, as we had wished to do.
The introduction of fixed-term Parliaments is intended to strengthen Parliament and fetter the Executive, and to make the political process more legitimate in the eyes of the public by reassuring them that the date of elections can no longer be at the whim of the Prime Minister. We have heard a lot about the power of the Prime Minister. Having known one or two Prime Ministers, I think that many Prime Ministers and potential Prime Ministers would rather not have the right and power to call a general election, as it has a brutal logic: if they win, they have made the most positive decision of their life; if they lose, they are almost always out of office, too.
Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has also reached a completely dispassionate judgment, and that his decision to allow the Bill a Second Reading is in no way coloured by the possibility that his party will end up in government without a general election if it is passed?
Funnily enough, I had not thought of that. Perhaps I should have. It is not that I am innocent of such considerations, but on this occasion it had not occurred to me.
The Bill does botch the job, however. It provides for a standard Parliament to be too long, at five years. It fails to clarify the procedures for confidence votes, opening up the possibility of a lame-duck Administration and constitutional limbo. It leaves a large loophole enabling Prime Ministers to use the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament, as happened recently in Canada. The mechanism for triggering an early Dissolution of Parliament may impinge—I put it no more strongly than that—on parliamentary privilege by creating the risk that courts could intervene on parliamentary proceedings.
Much of the incoherence of the Bill is a consequence of the unnecessary haste with which it is being rushed through Parliament. A week ago, the House debated the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. That too is being rushed through, with the Deputy Prime Minister breaking all previous undertakings about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny.
If Members accept the imperative of a May 2011 date for the alternative-vote referendum—although I do not—at least the right hon. Gentleman has a fig leaf of an excuse for seeking to rush that Bill through at this early stage, but palpably no such excuse exists for rushing this Bill through. Had there been any justification, such as a packed legislative programme which might have hit the end-of-Session buffers, that excuse would have been blown away this morning by the ill-thought-through announcement by the Leader of the House that the current Session is to last for two full years.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, in all his newly proclaimed virginal innocence, for giving way. Does he not believe that this Bill and the other Bill to which he has referred are in some way linked?
Let me say first, for the avoidance of doubt, that I have made no protestations of virginal innocence, and would never seek to do so.
The two Bills are certainly not cognate, but they are linked in the sense that they are the price that the Conservative party agreed to pay in order to stitch together this very curious coalition. I am glad, in saying that, to receive the approbation of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. In any event, the idea that this Bill had to be bashed through very quickly was blown away by this morning’s announcement.
Given that the right hon. Gentleman is giving us a catalogue of what is wrong with the Bill and what is difficult about it, how can he vote in favour of the principle of the Bill as drafted and lying in front of the House of Commons, rather than voting against it as a matter of principle? It does not strike me as amenable to satisfactory changes in Committee, even if the good will of the Government were there for the purpose. Why is the right hon. Gentleman not standing by that principle, and demonstrating that this is an unsatisfactorily prepared Bill?
It is an unsatisfactorily prepared Bill—on that the hon. Gentleman and I are in absolute agreement—but we may be in disagreement on the principle of the Bill. I have done many things from the Front Benches in 30 years to seek to justify difficult positions and have emerged upright at the other end, but with a commitment as clear as daylight in our manifesto—of blessed memory and only five months old—that said, in terms, that the Labour party would introduce legislation for fixed Parliaments, it would have been a bit tricky for me to have come to the House and opposed the Bill. [Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House may say that that did not worry me a week ago. But it did. [Laughter.]
There is a serious point. Had the subject of this Bill been tied up with a proposition with which we wholly disagreed—as with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, where the Government could and should have separated the alternative vote and boundaries issues—that would have been different. As I explained to the House this time last week, I would have been delighted to vote in favour of the Bill if all that it contained was part 1. The Deputy Prime Minister knows better than me why he has decided to put alongside that proposition—one that was broadly agreed—an entirely separate and unrelated proposition wholly to change the agreed and consensual way in which we have set boundaries in this country for many years, a manner last amended by this House not under Labour, but under the Conservatives.
May I put to the right hon. Gentleman an historical example of how the Bill would have created great problems in the past? In 1950, the Labour party won the general election with—if my memory is correct—an overall parliamentary majority of seven. That entitled a Labour Government to stay in power for five years. They were never defeated on a motion of confidence in that Parliament, but by 1951, Mr Attlee, a great statesman, felt that his Cabinet colleagues were exhausted and that it was against the national interest for the Labour Government to struggle on with a majority of only seven. He decided to ask the King for a Dissolution. He would not have been able to do so under the provisions of the Bill.
With great respect, I anticipate that he would have been able to do so. I am not seeking to justify in detail what is in the Bill, but let us take that as a possibility. That was an unusual circumstance; Attlee and his colleagues, the senior ones of whom had been in office for more than 11 years and all the way through the Churchill coalition Government, were completely exhausted. Some were dying; others had already passed away. Attlee was right to say that there should be a Dissolution. Under the terms of the Bill, he would have put that to the House. I cannot see that the Conservative party would have opposed it; it would have been astonishing if it had, since it thought that it was going to win. In that situation, the likelihood would be that the resolution of the House would have easily exceeded the two-thirds threshold. As a matter of historical record, that has to be the case.
My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that we accept the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, but I do not want to lose his earlier comment that he would review that situation on Third Reading if some of this dog’s dinner of a Bill were not tidied up between then and now. Will he reiterate the commitment that we will reconsider our position on Third Reading if we do not get some satisfactory changes?
I am delighted to do that, and I put that absolutely on the record.
My right hon. Friend said a few moments ago that one reason why he felt inclined to give this Bill its Second Reading is a commitment made in the Labour party manifesto. Perhaps it would help if I reminded him of what we actually said in our manifesto. We said that we would have the following:
“Legislation to ensure Parliaments sit for a fixed term and an All Party Commission to chart a course to a Written Constitution.”
At least two elements which would make the Bill conform with that commitment are missing.
If I may say so, the “and” is disjunctive, not conjunctive—and I know that because I drafted that piece of the manifesto.
I simply do not understand why—and we have heard no serious explanation as to why—the Government are bolting it. This morning, the Leader of the House gave us a further example when he announced a decision—not a proposal; it had been decided, and that was the word he used—that this Session should last for two years. He then tried to excuse that, having run into something of a squall in the House, by saying—we can check this against the record—that it was a “proposition” that could be further considered in this Bill. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will examine closely what the Leader of the House said about commitments for debate on that aspect of a consequence of this Bill.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not having an opportunity in Committee to discuss that matter should also be a potential trigger for voting against the Bill on Third Reading?
Yes, I accept that. It will not be a pre-emptive decision for me to take, but one that will be taken in the usual way by the shadow Cabinet as a whole and the parliamentary party.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will make his own point about this next matter when he addresses the House. He chairs the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which is an all-party Committee with, I believe, a Conservative majority. It has been very clear about what he has described as:
“The severe lack of time which the Committee has had to scrutinise this…Bill”.
He continued by saying that this
“is not only frustrating but very disappointing.”
The right hon. Gentleman is scrabbling for excuses to oppose the Bill on the grounds that it is being rushed. Is there not a risk that if we did not rush it we might end up in the embarrassing situation of a supporter of fixed-term Parliaments who had been 13 years in government but never got round to introducing that?
I have simply explained to the House, while the hon. Gentleman has been sitting there, that we are not opposing the Bill tonight and the reason is that we agree with the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. What I disagree with is the manner in which it has been introduced. I also disagree with some very important detail, part of which needs to be amended, not least to bring it into line with Liberal Democrat policy. I will explain that, because one of the consequences of their going into this coalition has been the complete amnesia that has affected the whole of the Liberal Democrats’ policy.
As it is to a Conservative, I shall give way.
Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it is important to introduce this measure early so that we can give the country and the business community certainty that this Parliament will last five years? We will, thus, avoid the nonsense that we had in the summer and early autumn of 2007, when the whole country had no idea whether or not it was going to the polls.
We need to do it in the next couple of years, but we do not need to do it now. If the Leader of the House were true to his word, he would at least have allowed for the 12 weeks’ pre-legislative scrutiny that his Government promised would normally take place for Bills.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that were the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to have been given 12 weeks—I think that we have done an incredible job in two days, producing this report—many of the wrinkles that everyone concedes are in the Bill could have been smoked out? We could have heard from a lot of expert witnesses and we would have proposed ways in which a principle that appears to have the support of the whole House could have found consensus, as opposed to becoming a cause for bitterness and division.
I accept that entirely. Constitutional legislation is always complicated and we should always seek consensus on it. I have to say—I believe Members know this—that I can think of plenty of occasions when I brought forward constitutional legislation and then had to take it away again. With the single, terrible exception of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—for which I have already abjectly apologised as it was a dreadful piece of legislation—I have always both provided sufficient time and quite often changed proposed legislation addressing this complicated territory in the light of what was said in this House or the other place in Committee and the Chamber.
To consider why we have ended up in this situation, we have to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) in an intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman echoed a comment made last week by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that people might have more respect for the Government if they admitted that it was about party advantage. There would have been greater respect for the Government over the timing and abject drafting of the Bill before us if the Deputy Prime Minister had said, “Yes, we brought this forward—and the Prime Minister has stood on his head on this—because we did a deal for a variety of reasons which I shall explain. That is the price the Prime Minister paid for this bit of the deal, and we are rushing it through for internal reasons.” The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex was absolutely right to say—he can correct me if I get a single preposition in the wrong place—that the Bill smacks of gerrymandering the constitution in favour of the coalition, which is what I heard him say, and that it was legislation on the hoof. That is true. The Deputy Prime Minister should have taken his time and invited the other parties into discussion, sought the advice of the Liaison Committee and others, and come forward with a much better proposition.
If I may first make a little more progress, I will then give way to both hon. Gentlemen.
The irony will not be lost on the House that had the previous Labour Administration acted in such a fashion, Members of the current Government parties would rightly have expressed outrage, and Liberal Democrat Members would have done so in unbearably sanctimonious and pious terms. Everybody knows that to be the case.
Professor Robert Hazell of University College London’s constitution unit has said:
“The legislation could still be introduced with cross-party support, if the government is willing to take it slowly. That is what the government is seeking to do with reform of the House of Lords”—
I commend the Government’s approach on that—
“It should adopt the same approach with this Bill.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has now been introduced, my very strong advice to the Deputy Prime Minister is that he should take a long time before bringing it back before the House so that the Select Committee can have a look at it. If he wants examples of Bills just sitting around for some time while Ministers have repented at leisure of mistakes they and their colleagues have made and regrouped to bring back something better, I will provide him with them.
As we know, the Bill’s primary purpose is not high-minded; the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex was correct about that. Its effect may be welcome, but its primary purpose is to serve as a form of constitutional handcuffs to prevent either of the coalition parties from assassinating the other. This is, indeed, a partnership characterised by paranoia.
The right hon. Gentleman criticises my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for not giving time for consultation, yet even before the Bill was published he had taken on board concerns expressed on both sides of the House about a specific provision relating to early Dissolution and radically changed his proposal. It seems to me that he is listening much more intently than the right hon. Gentleman ever did when he was proposing constitutional reforms.
I was just checking with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) whether the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) was a Conservative or a Liberal Democrat, because I was very confused after this morning’s pamphlet, but I gather from my hon. Friend that he is both. I am going to buy and distribute copies of his pamphlet in all Liberal wards—there are none in my constituency, but there are some in the borough. I shall dish out copies of the pamphlet in the borough, because one of my views about this coalition is that it made every bit of sense for the Conservative party and was total madness for the Liberal Democrats. With a little luck, the Liberal Democrats will go the same way as their predecessor party did in the early 1920s as a result of exactly the same process.
The reason why the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had to change from the abjectly partisan proposal of 55% was that it was too obvious, since they had 56% of the votes. They must have thought that we were all stupid. He had to change that before he introduced the Bill because he would not have had a dog’s chance of getting a Second Reading had that ridiculous and outrageous proposal remained. It was survival that led to the change, not high principle.
My right hon. Friend rightly touches on many of the concerns about the timing of the Bill, given the fairly scrappy nature of some of its proposals. Is the timing not really related to the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which we discussed last week, and the Bill that we are discussing this week were the Liberal Democrats’ two glittering prizes in the coalition agreement, and they want to go to their party conference saying that they have already achieved the Second Reading of both those Bills? That is why we are being put through this today.
I am quite sure. I was in favour of September sittings and my hon. Friend will recall that they had to be abandoned one year so that the screen in the Chamber could be put up. When I tabled a motion the following year as Leader of the House to reinstate September sittings I was roundly voted down by an all-party alliance, including many Conservative Members. Both parties in the coalition are probably now regretting this September sitting, because it has done them absolutely no good. Long may that continue.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Of course, and then I need to come on to one or two reasons why I think that the Bill needs to be changed.
The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to our Liberal friends. Does he share my understanding that, if there were a crisis and the Liberals had to walk out of the coalition, the Conservative Prime Minister would be prevented from calling an election if the Bill had become law? If the Liberals were then to offer to join a coalition with the right hon. Gentleman, would he embrace them tenderly?
I am not going to get into too many hypotheticals, but it is a matter of public record that, speaking personally, I was not too keen on the embrace when it was offered on or about 8 May. The hon. Gentleman might wish to take some comfort from that for the future. Aside from anything else, he should do the arithmetic as to whether there could be some stability from such a coalition.
As others want to speak, let me come to the crucial issue of whether the fixed term should be five years or four years. Most constitutional experts are agreed that four years is a more appropriate fixed term and would better reflect the constitutional position, historical practice and comparisons with other Parliaments. Professor Robert Blackburn has said:
“In the UK, there can be little doubt that the period between general elections should be four years...It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as the maximum.”
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
If the hon. Gentleman will first allow me to make this point, I shall give way.
The Library alerted me to what Asquith said in February 1911, and so I asked for the whole of the speech, which I have here. As the information from the Library and Blackburn both show, Asquith was talking about the idea that a Parliament would normally last for four years. There is not a word in Asquith’s opening speech on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leader of the Liberal Democrats tried to tell us that there was. He should not busk on these points. Asquith said that the Act would lead to a normal length of four years and that was what he meant. Overall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, that has been the average length of a Parliament.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
May I finish this point, and then I shall of course give way? Indeed, the hon. Lady might wish to answer a question that I am about to pose to her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Alongside the position adopted by a former Liberal Prime Minister—the last but one, it must be said, and look what happened to him and to his successor, although we need not detain the House on either of their fates—I want to refer to recent Liberal Democrat policy. I know that that apparently does not matter, but if the roles were reversed and if, just three years ago, the Labour party had said that there should be fixed Parliaments that should last four years, we would soon hear something about that from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We would hear suggestions that we were selling out and standing on our heads and that we did not know what we were talking about, and would be asked what was the point of making commitments—especially as simple a commitment as that—simply to tear them up. However, that was the Liberal Democrat position. They published a position paper—I am happy to take an intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister on this point—called “For the People, By the People”, which said that the term should be four years and not five. Let me gild that lily: David Howarth, the excellent former Member for Cambridge, introduced a ten-minute Bill to the sounds of cheering from the Liberal Democrat Benches that set a term of four years and not five. He made very good arguments that were absolutely right.
I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has at long last spotted that coinciding the date of a general election with that of national elections in Scotland and Wales is crazy and he is about to seek to go through hoops by which the people of Scotland and Wales and the political parties that are an essential part of the process—
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall in a second. Those people and parties would be burdened with two successive elections with substantial and understandable arguments about which should come first and which should come second. That could directly affect the outcome.
I shall give way in a second.
The answer to all that is to go for four-year Parliaments. Among many others things, if we set a four-year Parliament this one would finish in 2014 and could never clash with the four-year cycle of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I promised the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) that I would give way to her first. I shall then give way both to him and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea).
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Between the two sides this evening, we are having an interesting history lesson. Perhaps I might point him towards a more recent piece of history: the passage of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which covers the regulations for election campaign spending and also refers to five-year Parliaments. That Act was supported by many of our colleagues who are now on the Opposition Benches.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but I was responsible for that Bill, which emerged from cross-party negotiation. It was an agreed measure. As for the reference to five years, we were not setting the length of a Parliament in the Bill. We were accepting that as a fact and then determining how we dealt with party funding within that frame. There was no commitment whatever in principle in favour of five years rather than four.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and spot-on in his views on five-year fixed-term Parliaments. I know that it is not my job as a Scottish National party Member to give the Labour party further reasons to vote against Third Reading, but will he guarantee to me that if there is no change in the date and if these elections are to clash, the Labour party will oppose the Bill?
First, I cannot make that offer, not least because it is almost certain that it will not be me standing on the Front Bench, for reasons that the House knows. Although I keep saying that I will leave the Front Bench—and I have probably never been busier as a Front Bencher—it is my intention to do so. Secondly, it would be a matter for the shadow Cabinet and the parliamentary party even if I were to lead on this issue. As I have said to my other hon. Friends, we would weigh all these matters and come to a view.
I am sure that the people of Wales and Scotland will be very touched that they have been remembered by both the Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps when he is thinking about the elections he could remember Northern Ireland as well.
Of course I do, and I accept the admonition.
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments. I am a newly elected Member, and I have spent a great number of years as a prospective parliamentary candidate wondering when the election would be. All I hear from him now is excuses why we should have Parliaments of four years, although it suited his Government rather well to have Parliaments of five years. Is this just about trying to get an election as quickly as possible?
I have long been in favour of fixed terms. I could dig out correspondence I had with Margaret Thatcher in 1983 about fixed terms. The Labour party committed itself to fixed terms in the 1992 election. What typically happens—this is why I welcome the measure and why I wanted that commitment in our manifesto—is that parties in opposition that are in favour of fixed terms go off the boil on them when they come into government. As someone who was a PPC on a number of occasions before coming an MP, I know that the speculation is difficult. It is important to have some certainty and that is why we are not opposing the Bill on Second Reading. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will use the time available to get things right, not least on whether terms should be for four years or five.
Is not the coincidence of elections in different parts of the country just a problem of our having too many tiers of government? Would not it be better if we simplified the whole thing and did not have so many tiers of government? Then this problem would not arise.
I do not think that the hon. Lady is proposing the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
Oh, she is—okay. I shall ensure that the Prime Minister is made aware of her views. Obviously, this is her job application for the position of Secretary of State for Scotland, as she hails from there. I am certainly in favour of abolishing one tier of government where there is two-tier local government, which does not work. Thanks to a wise Conservative decision in 1995, Blackburn and Darwen have greatly benefited from being outwith the clutches of Lancashire county council and the two-tier system. However, that is not Conservative party policy, nor is it in the Bill.
On Prorogation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) has pointed out, clause 4(1) expressly states:
“This Act does not affect Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament.”
Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides might not particularly have considered this, but it is perfectly possible for a Prime Minister who faces the prospect of a defeat on a motion of no confidence and who does not want an early general election, which would otherwise arise on a simple majority, to seek a Prorogation of the House. That is not idle speculation, because that is exactly what happened in 2008 in Canada.
In Canada, there are fixed terms, by law, of four years, but there are also procedures for early elections, as all fixed-term Parliaments have, if a Government lose confidence. The crisis in Canada arose because there had been an agreed all-party deal on substantially enhanced state funding for the political parties in return for draconian controls on donations and spending. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, in justifying all that against an austerity budget, decided to abandon the commitment and arbitrarily and unilaterally to reduce the amounts to be given to the other parties and his opponents. They cried foul and there was a crisis. When there was about to be a motion of no confidence against him, which almost certainly would have been won, he went to the Governor-General, in the seat of Her Majesty, and got a Prorogation so that Parliament would be suspended for quite a long time. The Prorogation was accepted and he subsequently sought, but was not successful, a further Prorogation. Given that the Bill is making significant changes, clause 4(1) has to be changed to ensure that the Bill does affect the right of Her Majesty to prorogue the House.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the ability to prorogue would also be useful to a Prime Minister who wanted an early general election? They could prorogue the House for a fortnight, preventing an alternative Government from being formed and leading straight to a general election.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People say that such things will never happen, but I am sure that Stephen Harper is an honourable man—as honourable as any British Prime Minister. When senior politicians are up against it and are fighting for their life, they will clutch at any lawful provision, and it would be lawful to do that, so this issue must be considered.
My right hon. Friend referred to my intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister as being about clause 2(1)(c), which I said in terms it was about, but the Deputy Prime Minister is so knowledgeable about this five-clause Bill that he confused it with clause 4(1), so my right hon. Friend is right about the answer but wrong about the question.
I acknowledge the point that my right hon. Friend makes.
I want now to deal with the privilege of the House, which was much aired in the evidence that the Clerk gave the other day to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. This issue has echoes of our debate 15 months ago about the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I recall that when I introduced the Bill there was a huge harrumph about the degree to which Parliament’s privilege would be being affected by its provisions. There was such a huge harrumph that the Government were defeated on those provisions and had to go back to the drawing board, so I have thought about this matter.
I would not dream of asking the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm this, but I dare say that the advice that he has received about the implications of this Bill are from similar sources to those from which I received advice on the 2009 Bill. I understand that the arguments are often finely balanced. I have certainly given similar undertakings to that given by him about the very long odds on the courts intervening, but this House and the other place are both highly sensitive to interventions by the courts on the privilege of the House. The hunting decision can be used in both ways: the actual decision of the courts, in respect of the Parliament Acts, was not to overturn a decision of this House, but the very fact that they entertained the argument was worrying. I ask him to think very carefully about that.
Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any other statute in respect of which the courts have declined at least to entertain an arguable interpretation?
No, and that is the point. The courts will decline to entertain arguments, and actions, about what happens in the House, because they are banned from doing so; their job is to interpret legislation. The Government are inherently more vulnerable—I do not say that I share the view of the Clerk that they are very vulnerable—because they can get past the first base.
As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was very active on questions about the privileges of the House in relation to the Bill he just mentioned. Just now, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee implied that the views of the Clerk had effectively been overridden by the views of other experts. I have looked carefully at the evidence, and it is clear that the Clerk gave his view on 7 September whereas the main evidence, from all the other experts, was given on 21 August; in other words, the Clerk of the House of Commons—a distinguished expert and very knowledgeable about the House—gave his evidence in the light of the evidence that had already been given, save only for the oral evidence given by Professor Blackburn. The Committee did not ask Professor Blackburn specifically whether he repudiated the views of the Clerk of the House, so it seems to me—I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees—that the matter remains very open and that both the Clerk and Professor Blackburn agree that there should have been a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. In those circumstances, the evidence is overwhelming that the scrutiny should be properly done.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, it would have been difficult for me not to notice that he had taken an interest in privilege in relation to the Parliamentary Standards Bill, as he was scarcely ever not on his feet complaining about something or other that I was doing from the Treasury Bench. The Clerk was absolutely right to raise the issue and in the end we got through it. We were genuinely up against the clock with that measure, because the leaders of all three main parties had agreed both a timetable and broad outline contents.
In this case, I am not coming down on one side or the other, but the issue is sufficiently worrying that we need to take our time.
Many Members want to speak, and as I have spoken at some length I want to conclude.
Legislation for fixed-term Parliaments is a desirable objective and it could be achieved on a cross-party basis, but that requires the Government to go back to the drawing board and respond to the valid criticisms that have been made about the Bill. We want to play our part in helping them to do that and, as I said, we shall not oppose Second Reading, but we want considerable revisions, which require more time and considerably greater opportunity for scrutiny. It also—if I may say so—requires the Deputy Prime Minister in particular to adopt a more measured, considered and consultative approach than has been evident to date. I fully accept that the House’s not knowing about the note on privilege was an error and in no sense intentional, but I have to say that it is very aggravating and does not improve the environment in which the House receives such measures. I hope that we can see a different approach from Ministers. Although most Members support the principle, a huge amount of detail has to be got right before there is any chance of the legislation becoming law.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first formal contribution to the debates of the House. As many right hon. and hon. Members are aware, Sir Michael Lord, the previous Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and a long-standing Deputy Speaker, was gravely unwell during the summer, and I felt it inappropriate to make my maiden speech while he was so ill. Members will be pleased to know that he is now making a good recovery and I am sure they will join me in passing our best wishes to Sir Michael for his continued recovery and for his retirement.
Sir Michael Lord was first elected for the then constituency of Central Suffolk in 1983. He was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. John MacGregor in Margaret Thatcher’s Government and then, as many Members are aware, for 13 years, he served with great distinction, alongside Sir Alan Haselhurst, as a Deputy Speaker. In Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, Sir Michael will be remembered as a hard-working and diligent constituency MP.
The constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich was created in 1997 from the then Central Suffolk constituency, taking in wards from what was then Suffolk Coastal and the northern wards of the Ipswich constituency. It is a constituency of great diversity. Central Suffolk boasts agriculture and a growing tourist trade. I am privileged to represent a very diverse population in North Ipswich, which includes the local Sikh temple and a Sikh community as well as a large Caribbean community.
As there are more than 100 parishes in my constituency, I shall not talk about each in detail, but I will outline some of the main concerns that affect both my constituency and Suffolk as a whole. Members may be aware that before my election to the House I was a front-line NHS hospital doctor. That experience has stood me in good stead in representing my constituents, particularly the health care concerns that they face. In the NHS we have a key battle before us to ensure that we keep front-line services at Ipswich district general hospital. Under the regionalisation agenda of the previous Government, we saw the loss of vital cardiac and cancer care services at the hospital. It is important that we fight to restore Ipswich hospital to its former glory and make sure that once again we provide the vital services that the people of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich need.
In a predominantly rural constituency, Hartismere is a vital community hospital that unfortunately was closed during the last three and a half years of the previous Government. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his team when he was shadow Secretary of State for working with me to help reopen the hospital, which provides essential services to the older people, families and pregnant women who live in our rural communities.
It would be wrong of me not to draw attention to the fact that throughout Suffolk, thanks to the previous Government’s out-of-hours contract, we were left with only two GPs to look after 650,000 people. That is something we shall look to the new health care White Paper to put right.
Other challenges that face Central Suffolk and North Ipswich include the need to improve broadband services and access. Other Members may take access to broadband and high-speed broadband for granted—particularly if they represent more urban areas—but even if under current plans high-speed broadband is delivered to 90% of the UK, two-thirds of my constituents will still not have access to it. All Suffolk MPs will be working together to help deliver those services.
Many of my fellow East Anglia MPs believe that more attention needs to be paid to infrastructure in our area, particularly roads and rail, which have been badly neglected over the last few years. Indeed, for many years Central Suffolk and North Ipswich received only 80% of the average national spend per head of population. That has taken its toll on a road and rail infrastructure that badly needs investment.
My constituents, like many people throughout the country, will welcome the Bill. It will help us to give the country a clear legislative programme, with certainty about what the Government can do over a five-year period. There is so much to do in terms of welfare and education reform and delivering a new White Paper on health care, and in particular dealing with the profligate economic record of the Labour Government. We must make sure that we have a clear five-year programme in which to do that. A fixed-term Parliament can only be a good thing.
May I tell the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that I have witnessed many maiden speeches, but his was up there among the best? I am sure that the House will hear much more from him in the coming years, and I look forward to his contributions. His maiden speech was certainly gracious and well constructed, and he made it with very little reference to notes. It was very good, and we all look forward to hearing more from him.
Characteristically, the Deputy Prime Minister stayed for the opening speeches, then cleared off. He described the measure as modest in size. Well, at five clauses, it is indeed modest. He managed to demonstrate that, even though it is only five clauses long, he is not totally familiar with the content of his own Bill. In fact, it is not just modest in size but squalid in intent.
Constitutional reform often has the effect of inducing an outbreak of navel gazing in the House, so I am usually reluctant to take part in these debates. That said, I genuinely believe both that the Bill is wrong in principle and that its details have not been properly tested or subjected to wider scrutiny. There was legislative scrutiny in the second report this Session by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will give his views to the House—but it can hardly be said that that report, although helpful, gave the proposals a ringing endorsement. Quite the opposite, in fact. In its conclusion on page 8, while not ruling out the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, the Committee expressed its position:
“If the coalition wants five years in which to govern, it has the legal right to do so, for as long as it can command the confidence of the House. But we are not persuaded that current circumstances are a sensible basis on which to commit future governments to five-year terms.”
It is not just the Select Committee that has expressed concern. Indirectly, in business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the House did so, when he said, in answer to a question from me:
“However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that with a new Government, it is not possible, if one is to make progress, to put everything in draft, particularly when commitments have been made to do certain things by a certain time. Those political imperatives sometimes”—
The House should note the words, “political imperatives”—
“override the ambition that both he and I have to subject all Bills to draft scrutiny.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 466.]
There we have it. The reason why the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North was not given longer and why there was not a wider consultation is that the coalition Government have decided—it would appear, by the way, without a great deal of support from some parts of the Government—that they need to deliver the measure for political reasons.
It is possible, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) suggested, to devise a means by which pre-legislative scrutiny could take place. Even with Second Reading being completed today, it would be possible to commit the Bill either to the Select Committee or to a Special Standing Committee, so that the 12 week-period that the Government regard as appropriate is fulfilled. I leave that in the air, in the forlorn hope that even at this point the Minister may take it as a suggestion.
My hon. Friend makes a useful suggestion, and doubtless he will expand on it if he succeeds in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Issues of principle are involved, as well as of detail, and that is what I intend to try to deal with.
Before dealing with the Bill’s provisions, I want to say a word about the trust that was placed in our hands by our constituents at the general election. I hope that that does not sound too pious, but it is important that we discuss these principles when we deal with measures of this kind. Regardless of our party labels, we have been entrusted by our constituents with the ability to exercise judgment as representatives of our constituencies. That may appear trite, but it is important that we do not lose sight of it. Let me qualify the point, however, as I am not so naive as to assume that the 31,000 people who voted for me in Knowsley in the general election did so wholly or even mainly on the basis that I was the best person for the job.
My right hon. Friend should not do himself a disservice. Would he give a wider audience to the fact that, as I recall, his 31,000 vote was either the largest or second-largest Labour share of the vote in England?
I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I am far too modest to consider looking at such statistics. Most of the people who voted, however, mainly voted for a particular political party. I am not trying to be unduly modest—that applies to every Member of the House, with very few exceptions.
It is important to remember why people voted for particular parties. It is partly because they agreed with the policies, but partly because they agreed with the values. As the House of Commons Library has made clear in its helpful note, my party manifesto included a commitment to fixed-term Parliaments, as my right hon. Friend said, but that was in the context of a written constitution. I have already cited the wording that was used. My right hon. Friend said that the use of “and” to link fixed-term Parliaments with wider constitutional reform and a constitutional convention was a question of my muddling up subjunctive and conjunctive clauses, but I doubt very much whether he had that in mind when he drafted that section of our manifesto. Knowing him, it is possible that he deliberately left the wording ambiguous so that on a future occasion he could make the claim that he made today. Not for nothing did the late Barbara Castle suggest that he could occasionally be devious—I do not think that she actually used the word, “devious” but that was the import of what she said—and had a great deal of low cunning. Our earlier exchange perhaps demonstrated that even though he is not standing for the shadow Cabinet, he still has a great deal of low cunning.
The manifesto commitment was ambiguous, but a further point needs to be made. How far does an Opposition party go towards deciding that it must stick to every measure in a previous manifesto when, as we did, it loses the election?
I understand that Governments and parties that contribute towards Governments are rightly judged by the extent to which they do what they say will do at a general election and in their manifesto, but it seems to me—and I hope to my right hon. Friend—that although the principles that we stand by as a party and our values as a party endure defeat and victory in a general election, specific policies, and certainly policies on such an issue, do not necessarily survive a defeat.
I was out and about in my constituency over the weekend and had many conversations about matters political, not just with Labour party members, but with voters. Surprise, surprise, not one of them said to me, “George, I want you to go down there on Monday for the Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and vote for it.” They did not say, “Vote for it.” They did not say, “Don’t vote for it.” They have never discussed it with me at all. I have never had a letter on fixed-term Parliaments. I have never had an e-mail—no doubt I will get hundreds of them now—on fixed-term Parliaments. No constituent has ever discussed fixed-term Parliaments with me. Any belief that we have a moral obligation to support the Bill has passed me by.
There are other important things that we should take into account. I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. We are sent here to exercise a judgment about many things, one of which is the performance of any Government at any given time. One of the devices that we have at our disposal in such circumstances is a vote of no confidence. Normally, a vote of no confidence can trigger an election process, subject to the monarch and all the procedures that have to take place in those circumstances. I do not believe that our constituents want us to be in a position where we retain the right to pass a vote of no confidence if the effect of that vote is dependent on the proportion of Members who voted for it.
If a Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and that is manifested by a majority of one or two in a vote of no confidence, why is that wrong? Whether the Government have lost the confidence of two thirds of the House, a dozen or two or three Members, why does that make a difference? In the end, a Government who have run out of steam, run out of ideas or run out of confidence here or in the country should go.
I was sent here to make sure that whatever the political composition of the Government of the day, I had the ability on behalf of my constituents to say, “Enough is enough. Go!” That ability, which I have had for the 20-odd years that I have been a Member of the House, is circumscribed by the terms of the Bill.
There has been much talk about hypothetical situations that may occur if the Bill is passed. A vote of no confidence does not necessarily mean that there would be a general election. I am thinking back to the time when the House voted on the Iraq war. If the Government had lost that vote, and if the Prime Minister of the day had made it a matter of confidence in him and had lost, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that there would have been a general election, or would the then Government have changed the Executive and therefore, in effect, the Government?
It is always difficult to speculate about what would have happened at a given time if the vote had gone in a different direction. I know for a fact that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had taken the view—it is now a matter of record—that he would have had to stand down as Prime Minister. That would have changed the leadership of the Executive and the political leadership of the country. How that would have affected the imminence or otherwise of a general election is impossible to judge, because the arithmetic of Parliament would have stayed the same. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant that to be a helpful intervention for the Government, but I do not think it serves that purpose at all.
It is inconceivable and against our traditions that a Prime Minister who proposes a war with the support of his Cabinet is defeated and does not depart the scene. There would have to be a general election. That is our tradition, that is the convention, and that was our constitution.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right, and that he is right about what would have been the outcome in those circumstances, but I am not sure it would have been quite so direct. There may have had to be another vote before that became clear. We are speculating about a particular circumstance at a particular time.
I have made the points that I want to make, but I have one more thing to say in conclusion. I do not believe that the people who voted for me sent me here to vote for a measure linked to other measures which, above all, are designed to entrench the position of the coalition Government. Because I was not sent here to do that, regardless of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) says from the Front Bench, and regardless of what was in our manifesto—I am not sure that many of my constituents are remotely aware that it was in our manifesto—there are no circumstances in which I could support the Second Reading of the Bill or even just sit on my hands. So if anybody else in the House is up for it, I shall be marching through the No Lobby to ensure that there is some opposition to the Bill tonight.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this extremely important Bill. In the evidence that the Select Committee received, one of the distinguished experts who gave their opinion on the Bill described it as so fundamental that in other countries it would have required a constitutional amendment and possibly an entrenched majority of the House to pass.
It is a symptom of the lack of seriousness with which constitutional questions are sometimes treated in the House that the Bill is being rushed through with undignified haste, as appears to be the case, and I regret it. In the last Parliament I spent five years criticising the previous Administration and sometimes being a little harsh on the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the way in which he introduced constitutional Bills, but although he sometimes ignored the substance of consultation, he always preserved its appearance, and he did so with the charm and urbanity that is characteristic of him. In this case, we have had neither the substance nor the appearance. Every single constitutional expert who has given their opinion on the Bill has deplored the absence of consultation in which the House and those in the wider community have had an opportunity to participate.
I am troubled by the Bill. I do not understand why we should rush through the House so fundamental a constitutional alteration to arrangements that have stood us in reasonably good stead for generations. In this country our constitution has broadly served us well. We have had political stability for generations. It behoves the House to contemplate very carefully the wisdom of what it is doing, and to be sure that it is replacing the system that has served us well for so many generations with something better than what we had before. I do not believe that we have had the proper opportunity to consult widely and to consider carefully the Bill and the proposal that it puts forward.
Why would it not be possible, if the measure is important to the existence of the coalition, to propose a Bill that applied to this Parliament only, and thereafter to consider the longer-term question? I apply the same principle to some of the other constitutional changes that are being introduced by the Government. To my way of thinking, it is really quite likely that our constitution needs fundamental amendment. I have spoken in the House on several occasions, referring to the fact that I believe that the time may have arrived when we need to consider wholesale the constitutional arrangements of this country. But if we do that, we should do so in a way that dignifies with respect the history of our constitution; that treats it with sufficient seriousness and depth—that produces a constitutional convention, for example, or brings together men and women of good will across all the parties to decide upon the constitutional arrangements that may last 100 or more years and determine the democratic shape of our nation’s affairs. That is the way to introduce constitutional change, not in a piecemeal and fragmentary way, not incoherently, not because of immediate expediency, but because we have thought it through and because we know that what we seek to replace the former arrangements with will be better than what has gone before.
One of the things that troubles me most about the provision is that it removes the pivotal involvement of the monarch in decisions about the formation of a Government. It is not a light thing, however graciously Her Majesty may have placed her prerogatives at the disposal of the House, to remove some of the fundamental and inherent prerogatives that Her Majesty retains. In 1910, when Asquith approached George V and asked whether the King would be willing to make 300 new peers in an attempt to steamroller through a fundamental change to the constitution, the sovereign answered Asquith, “No. I will not allow you to push through so fundamental a change to our constitution in such a way unless you consult the people in a general election.” The right of the monarch to insist upon a Dissolution when some fundamentally antidemocratic change is proposed by a Prime Minister, is a fundamental safeguard in our constitution. It is something that the monarch, strong in the affections and respect of the British people, is uniquely able to do.
As Conservatives, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, we should think long and hard before we remove the cornerstone of our constitution—the discretion and prerogative of the monarch to safeguard our democracy. What is constitutional in this country is the Queen in Parliament, the Crown in Parliament. The mere fact that the Crown in Parliament is often silent and invisible and inactive does not mean that it is not an important cornerstone in our constitutional arrangements. The right of the monarch, either to decline a Dissolution or to insist upon a Dissolution, seems to me a fundamental safeguard. I am not saying that there may not be a case for change. What I am saying, and what I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that it is not something for us as Conservatives simply to brush lightly aside, either for reasons of expediency or for reasons that are unnecessary. I say again: why would it not be possible to have a Bill that determines the length of this Parliament, if we needed such a Bill and if the good faith of the Prime Minister was not enough, and to consider the longer- term ramifications of the measure in a proper way?
The ability of the Prime Minister to seek a Dissolution is not simply the unfair, unprincipled, unattractive proposition that the Deputy Prime Minister proposed to the House an hour or so ago. The ability of the Prime Minister to go to the Queen to ask for a Dissolution can sometimes be done in circumstances very much in the interests of the nation. I am not saying that it is not sometimes abused. Of course I accept that it can be abused. But in other circumstances it may be vital. The Prime Minister may believe, for example, that it is required in the public interest that he should propose to Parliament a measure that was not in the governing party’s manifesto, but which, for reasons of principle, he believes he should put to the country. What does he do then? Let us suppose, for example, that a future Government proposed to join a united states of Europe. Let us suppose that a future Government, in the middle of its term, felt that it was necessary to put to Parliament a substantial surrender of power, so much so that it possibly placed the independent self-governance of this nation in question. Would not the Prime Minister be justified in those circumstances—I simply take that issue at random; there are many others—in asking the Queen for a Dissolution of Parliament? He has no manifesto commitment; this is a fundamental issue of principle. He is not seeking party advantage, but he believes in all conscience that he needs the approval of the British people. This Bill would prevent him from doing that unless he could gain the assent of 66% of the Members of the House. But he may believe, as a matter of conviction and conscience that it is vital that he should go to the people with so fundamental a proposal.
Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
I will in a moment, if I may.
So again I say to the House, it is not simply a done deal. It is not an open-and-shut argument that fixed-term Parliaments are a good thing. The flexibility of our constitution, the ability of the Prime Minister to seek a Dissolution, is not always a bad thing; it can be a good thing. True it is that in recent times Prime Ministers have tended to abuse it. True it is that in recent experience they have perhaps lessened the dignity of their office by declaring elections in schools and by dithering over the timing of a general election. But that does not mean that we ought not to consider carefully a fundamental change to a fixed-term parliament. My plea today is that we do not regard this as simply a subordinate consideration. The way in which this has been introduced and the lightness with which the House is being expected to deal with this critical question troubles me.
In my submission, the existence of the Queen’s right to dissolve is in some circumstances very important. That may be why in Canada the prerogative of the Queen was preserved. Although they introduced a fixed-term parliament, the Canadians decided to retain the prerogative of the Queen to dissolve Parliament. We should think long and hard before we make a change of this kind. The role of the monarch is an important one and it is not one that we should simply discard.
I have a number of other observations about the Bill. I am troubled about the length—five years. That means that it postpones for five years, in perpetuity hereafter, the ability of the people of this country to pass their opinion upon the performance of a Government. That is potentially too long. The people of this country, who have had no opportunity to be consulted on this issue, are entitled to be consulted in greater depth than we have done hitherto, through the processes that this House has for the taking of evidence and through the ordinary channels of political communication.
I am troubled about the imprecision in what is intended in clause 2 as regards a motion of no confidence. Perhaps this can be tackled in Committee. The provisions seem to give rise to the realistic prospect that the courts may be tempted to invade on these matters. Let me say a few words about privilege. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that it is probably unlikely that the courts would wish to intrude on a matter so pivotal to the workings of Parliament as the Speaker certifying that there was a requisite majority under clause 2, but we cannot rule it out. As the Clerk of the Parliament has said, once we inscribe in statute, the courts are automatically engaged. It is their constitutional function to interpret a statute, and I cannot think of a single instance where the courts have declined to entertain an arguable interpretation in an arguable case.
It is true that the courts may say, after deliberation, and after appeal upon appeal, eventually in the Supreme Court, that they have declined to consider whether the certificate issued by the Speaker is indeed a valid certificate. However, this House has tried, on many occasions, to devise so-called ouster clauses seeking to foreclose the jurisdiction of the court on a judicial review, and I cannot think of a single case in which those clauses have prevented the court from saying, “Okay, we will get involved only in certain limited circumstances, but where it is, for example, a question of the precondition for the exercise of the discretion, we will get involved.” The Clerk gave a very good example when he pointed out that although clause 2 says that a certificate shall be “conclusive for all purposes”, that does not, in theory, prevent the court from inquiring into whether it is a certificate at all.
The courts have adopted precisely that analysis in the case of two or three statutes where the House has sought to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts and they have said, “No, it is our duty to scrutinise and to interpret the meaning of a statute, and where it is a question of whether the essential, fundamental preconditions are met for the exercise of a discretion, we will see whether they have been met.” It would be an act of voluntary self-restraint by the courts to deny themselves the jurisdiction to examine the statute to see whether the Speaker had complied. It is likely that they would exercise that voluntary self-restraint, but one cannot exclude the possibility that as time goes on—
I am following my hon. and learned Friend’s arguments with great interest. In the Parliament Acts, the expression about whether the provision is conclusive for all purposes is reinforced by the words,
“and shall not be questioned in any court of law”.
It is curious that those words are omitted from this Bill given that would provide an additional safeguard and put the courts even more on notice that Parliament had instructed them not to question any provision in any court of law.
I take my hon. Friend’s point. However, in my experience of judicial review proceedings, no form of language has been completely successful in ousting the court’s examination of a statute. This is a well-known phenomenon in administrative law. The House has, on several occasions, tried its very best, through expressions of the character that he mentions, to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, but the courts have said no. In this case, the Bill says that a certificate shall be “conclusive for all purposes”, but the courts would be likely to say, “That means ‘a valid certificate will be conclusive for all purposes’, and we are entitled to consider whether this is a valid certificate.” It would be an act of purely voluntary self-restraint if the court said, “In these circumstances we will treat this statute as non-justiciable.” I can think of no examples of where the courts have yet done that. Certainly, they have held certain things to be non-justiciable, but usually because the duty is vague and the expression of the statute is more aspirational than definitive. In this case, it is clear what conditions are set out for the Speaker to pass a valid certificate for the purposes of an early election.
In my judgment, it is not possible to rule out the courts’ involvement. If that is right, we should pause. I say this to the Minister: please let us think long and hard about further consideration of this Bill, because it smacks of undue and undignified haste. I have spoken about the duration of the Parliament, and the monarch’s integral and pivotal role in deciding on either declining a Dissolution, agreeing to a Dissolution or insisting on a Dissolution is vital. The Bill’s imprecision on the nature of a no-confidence motion is vital. Why should we not pause in relation to fixed-term Parliaments? Why do we have to make law for the long-term future? It is regrettable, and I have great trouble with this Bill, as I did with last week’s Bill about the alternative vote referendum.
As an Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives frequently criticised the then Administration for piecemeal, incoherent and fragmentary reform in constitutional affairs. Why are we repeating that error? We should be taking a long-term, coherent view of our constitution. How can it be right that we decide the electoral cycle of this House not in conjunction with a consideration of what a reformed Second Chamber would look like? How can it be right that we decide the electoral system of this House not in conjunction with the electoral system that we shall use for the Second Chamber? That would be joined-up, mature and wise constitutional law-making; this looks like something very different. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is embarrassing to be on these Benches having to listen to a Bill of this kind being put forward in such a way. I had hoped for better from this Government.
First, I congratulate the members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, many of whom are here tonight, on performing a brilliant job of which I hope the House is very proud. They had a mere two or three days in which to produce for the House a first-class report; I hope that colleagues will take the chance to look at it. If it does not cover all the answers, it none the less raises most of the key questions, which can be resolved through the passage of this Bill. I thank all those Members who worked so hard on pulling the document together. I took the liberty of e-mailing it to every Member of the House within one minute of its publication on Friday morning, in the hope that those who were not out campaigning and knocking on doors at the weekend would have a chance at least to look at it and inform themselves ahead of the debate. We did the best we could, but it is still not good enough in respect of the procedures of the House. We should expect our Select Committees to have a careful, long, detailed look at the legislation that is proposed by the Government and that the House is expected to pass. We can do that by having proper pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Bill flies in the face of effective pre-legislative scrutiny. We will do our best for the two days of Committee on the Floor of the House, but I hope very much that in future the Government will ensure that we all get adequate time to do what we are here for—to make better law. The Government-drafted law, good as it is, will always benefit from a careful, steady appraisal and from the answering of questions. That is what the parliamentary process is designed for.
Pre-legislative scrutiny is a valuable tool for the House across a range of legislation, and constitutional change has significant ramifications for a whole other range of legislation that the House has passed over many hundreds of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny should almost have been a pre-requisite before the Bill came to the House?
As I would expect, my right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. As we have heard today, many people support the principle of what the Government are saying. Why lose friends by rushing the process? Why not get better law by going steadily? I am sure that colleagues know that democratic change has been dear to my heart for many years. Above all, why not build a consensus in the House for the change once it has been gone through carefully and after everyone in the House feels that they have been able to be involved—rather than everyone in the House feeling that they have been cheated and that the process has been abusive to them as Members of Parliament? I shall return to that issue a little later.
This is a Second Reading debate, so we are talking about the big principles. The big principle is whether we should have a fixed-term Parliament. I speak personally and strongly in saying that such a Parliament is certainly needed; many of us have campaigned for one for many years. I think that it will become a steady, fixed aspect of what we do in this country. To quote the report,
“our expectation is that future Parliaments would run for their full fixed term, and that this will become an unremarkable aspect of our modern democracy.”
That is how most western democracies operate, and they take it in their stride. That is just how things are. They have a set, fixed system and do not get terribly excited for two or three years about whether there will be a general election. They know perfectly well when their legislature and Executive are going to be elected. The process is not all covered in mysticism, judicial archaeology and obscure Standing Orders; it is there for people to see, with every elector owning their democracy.
It was said that nobody writes to hon. Members about fixed-term Parliaments. People do not; but they do speak to all of us on the doorsteps about how they feel about politics. They feel that politics is not working and does not deliver for them. Our role is to take that general sentiment—albeit not expressed in favour of this or that clause in a particular Bill—that we must restore politics to people. That is one of the key principles underlying the idea of a fixed-term Parliament.
I have got form on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talked about the 1992 Labour party decision. I was fortunate enough to have drafted that document. That was nearly 20 years ago and there has been a lot of discussion since, but the House is finally getting the chance to decide on whether the people of our country should know when the next general election is going to be. That is a really important step forward.
I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman is doing a great job with his Committee and I congratulate it on producing such a speedy report.
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the will of Parliament can easily be subjected to the will of the Whips? On a matter of great constitutional importance, it is perfectly clear that one of the main objectives would be to use the Whip system to get whatever result the respective members of the coalition Government wanted—at the expense of the people of this country, who vote for us?
Indeed. One of the small matters of dispute that I have had with the hon. Gentleman over the years has been that somehow he feels that we can recreate some golden parliamentary age. This place is owned by the Executive and the alternative Executive; the hon. Gentleman, more than anybody, should know that. If he does not understand that, he falls into the same trap as the Clerk, who talked about the
“House’s mastery of its own proceedings”.
That is a myth and a self-deception. We must confront that issue. We imagine that somehow there are 650 individuals here creating our own rules, but the rules are created by the Executive.
The Bill seeks to put into law provisions for a fixed-term Parliament, rather than putting them only in Standing Orders, which can be changed at a moment’s notice. The 10 o’clock rule is suspended on a daily basis and Standing Orders are cast aside and suspended on a regular basis. To pretend that there is an atomised Parliament with 650 Members all exercising their consciences is a self-deception out of which, I hope, hon. Members throughout the House will educate themselves. In that way, we can take back some control for the House and strengthen Parliament, and people can elect us understanding that the House of Commons—the legislature —is different from the Executive, and should have its own independence and powers.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) led me down the road of the rebalancing of powers between the legislature and the Executive, and I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that this, for once, is the Executive actually giving away a power, for whatever reason. We can make our own judgments about the reason, but I welcome the change, because it helps to rebalance the power between the Executive and the legislature. If we seize this moment, we could use it to help to strengthen this institution rather than, as the hon. Member for Stone mentioned, just following the Whips. We could use this precedent to make sure that we can build up and strengthen our Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill could strengthen the standing of Parliament. However, as I understand it, the Bill does not prevent the Government from putting down a motion of no confidence in themselves and therefore, if they had a majority, getting an election whenever they wanted one. That is the ineffectiveness of the drafting of the Bill.
There are so many flaws in the Bill’s drafting. The Committee, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, has done as good a job as it can in pointing them out. I hope that all of them will be put right during the Committee stage, as they could be put right if we were to have a special Public Bill Committee or a proper pre-legislative process. However, that is currently not the case. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and one that should be addressed by the Government as the Bill proceeds.
The other thing about a fixed-term Parliament is predictability and continuity. Instead of permanent politics-as-entertainment, in which there is speculation about impending general elections and people feed tittle-tattle and gossip to raise or lower the political temperature, we will know that we can get on with serious business while knowing the date of the next general election and putting such considerations aside. That is something of great importance, and would lead to us as parliamentarians being able to seize greater control of what we do in this place on a number of issues, rather than being engaged, even at arm’s length, in speculation about when an election will take place.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee, and for the evidence that it has taken. However, what concerns me—one of the witnesses makes this point in a written statement—is that we are talking about piecemeal constitutional change. The Labour and Conservative parties are dedicated to an elected House of Lords, for instance. How does a five or four-year term—or whatever it is—fit into the broader picture for us? That is what bothers me, so to talk about a piece of piecemeal legislation—and to ask the question “Cui bono?”—is not good enough.
Perfection may be the enemy of the good in this case. As parliamentarians, we are feeding on the crumbs from the table, and I guess that this is as good as we can do. The choice is not between the Bill and a big-bang written constitution that solves all the problems in one go; the Bill is what is on offer, and as supplicants in the process, we can only try to make it a better part of this piecemeal change. Unfortunately, we do not have the option of something much more fundamental; and indeed, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would really want that. However, perhaps he does, so I will follow his speech with interest.
The other thing about predictability and continuity is that they give Governments the chance to decide their programme and work through their Bills much more effectively. This helter-skelter “throw it into the mix” way of passing legislation debilitates Governments of all parties. Let there be proper evidence-based policy making—probably for the first time in our lifetime—so that the Government can put things to the House of Commons that are almost fully formed, rather than throwing them in and saying, “We’ll hope to amend them as they go through this House and the second Chamber.” Instead of saying, “Let’s botch a few things and get hundreds of amendments down to try and get the Bill into shape,” how about having proper, considered, evidence-based policy making from the Government, which would then be immensely strengthened by proper scrutiny by the House? Who loses in that process?
Some might say, “It’s going to delay things,” but we did this. Indeed, a classic example from when Labour was in power was criminal justice Bills. We popped them out virtually once a year because we had not got it right the first time, but we also had to get something before the House and show that we were fighting crime. I think we can all do better than that. If we used the process that is readily available to us to consider legislation carefully, the Government would amaze themselves at the Bills they could produce for the House and the House would amaze itself at the contribution it could make by having proper scrutiny of how legislation develops.
We have proposed, on an all-party basis, that there should be 12 weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. To his great credit, the Leader of the House has written to the Liaison Committee saying that Bills should normally have a 12-week evidence-taking pre-legislative scrutiny period. If we can get the so-called new politics to deliver on that, so that every Bill goes through that process, we will produce much better law. However, if we just ram things through the House of Commons, it will be business as usual and legislation will be flawed. Those who throw in the bogey of the courts coming and lurking in the corridors of the House of Commons will find their wish fulfilled, because there may indeed be flaws in the legislation. I hope we will iron out all those wrinkles this week and in the days on the Floor of the House, but if we are not careful and if we do not have the right level of scrutiny, we may get what we wish for.
Given the adversarial nature of our legislative process, does my hon. Friend agree that some of the issues to which he has alluded will be difficult to iron out in the passage of this legislation and that pre-legislative scrutiny would have led not only to a far better conclusion, but to one that would have gathered a consensus across the House?
It is not always possible to achieve a consensus, but technical issues—whether the courts might be involved; whether the proposal might be implemented better through Standing Orders or in statute; the number of days needed after a Government have lost the confidence of the House—are the sorts of things that can be decided to everybody’s satisfaction. That does not mean that everyone will be satisfied for or against a fixed-term Parliament, but that is the purpose of a Second Reading, and that is the purpose of the final reading in this House: to say yes or no to the key principles. What we in this House are failing to deliver is technically competent, thoroughly analysed and examined pieces of legislation. That is why we have Select Committees, Public Bill Committees and the Committee stage on the Floor of the House for democratic Bills. However, we as a House are robbing ourselves of the opportunity to do that work by asking our Select Committee to come up with a report, good as it is, in two or three days.
I join others in congratulating the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on the work that they have done in the short time available. Can he share with the House what discussions he has had, and what explanation he has been given, about the failure to go down the route of pre-legislative scrutiny for this important piece of constitutional legislation?
I will have to let the Minister answer that question in the wind-up. With the first Bill—on AV and boundaries—there was a desire for a referendum in May and a great rush to secure one. With this Bill on fixed-term Parliaments, which would benefit immensely from study—not delay, but getting it right—I have not really had a sensible explanation as to why it is being pushed through in the brief period when the House is back in September.
The Bill as a concept—and so without a Second Reading—could have been discussed on the Floor of the House in June or July. Without any knowledge of the Bill, we could have discussed the key principles, but it was not put before us in a way that enabled the Committee to bring sensible and serious evidence before the House. If doing things that way could become part of the process, I would be very happy, but that would really mean putting it in Standing Orders. It is no good waiting for smoke signals from Ministers or the Leader of the House; it should be the right of this House to look at legislation. That should be what we expect, not something that may be handed down with a nod and a wink.
We all very much enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s evangelical speeches on behalf of empowering the House, but there are three representatives of minority parties in the Chamber, and he will know that we do not have the same access as hon. Members in the three big parties. What is he actively doing to ensure that we are represented in all those important Committees of the House? We are not on his Committee, for example, or on the Liaison Committee, and there are so many others. Surely he could help us a bit more to get there.
I do not want to go over old ground—you might pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of us, not least among the Select Committee Chairs, working away on that issue to try to find a happy resolution. Unfortunately, what was agreed at that moment was a satisfactory compromise, but not exactly what we might all have wanted in those negotiations. None the less, that is something that the House must continue to pursue.
Another advantage of the predictability and continuity of a fixed-term Parliament would be that it would give Members of Parliament and their staff, and the staff of the House, some clarity about the House’s timetable and calendar. That would bring some stability to the way in which staff are employed, for example, and to their holidays and their terms and conditions. Such provisions in the Bill would also give electoral registration officers in every locality a greater length of time to prepare than they have when a snap election is called. We have heard, in a different context, lots of stuff about people failing to register. It would be well within the compass of election registration officers to build up a registration campaign ahead of key events such as general elections, and to plan ahead for such campaigns.
We have also heard—I think it was from the Deputy Prime Minister, or perhaps from an intervener on him—about the Electoral Commission’s report, which was published today. It talks about the importance of overseas and forces voters being registered properly, and a fixed-term Parliament could broaden our democracy by making that work. At heart, however, the Bill is about restoring policy questions to our politics, and about not being so distracted by the media blood sports relating to whether we are going to have an election, in whose favour it will be and when the Prime Minister is going to go to the palace.
Finally, I want to deal with the failure to get effective scrutiny for the Bill. That failure has meant that we have not been able to look at a large number of issues that attach to a fixed-term Parliament, including the use of royal prerogative powers and the strength of the Executive over Parliament. We have not been able to study the links between what we are proposing now and fixed-term Parliaments in other areas. We have not been able to examine prerogative powers in relation to proroguing Parliament. That has been mentioned tangentially, but why do we still have these obscure, ancient rights? No one, except those who work inside the Executive, seems to know quite where they come from or how they can be exercised. These things are not in our power; they are not part of Parliament’s mastery of its own destiny.
The power to set the date for the meeting of Parliament after a general election is not in the gift of the Members who have just been elected; it is in the gift of the Government. We are not masters of our own destiny in that regard. The power also exists for the Prime Minister to go to the Palace without any authority from Parliament. We talk about things being announced on the “Today” programme, but the Prime Minister does not even need to come to the House to announce that there is to be an election. He does not even have to come here, as the leader of the main party, to claim the right to be sent by Parliament to the palace. We see smoke and mirrors on general election night; colleagues are a passing butterfly of an electoral college that night, and they are expected simply to toe the line thereafter. That is what royal prerogative powers are about; what the term really means is Executive power. All those powers remain untouched and unlooked-at, because we were not allowed to scrutinise the Bill effectively.
I will vote for the Bill tonight. In principle, we need a fixed term for our Parliaments. We should debate on the Floor of the House whether it is four years or five. We should, however, have had proper scrutiny. That would have made this a better Bill. I say with some empathy for the coalition Government that, above all, if they want to change the way in which we are governed, and the way in which our democracy works, they cannot do it by the old methods. They have to reach out, explain and educate. If they do not, those people who would otherwise be their friends and make a consensus work, and who would make the new democracy work and give Parliament the rights that it deserves, will not be with them. It is a great mistake to push through legislation, particularly legislation of this nature, without trying to bring people with them, and the most important people to bring with them in that regard are Members of this House of all parties.
Several hon. Members
Order. There are 15 Members in the Chamber who wish to participate in the debate. As there is no time limit on speeches, we will not be able to fit all 15 Members in unless we see a little more progress being made. This is in hon. Members’ hands, but a quick calculation shows that if each takes about 10 minutes, we might have a racing chance of fitting everyone in. I want to make that clear to everyone who wishes to speak. Otherwise, we might have to reflect on whether we need a time limit.
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate, and a particular pleasure to be called to speak after the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I shall come to some of the concerns that he has raised, many of which I share. However, that does not take away my genuine pleasure at being able to speak to a Bill that, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, takes away the Prime Minister’s power to choose the date of the election to suit his or her party. There are understandable concerns—perhaps more than I had envisaged when I came into the Chamber today—but my party and I see the Bill as a huge step forward.
We have heard about somersaults in manifesto commitments, but I support the principle behind the Bill, and the need for fixed-term Parliaments has been enshrined in my party’s policies and manifestos for many decades. I do not know when the four years became five during the negotiations between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat negotiating teams, but the principle is still there. Of course there are still details to be worked out in Committee and, yes, many questions should have been asked during pre-legislative scrutiny. In an ideal world, we would also have had more than two days to consider the Bill in Committee. Those are legitimate concerns, but I do not want to lose sight of the principle behind the Bill.
I also believe that the Government are in listening mode. Concern was expressed—and shared by some on the Liberal Democrat Benches—when the 55% threshold was announced, and a vigorous campaign was set up to oppose it. The Government have listened to those concerns and revised their position, and I hope that some of the sensible comments that have been made today will attract the ear of the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
I have served on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee for the past five years. Anyone who has served on a Select Committee will know that, when such Committees work properly, the depth of their inquiries and their capacity to call witnesses over long periods of time are not taken lightly. I share the concerns expressed by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report. It had the capacity to hold deep and meaningful discussions over a couple of sessions. I am grateful to the Chairman for the fact that I received my copy of the report very speedily; reading it over the weekend certainly informed my understanding of the matter. However, this is not a satisfactory way to proceed.
We have also heard about the concerns of the Clerk of the House. They were articulated strongly by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). I shall not attempt, given my humble background, to denigrate the views of the Clerk of the House, but he has strongly held views, and a counter-view was put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee. All those views need to be fully examined, and we need to see a balance between different witnesses putting forward their cases. I do not, however, share the view that the Bill should not proceed as a consequence of those concerns, and I welcome the principles behind it, and the common ground that is to be found across the Chamber.
One specific matter still concerns me, however, although I was reassured by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on it earlier. It is the position in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister has talked about pursuing these matters further, and there are legitimate concerns about the prospect of National Assembly elections in Wales on the same day as the next general election for this Parliament. The consequence might be an increased turnout, but there is a genuine fear, articulated by many parties in Wales, Scotland and, no doubt, Northern Ireland as well that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish issues—the issues of the Celtic nations—will be drowned out in a national picture.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same principle applies to having council elections on the same day—and that long-serving councillors with a good record might well be washed up in national swings?
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hesitate to agree because we are talking about national elections for countries—about two general elections happening simultaneously in the same country. That is the difference. We are talking about the relationship between the media and the campaigns and the ability of the Welsh and other Celtic nations to get their message across in the national media.
The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that a solution would be found, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would not be acceptable to have those elections only a few months apart? We cannot be in continual election mode in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for, say, six months a year. There has to be clear blue water between the elections.
That is the debate that needs to be had. I took the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement as the opening gambit in that discussion. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. For the First Minister in the Welsh context simply to tamper with the date and have a general election in Wales a month after a general election would be completely unacceptable. We would have two months of perpetual campaigning and the drowning out of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish issues would still very much apply.
In future elections to the Welsh Assembly, the constituencies for Westminster might not be the same as those for the Assembly, which could lead to the confusion experienced in Scotland for the same reason.
My hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is one thing to have a general election and a one-issue referendum. I do not mind saying that I have chosen my line on that issue; my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has convinced me that the Welsh people are perfectly equipped to differentiate between one issue on one ballot paper and voting in a Welsh general election. However, having two general elections on the same day is quite another thing, not least because of the different boundaries that are likely to apply, as my hon. Friend suggests. That will lead to a huge amount of confusion. We need to take a few minutes to reflect on it; I know it is hard for Members representing English constituencies to understand. It would be immensely confusing to voters if two general elections were held on the same day. We already have difficulty in explaining the devolution settlement and how it works, and indeed explaining the distinction between powers for the devolved nations and powers exercised by this Parliament. It is a very big issue.
I did not necessarily expect my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to address this issue, but I am very pleased that he has. We do not know what it involves—[Interruption]—yet. He has acknowledged the problem, however, and I pay tribute to him for that, but we have to go further.
Did the hon. Gentleman not get the same impression from the Deputy Prime Minister as I did—that the solution brought forward will be that the National Assembly and the Parliaments will have to change their election dates?
That might well be the consequence. I would personally much welcome the Welsh First Minister, rather than a Minister in this place, having the capacity to alter the election date, because that is what devolution is all about.
May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that that stands in contradiction to the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), when he said that he did not want us to be in perpetual electoral mode. Frankly, from what the Deputy Prime Minister said today, we are talking about only a few weeks’ difference—not months or even years—between one election and the other.
The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. That is why I differ slightly from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about whether the gap should be months or years. At the moment, there is a capacity to alter the dates for a month either side of the current arrangements, whereas I would welcome an arrangement whereby the Welsh First Minister could effect a difference of months.
I enter this nationalist debate with some trepidation because, as an English MP, I have not been involved in this type of situation. Does my hon. Friend not think that the electorates in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have the ability and intelligence to differentiate between two different elections and to make their minds up appropriately on the day?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am drawing a distinction between a general election and a referendum. Fighting two general elections on different boundaries will potentially create huge problems. I have never doubted the intelligence of the electorate of Ceredigion to make judgments on all sorts of things, but some of the concern is legitimate. Like the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), I have not had any letters about fixed-term Parliaments, but I guarantee that people outside polling stations will be very concerned if we have these two elections on the same day. There will be a lot of concern and anxiety about it. It might not have manifested itself yet, but it will if the two elections go ahead on the same day.
My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. Before he concludes, I would like to put on record the view I share with him that, if the date of the election is to be altered, the Assembly and the other devolved Administrations, rather than Westminster, should be given the power to determine it.
I agree absolutely. As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a committed devolutionist, as am I, my party and other parties in the House. It is only right that that decision should be made in the devolved national bodies.
That is a debate to be had, as the past five minutes have illustrated perfectly. That reinforces the point made by the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, about the extent of the scrutiny he is able to undertake. The case for pre-legislative scrutiny now seems lamentably to have passed this Bill by. These are immense constitutional issues, but I believe that there is a large—albeit not unanimous—consensus about them. I only wish we had the opportunity to illustrate it through the scrutiny work of the Select Committee and other bodies of the House.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. In the space of just seven days, we have faced a barrage of constitutional legislation and various announcements. Since last Monday, we have had legislative proposals on changing the voting system, reducing the number of MPs and new boundaries for constituencies right across the country within an unprecedentedly short space of time. Today we have legislation before us for fixed-term Parliaments. This morning a decision was announced about doing away with the Queen’s Speech next year and moving towards five-yearly fixed terms, with Queen’s Speeches in spring rather than the autumn. As I understand it, an announcement has also been made today about legislation to bring into effect the provision of a referendum whenever further powers are to be transferred to Brussels. In fact, most of the damage has already been done when it comes to transferring powers to Brussels, yet nothing is to be done about that—but that is a different debate.
I list those legislative proposals simply to show the difference between what is happening now and the September sittings of previous Parliaments, which, frankly, amounted to nothing more than a bit of window-dressing to impress the media that Parliament and MPs were busy about their work. We cannot accuse the Government of that in this September sitting, as some of the most meaty legislation has been introduced in a short space of time. I say that not to compliment the Government but to condemn them, as they have rushed through this massively important, incredibly significant constitutional legislative change, with at least five significant proposals, three of which are contained in the primary legislation.
As the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said, the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have not shared with the House why they felt that the normal pre-legislative scrutiny period could not be afforded for the Bill. Given that the Bill has no deadline, and we are to have a two-year Parliamentary Session, there is no reason why we could not have had proper pre-legislative scrutiny. When the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will tell the House why it has been denied that.
I listened carefully to the criticism made by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) of the piecemeal approach to constitutional change. Given the items of legislation and various constitutional proposals already brought forward within a very short space of time, it is obvious that there is no overall, co-ordinated, strategic approach. I favour pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills as they come forward, but the case has been made powerfully—the plethora of legislation makes the case—for a much wider consultation and consensus-building exercise when it comes to changes to our constitution, changes to how Parliament operates and changes to how our parliamentary democracy functions. It cannot be right that such major changes are introduced in a piecemeal fashion, to suit the whims of the coalition Government.
Surely we should proceed on the basis of not just pre-legislative scrutiny, but a constitutional convention involving all parties, the wider community and the public, so that people sit down and discuss properly the way forward for the constitution of the United Kingdom. Now that we have devolved legislatures, Executives and Governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, that is all the more important. In all the debate, where have those Governments and legislatures been properly considered? That lack of consideration is only one illustration of how the Government have thus far not adhered to the respect for the devolved legislatures and Administrations about which the Prime Minister spoke when he first took office. That respect agenda has not been evident in how the Government have operated so far, certainly in relation to major constitutional issues. I appeal to the Government to build a consensus on the issues and to consult. These constitutional issues are far too important to be treated as matters of party politics, or issues to be pushed through the House as other legislation and policy issues can be at times, and should be given much wider consideration.
Last week, I put forward criticisms of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but in principle I support fixed-term Parliaments. Many hon. Members will take different views on the different Bills. Some are in favour of the alternative vote and the boundary changes, but are against fixed-term Parliaments. Some favour fixed-term Parliaments, but are against other aspects. That shows that we need a co-ordinated approach, with a much wider, in-depth consideration of how the different pieces of legislation fit together.
On this Bill, I agree that a fixed-term Parliament is important, and I am delighted that the 55% threshold has been removed. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that it was removed purely because it would never have got through the House. I am also pleased that the Government have dealt with the lame-duck Parliament issue, by building in provisions for a 14-day period to allow an alternative Government to be formed. A fixed-term Parliament has the advantage of removing from the Prime Minister of the day the ability to go to the country on the basis of the best interests of his or her party, not those of the country at large. It takes away the period of intense election speculation that can arise—even in the middle of a Parliament, as we saw in 2007—and to which everything else is made subject.
Although I welcome the principle of the Bill, there are issues that need to be addressed in Committee. For instance, some of the issues that have arisen in the debate illustrate that the Bill does not provide the certainty that people thought. Under the Bill as it stands, the Government of the day could engineer a vote of no confidence so that they could go to the country at the time of their choosing. If the Prime Minister has given up the power to go to the palace to seek a Dissolution of Parliament, what is the position in relation to a constructive vote of no confidence brought about by the Government of the day? As we know, Parliament cannot bind its successors, so any subsequent Act of Parliament can, on a simple majority, overturn a previous Act of Parliament. Despite the Bill containing a 66% threshold, any future Act of Parliament introduced by the Government of the day, were they so minded, would pass by a simple majority. Therefore, the Bill does not provide, as some have claimed, certainty for ever.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) addressed the issue of the dates of the electoral cycle. I join those Members who have raised concerns about the coincidence in 2015 of the general election and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I listened carefully to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say, and it struck me that his comments were perhaps made on the hoof—I do not get the impression that a lot of consideration had been given to the point prior to the debate. He said that he would address the matter, think about it and discuss it. Will the Minister reassure the House that consultation with the devolved Administrations will be genuine, and that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks to the folk in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, he will not simply go away and then come back and impose a solution? The proposal must be agreed with the respective devolved Administrations. It will be totally unacceptable if the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister amounts to nothing more than the usual consultation. The consultation must be genuine and must respect the views of the devolved Administrations.
When the hon. Gentleman uses the term “devolved Administrations”, is he using a generic term? Is he saying that he wants the commissions or bodies corporate of the devolved institutions of the Parliament and the Assembly, rather than just the Executives, to be consulted?
I am happy to give that assurance. That is exactly what I mean. I think that this matter is far too important for all those institutions and bodies not to be involved, and that there must be a consensus. I end where I began: with the need for consensus on these important matters, between the Government here at Westminster and the devolved Administrations and their various organs, and within those bodies. The issue is too important for people to play party politics with it.
Several hon. Members
Order. I must notify Members that, under Standing Order No. 47, I intend to impose a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches between now and the beginning of the winding-up speeches at 9.30 pm. That will give me some chance of allowing everyone to speak.
I will endeavour to complete my speech within eight minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you called me at this point, because interventions on the matters that I wish to discuss were beginning to creep in, and it would have been a shame if I could not have made my speech because my points had already been made.
A major advantage of fixed-term Parliaments is that they bring stability to the country and the markets by informing them of what a Government’s legislation will be, and of whether they can steer it through without the threat of a general election that might change both the governing body and its legislation. The issue goes further than the House. I hope that the Ministers will note my comments, and will bear them in mind during the Bill’s subsequent stages. There have been encouraging signs today that the Deputy Prime Minister is paying attention to the debate and is willing to make some changes.
A relevant consideration is the way in which we approach council elections. The Government are keen to put more power into the hands of local government. I believe that local government suffers as a result of elections that are too regular, and that therefore provide for short-term governance. Currently, there are votes at least twice every four years for 76 two-tier councils and 20 unitary authorities, and there are 36 metropolitan authorities with four-year terms elected by thirds. I plead with the Minister to take on board my plea that councils should be told, “Although you have the option to move to all-out elections every four years, we want to legislate for you to do that.”
I hope that elections for police commissioners could be held at the same time. As has often been said, a local election tends to be seen as a referendum on the Government of the day. Holding both elections on the same day might save money for the public; moreover, any referendum on government would take place locally and the arguments for the police commissioner would take place independently. People may have different opinions, but we are in this place to debate issues.
My hon. Friend may be suggesting something similar to mid-term elections, but one of the problems with the Bill is that it proposes a five-year cycle. If we are to opt for the system suggested by my hon. Friend, we really need a four-year Parliament with the council elections two years in, and unfortunately the Bill will not give us that.
I was going to raise that point later in my speech and say that it was a matter for further debate, but I take my hon. Friend’s point very seriously.
One of the problems of annual council elections is that they lead to short-termism. One councillor has said:
“We have try to engage our electorate throughout the year. Every month we get out on the streets to remind them of the work we are doing. We want them to remember our work when they go to vote in May.”
The first couple of sentences are laudable—indeed, I hope that everyone will do as the councillor suggests—but surely people should behave in that way as a matter of course, not just because they face elections in May.
In my city of Leeds, councillors are elected annually for four-year terms by thirds. Each election costs council tax payers £600,000. The introduction of a system of all-out four-yearly elections would save them at least £1.2 million. Leeds is one of five unitary authorities that make up West Yorkshire. According to a recent figure issued by the West Yorkshire electoral offices, the cost of an election for police commissioners could be as high as £1.5 million. That sum could be almost recouped if just one of those authorities was included in the election.
My hon. Friend is making some interesting and valid points. Does he agree that the Government’s stated aim of cutting the cost of politics would be greatly served if we simplified council elections in the way that he suggests? Would not the savings be considerable?
I entirely agree. Let me add that the turnout figures for the local elections in Leeds since 2003—30%, 42%—
Order. We are not discussing local elections; we are discussing fixed-term Parliaments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is returning to that subject.
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the advantages of a system of fixed-term Parliaments. I am arguing that it would not only save money and increase turnouts, but allow local councils to govern for the long term in conjunction with the Government. The problem now is that councils govern for the short term because there is an election every 12 months, and are always seeking the political advantage rather than thinking about what needs to be done over the long term.
I am striving to understand whether or not the hon. Gentleman is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. I hear what he says about councils, but what does he think about the Bill?
I was about to end my speech, but perhaps I can put the hon. Lady’s mind at rest by telling her that I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, and that I will vote with the Government this evening. I am trying to explain how I think we should be governing. I hope that my points will be taken beyond Westminster and considered at local level, because I believe that if Government are to govern for the long term—and I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments because they will remove instability—local government will benefit from the powers that we want to pass down to it, by enabling authorities to govern for the long term as well rather than having their eye on annual elections.. Otherwise, by the time a deal has been hatched they will not have even one year of governance. They will probably have a maximum of three months before starting the next electoral process.
Thank you for indulging me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will deal with my comments when he winds up the debate.
“R-E-S-P-E-C-T” is what Aretha Franklin sang so heartily back in the 1960s. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position I am hearing pleas to sing, but I shall try to avoid doing that.
The same mantra has been adopted by the coalition Government in the context of their relationship with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although no one would for a minute accuse Aretha of being anything less than passionate and committed to the respect agenda, I do not think that the same could be said of the coalition Government. They are not so much about “RESPECT” as “CONTEMPT”. What we have seen from them is not so much a respect agenda as an almost total contempt agenda. They do not consult our Governments about any legislation that they seek to introduce, although it introduces huge constitutional reforms. They do not take any of our objections or any of our realistic difficulties seriously. We are dismissed and almost belittled when we try to make complaints, and that is not good enough. This Conservative and Liberal Government will have to learn to engage properly with the devolved institutions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If they do not know the words of “Respect”, perhaps they should go and listen to Aretha once again.
This issue follows on from last week’s constitutional Bill, on which there was not a peep of consultation with any of the Governments of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, even though what is proposed in the Bills last week and today will have dramatic effects and a huge impact on the democratic processes in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I do not have a problem with fixed-term Parliaments; we have them in Scotland and they work perfectly well. Everybody understands that we will have an election every four years. They get rid of the whole idea of prime ministerial or first ministerial advantage. They get rid of the silly and ridiculous situation we had last year when a lame duck Prime Minister hung on to the last possible minute, seeing if there were any advantage in calling an early election, and then eventually went the full term. Fixed-term Parliaments get rid of all that nonsense and are, in effect, a good thing. I support them.
But why five years? I struggle to understand why we need to have five years for fixed-term Parliaments. Why not get in line with the rest of the UK? It is four years in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Were we to adopt a four-year fixed-term Parliament, we would not have the difficulties of clashing with the Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish elections. Surely that should be the real intention. Let us not create constitutional confusion in this country. Let us try to make sure that people can understand what is going on.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most modern comparable democracies, including elsewhere in the UK, have four-year fixed terms?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee analysed legislatures throughout the world and found that the norm was four years and that five years was very unusual. Surely the Government should be looking at what is the norm throughout the world.
As interesting as it is to hear about what is happening in other countries, I am more interested in what happens here. The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that the average length of a Parliament in this country since 1945 has been 3.7 years. Actually, four years would be a very British thing to do.
I am grateful for that intervention. The shadow Justice Secretary made that point earlier. We have learned some fascinating pieces of electoral history today. The point is well made; when it comes to talking about the history of this nation—never mind international examples—four years seems to be just about the right length of time for a Parliament to get its legislative programme through.
If we move to five years, the next general election will be on the same date as the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What on earth were the people who came up with the Bill thinking about? Surely they looked at the date of May 2015 and thought, “Wait a minute. Something happens that day.” Surely they should have thought that the thing that will happen that day is the elections throughout the rest of the UK. Either they did not know or they did not care. Which was it? Did they not care that having those elections on the same day would result in absolute and total confusion? Does the Minister know that there are different constituencies for the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments? Two different sets of returning officers and polling staff would be required. God knows what the counts would be like, but it would be an absolute recipe for total disaster.
Any Scottish election campaign inevitably would be drowned out by the London metrocentric media. There would be leaders’ debates without any representatives of the Scottish Government involved. The campaign would be skewed towards the big parties. We would have no chance whatever of getting our point across. All domestic issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be totally and utterly overlooked. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not the way to proceed with our democracy in the UK.
It is not just about elections; it is about democracy and ensuring that people can make an informed choice when they come to put their cross on the ballot paper, whether for this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or local elections.
I listened with real interest and care to what the Deputy Prime Minister said about trying to address the problem. I accept that he is sincere and I look forward to hearing further plans for how that will be done, but we cannot do it now. The returning officers in the other Parliaments and Assemblies have the power to alter the timing and dates of an election by one month. One month would make no difference whatever. Can we imagine how ridiculous it would be? We would just have gone through an election and would be celebrating victories—we hope—and then we would be off to the next one without having time to draw breath. That is nonsense and must be looked at properly.
The Government will have to devolve powers to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would mean reopening the relevant legislation, as that would be the only way to do it. These powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that it can determine its election date.
I heard the Secretary of State for Scotland talk about a six-month gap between the Scottish and Westminster parliamentary elections. I do not know whether the coalition Government are starting to put that together as a solution, but six months is not good enough either. That would mean almost a whole year of elections. We would just conclude one campaign and then we would start another.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I am sorry, I cannot. I have only three minutes left and I have a few more things to say.
We need a clear space, and six months is not sufficient to ensure properly contested election campaigns. Why must the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments move their dates? We have had our election dates set in stone since 1999. The next election will be the fourth we will contest. The Government knew that these elections would take place in May 2015. Surely it is this House that should move its date; it could go six months earlier or later. It just is not fair or right. I look forward to the Government’s proposals but they must be substantial because what has been proposed so far is not good enough.
I am pleased that the Government got rid of the silly notion of a 55% threshold for the Dissolution of Parliament. I heard some utter nonsense about the programme for dissolving the Scottish Parliament in defence of the 55% proposal. I am pleased that the Government did, more or less, adopt the Scottish system for Dissolution almost in full, and that is right.
I want to conclude with a few words from Ron Gould, the man who was drafted in by the Electoral Commission and the Scotland Office to look at the disaster that was the last Scottish parliamentary elections. We remember it not only because of the fantastic SNP victory, but because of the 140,000 spoilt ballot papers that resulted from the previous Government’s combining of local authority elections with Scottish parliamentary elections, using three different electoral systems. We cannot allow that to happen again. The paramount concern of the House must be the electorate; they must have free and fair elections and must not be confused as to how they make their choice.
Aretha sang about respect. I hope that the Minister is listening, that he can start to get the respect agenda back on the rails and that he will listen to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that we do not have three elections on the same day.
May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on his excellent maiden speech? I agreed with every bit of it other than, I am afraid to say, his conclusion.
There are three things that I would like to look at briefly: first, the broad constitutional issues; then some of the detail of the debate; finally, the process. I hope that I can do that in the time allowed.
On the broad constitutional issue, I think that fixed-term Parliaments are a mistake. It is unfortunate to undermine a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy needs to preserve some role for the sovereign within it—some purpose in having that final arbiter of the system that is above and beyond politics. I am very nervous about giving that role to the Speaker, as this Bill proposes, because, first, it is a bad idea to have a Head of State and a quasi-Head of State—one is quite enough for me, and a hereditary Head of State, which we have had for the best part of 1,000 years, seems a pretty good one to have. Such an approach would also bring the Speaker, who will not be advised by the Prime Minister in this area, into the murky part of party politics. There is a risk that the Speaker could give his certificate for a general election—the most important part of our democratic process—as a matter of political controversy, and that cannot be wise. Let us consider the recent discussion on whether or not something is a money Bill, because that is already putting the Speaker in the political spotlight. A money Bill is an obscure procedural measure, whereas a general election is at the heart of everything that we do. So bringing the Speaker, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues into this murky business will be a mistake.
That leads to the issue of where the courts come in—a matter that has been discussed in this debate. I am not a lawyer, but I can say that the thing to bear in mind about Bradlaugh’s case is that the House of Lords ruled that it should not intervene in the procedure of the House of Commons, because at that point the highest court in the land was, of course, one of the Houses of Parliament. That is no longer the case, and with the Supreme Court outside Parliament, the constraint does not apply, so the courts may be willing to be more enthusiastic in their interpretation of statute than they were when the House of Lords was our supreme court. Those are the broad constitutional issues that give rise to concern.
We must then consider the Bill itself and what it contains. The problem with the Bill is that perhaps the best reason for voting for it is that it is pointless. The Whips have certain powers, authority and wise influence that they bring to bear and they could say to me and to other hon. Members that it might be best if we were absent when another hon. Member had tabled a motion of no confidence—they might suggest that we went on a nice trip, to the Seychelles or some such place. That motion would then pass, the Speaker would have no choice but to issue his certificate and, hey presto, we would have a general election at the time of the Prime Minister’s choosing. That is a rather foolish approach to legislation.
I doubt whether the 65% hurdle would ever come into effect, but it would be objectionable if it did get into law because it would set a requirement for more than a simple majority, for the first time in the history of this Parliament. That would be a procedural mistake; one vote ought always to be enough. It would also require a percentage of 66 and two thirds of those who are available to vote—not of those who actually vote. Interestingly, a Government who are introducing that into legislation are reluctant, so I hear, to have a turnout threshold in a referendum on the alternative vote. One may see some implicit contradiction in those two suggestions. So, the Bill is rather a hollow shell.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
It would be an honour.
I want to pick up on that point about the alternative vote and what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said about spoiled ballots in Scotland. Does this not further the case that a first-past-the-post election is by far the most effective?
I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he did not take us back to the local elections in Leeds—I thought that we were at risk of that.
I come to the process of the Bill and how we have reached this point. How did we come to consider a fixed-term Parliament? I am not aware that many of my hon. Friends put this proposal in their election addresses—they may have done if they were Liberal Democrats, but not if they were Conservative. It is not a Conservative proposal in any sense. It got into the coalition agreement late at night, in what would have been a smoke-filled room had not the previous Government banned smoking in office spaces. This therefore took place in a smoke-free environment—a healthy and politically correct room—and late at night it was decided that it would be a good idea to shore up the coalition for five years.
The political arguments for this Bill are first class, but it changes the constitution—a constitution that has evolved. Pitt the Elder, a Whig Prime Minister—it is always nice in the spirit of coalition to quote the Whigs—talked of the “genius of the constitution”. Let us invoke that genius, which has let our constitutional processes evolve and develop. This has not been done because the coalition needed some quick fix to make sure that the next election would clash with elections in Scotland and Wales—that is, of course, an inadvertent result of what has happened. The coalition did not come to this agreement with the possibility of extending the life of a Parliament beyond five years. I am sure that all hon. Members have read the note from the Library pointing out that this legislation will not be subject to the Parliament Act if the other place disagrees, because it extends the life of a Parliament by another two months should the Prime Minister, by order, so wish to do. This is an accidental Bill, thought up in the late hours of the night. It takes away that wonderful flexibility that our constitution has had to meet the needs of circumstances and to evolve.
One way in which the constitution was beginning to evolve, which the electorate seemed to want, was that a Prime Minister’s resignation part way through a Parliament should lead to a general election. When I knocked on doors in my constituency, people did not tell me that they wanted fixed-term Parliaments, the alternative vote or any of that. However, they did ask who had voted for the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). People in North East Somerset of course knew his constituency, because they are a knowledgeable lot. They asked who had elected him to be Prime Minister. Although the constitution is clear that we can change Prime Minister as often as Her Majesty sees fit, the mood of the country is for that constitutional evolution. That is how our constitution works and how it has done for hundreds of years—at least since the Glorious Revolution. Let us hope that it continues to work like that and that this Bill is amended on the Floor of the House out of all recognition.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The style, tone and content of his speeches are always worth listening to, even though we may not always agree with his analysis. Like many Labour Members, I have not always been in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, but over a long period in politics I have come to understand the reason for them. I always found the excitement of the prime ministerial prerogative enticing and, over the years, we have always been able to persuade ourselves that the argument for it was the overwhelming one. I also remember James Callaghan going to the TUC and singing his famous ditty, “Waiting at the church”. At the time, I recognised that his political party was on a state of alert, but the rug was pulled from beneath us in October 1978.
The argument against fixed-term Parliaments has always been about political advantage but, as we have heard, there has never been a political disadvantage in having fixed terms for local authorities. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive also operate within a fixed-term context. Given that experience, some of the arguments against the political prerogative of the Prime Minister can be overwhelming. It is not whether or not there is a prerogative to call an election that gets a Government re-elected; it is about the performance and credibility of the political parties during any election, be it at the end of a fixed term or not.
So having undergone this Pauline conversion on the principle, I cannot begin to describe my disappointment at this Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister told us, in one of those extravagant flourishes of which he is so fond, that the electoral reforms that he was presenting to us—over the past two weeks, as it turns out—would be the greatest reforms since 1832, never mind the other suffrage legislation in the 19th century, the introduction of votes for women in the 20th century, the reforms removing the financial powers from the House of Lords, or indeed the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies by the last Labour Government. This was to be his Great Reform Bill. Yet what we have before us is a Bill that is being rushed through with no opportunity to consider it properly or to deal with its implications.
Professor Robert Hazell of University college London’s constitution unit said in his written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the Bill had been
“prepared on an extraordinarily rushed timetable. It was introduced with no prior consultation, no Green or White Paper. Nor has time been allowed for pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill.”
According to both the Clerk of the House and the Chairman of the Select Committee this Bill was ripe for pre-legislative scrutiny, and such scrutiny could have sorted out some of the issues raised today.
We must ask ourselves why the Bill has been rushed through, as there is ample time for pre-legislative scrutiny. The coalition has already said that it intends to stay with us for five years. Unless its confidence is disguising an uncertainty as to whether it will survive for that long, the Prime Minister has laid out the ground rules for this Parliament: we are here for the duration.
Why was there no Green or White Paper? Why are some Liberal Democrats, who wanted to subject everything to pre-legislative scrutiny when in opposition, not pushing harder for this Bill to receive such scrutiny? Surely a minimum of 12 weeks would not scupper the Bill, undermine the principles or erode support. Surely the Government have more confidence in their proposals than that.
The establishment of a Scottish Parliament was linked to a debate in this House, a White Paper and a referendum, and a consensus on the proposals was built up. We heard last week that we will have a referendum on the alternative vote. Why are we to have a referendum on AV but not one on fixed Parliaments? Surely the two votes could have been linked. Also, why is reform of the House of Lords being taken slowly yet this reform is being rushed through?
As other Members have said, constitutional Bills are not straightforward. I was astonished to hear the Deputy Prime Minister saying that this is a short Bill. It may be a short Bill, but, as others have pointed out, it is long on implications. We do not know whether this will be the case, but we could find ourselves with a conflict between the courts and the House of Commons. We needed to have a discussion about that.
We heard from the Deputy Prime Minister today that there might be options to delay, but the only example he gave was the delay of the local government elections in 2001 because of foot and mouth disease. What will the criteria be for assessing whether the Prime Minister should exercise the right to delay? Also, although it has been said that we will have ample opportunity to discuss the Bill and change it over two days of debate in this House, that is no substitute for a proper discussion of, and investigation into, the ramifications of this constitutional Bill.
As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said—he will be astonished that I have now mentioned him twice in my contribution—the issue of the clash with the elections for the devolved Parliament and Assemblies should not be underestimated. That is nothing to do with the intelligence of the electorate; it is to do with the democratic integrity of those Assemblies and that Parliament. They have their own democratic remit and integrity, and we should not undermine that by overlaying our elections on top of theirs.
Frankly, this is a dog’s dinner of a Bill. I have seen some dog’s dinners in government, but this one takes the biscuit. [Laughter.] The dog biscuit. It would have been a far better Bill if the Deputy Prime Minister had listened to the advice of wiser heads than his own. Frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister is no Lord Grey; he is no Whig reformer. He needs to go back to the drawing board, and he needs to ensure that the Bill that comes before this House on Third Reading is far better than the one in front of us today.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate, as political and constitutional reform remains a key objective for this new Parliament. I shall, however, try to be brief as I am conscious of the fact that time is limited.
It is of the utmost importance that Members on both sides of the House consider the current state of our politics when addressing this Bill. It is fair to suggest that now, following the general election, it is time for this Parliament to move on from the recent depressing chapter in our political history. I believe that we cannot reflect on the current state of our politics and deny that some form of constitutional reform is required. All of us in this House are now charged with the responsibility of restoring the public’s trust in our democracy and I welcome this Bill.
Some powerful arguments and good points have been made by Members on both sides of the House, and I must confess to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that I did not have anything to say about fixed-term Parliaments in my election address. However, I have been an enthusiastic supporter of fixed-term Parliaments since long before I was elected to the House, and I have always supported this Bill. I consider the current process for the Dissolution of Parliament to be outdated. Under current legislation, the Government of the day retain the ability to call an election as and when they choose within a parliamentary term, subject to the Monarch’s approval. I fear that that provides any Government with an unfair advantage, and often encourages a crude, tactical political game to take place. As such, I strongly support the Prime Minister for taking the principled decision to give up his privileged ability to call an election. His absolute commitment to political reform cannot be doubted—but I do not think that was shared by his predecessor.
As set out under the Bill, the date of the next general election is to be 7 May 2015. Such a simple piece of reform immediately provides voters with greater clarity and understanding about their political system. To my mind, voters deserve to know when they can expect to re-elect or ditch their Government.
However, it is also essential for Parliament to retain the ability to hold the Government to account and, if necessary, force an early election, and I believe that that controversial issue has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion through the provisions in clause 2. Ultimately, the House will be able to force an early election by either a vote of no confidence in the Government or a vote of at least two-thirds of all Members in favour of such an early election.
This Chamber’s power will be protected, and I support the fact that the Bill deliberately seeks to weaken the hand of the Executive while injecting an element of reassurance and transparency into our often turbulent political world. It is not just the political village here in Westminster that will benefit from the stability of fixed-term Parliaments; the wider world of business will benefit, too. For too long, Prime Ministers have been able to call an election that suits their own political ends, yet such uncertainty and speculation often cause instability in our economic markets, which are constantly wary of potential political upheaval.
The most obvious example, which has been mentioned by hon. Members already, is the negativity that can flow from such an occurrence. Such negativity flowed from the threat of an election back in September 2007, when many of us in this Chamber were still candidates. The previous Prime Minister used the threat of an election as a political weapon in my view—a tactic that eventually backfired spectacularly, creating uncertainty in the country and in our economic markets while disrupting important parliamentary business.
Fixed-term Parliaments are perfectly normal in countless other democracies.
Let me be absolutely clear in my mind: is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the electoral cycle needs to be aligned with the economic cycle?
No, my point is that political uncertainty in the process that we have had—and that we had in 2007—can cause economic uncertainty. That is obviously bad news for our economy. Putting the election on a firm footing through fixed-term Parliaments benefits our business colleagues and our economy as well as Parliament.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that for this coalition to keep on going positively for the economy it needs to be held together by such legislation?
I do not believe that at all. This is part of a constitutional reform that must bring back trust to our politics. That is why I am supporting it: we need to bring the public back in line with this House. This is not the full picture, but it is part of that process. That is why I will support the Bill this evening.
Parliament will be strengthened by the Bill. It will produce a stable Government, which is important to our country.
Here we are in the second week of the great Liberal Democrat benefit sitting with a measure that is even sillier than the ones we brought in during the first week, with another fix from the gerrymander unit at Cowley street—I do not know why they do not just call it Tammany hall and have done with it—to try to fix the constitution to keep the coalition in power.
We have all been dreadfully mealy-mouthed about this measure, saying that it is a constitutional measure and that we should consider it seriously and make changes, but we are kidding ourselves. It is not a constitutional measure at all. It is a post-nuptial contract. Here we have two parties in a loveless shotgun marriage that do not really trust each other, so they are bringing in a Bill to make divorce more difficult. That is what it is all about.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) spoke about building trust, but the whole point of this Bill is that they do not trust each other. The Liberal Democrats do not trust the Conservatives—they fear that they will be dumped when they have made themselves sufficiently unpopular by betraying all their principles, all their friends and all their supporters—whereas the Conservatives are afraid that the Liberal Democrats will get cold feet and pull the plug on the coalition because they cannot stand the heat of the cuts, because the alternative vote is defeated leaving them with nothing left to show for the thing or because they want to stop redistribution. Because of that lack of trust, we get this rather silly and unnecessary Bill, and I certainly hope to vote against it tonight.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that we could be absolutely confident that the courts would not be able to interfere, in the same way as he told us that we could be absolutely confident that the cuts would not damage the poor and would not hurt the north. He said that we could have absolute confidence in all that but I am ceasing to have any confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister and his declarations of absolute confidence. The simple point about the courts intervening is that we do not have in the Bill a definition of a vote of confidence. What is a vote of confidence? The courts could well rule on that. As it has to be certified by the Speaker, the courts could rule on the question of whether the certificate is valid. Most importantly, I am against the Bill because it extends the life of a Parliament. That is the exact opposite of what we need to do.
The average Parliament lasts about four years and has done so since the war. It has lasted for three years and eight months if we date it from 1832. Four years was the period envisaged by Asquith when the Septennial Act 1715 was repealed by the Parliament Act 1911. Four years was the period in the Liberal Democrat agenda. The policy paper for the 2007 conference, “For the People, By the People”, argued:
“Liberal Democrats have long argued that parliaments should last for a fixed term of four years.”
There we are—that is a clear statement. I ask the Liberal Democrats if there is any principle they are not prepared to betray. They have already betrayed their preference for proportional representation in favour of the alternative vote and now they are betraying their preference for four-year Parliaments.
Four years was also the term that the Labour party envisaged when it was in our manifesto, although I must admit that I did not read it; I did not even remember that it was in our manifesto. I do not read much of the manifestos but as it was in one, we should have some deference for that, I suppose. Why should we extend the term to five years? Is it because the Government are so afraid that the vandalism that they are doing to the benefit system, with the cuts to welfare, and to the economy will make them so unpopular that they will have to sit things out for five years? Is it because they will not be able to face the people before then? That is the only reason I can think of for extending it to five years.
I would like parliamentary terms to be reduced not to four years, which seems to be the opinion of the wiseacres, but to three. We should contract the terms and have triennial Parliaments as was the case at the end of the 17th century before they were extended to seven years.
Does my hon. Friend recall that in the mid-19th century, one of the Chartist demands was for annual Parliaments?
As a Member who came in on the wave of opinion produced by the Chartists—it seems that long ago—I will not go to the extreme of saying that we should have annual Parliaments, but the American House of Representatives is elected every two years; there is a radical proposal. I am being very moderate. Let us have three-yearly elections as we used to have in the 17th century and as they have in Australia and New Zealand. I have spent a long time in New Zealand lecturing in political science and praising the three-year term, which works very well. The virtue of a three-year term is that it keeps Parliament in close touch with the people.
We all remember the explosion of misunderstanding that hit us recently—the alienation, apathy and demands that we should get in touch with the people. We had immured ourselves in the Westminster bubble or glasshouse and people had to throw stones at the glass to break in to us. We were out of touch with the people. That was the massive cry that we heard last year and in the election this year. In Grimsby, when I go down to the docks or around the houses, people say, “It’s lovely to see you; you come so often—you shouldn’t trouble yourself to come as much as you do,” but other Members have told me that when they go canvassing, people say, “Oh, you only come when there’s an election. There must be an election, because we never see you between elections.” That was part of the explosion of mistrust between the people and Parliament that occurred last year.
How do we get around that problem? The Power report, three years back, indicated the massive degree of alienation, the massive misunderstanding and ignorance about politics and the massive mistrust of politicians. People think that politicians are in politics only to further their own ends and to enrich themselves. How do we get around that? We can do so by bringing ourselves into closer touch with the people through triennial elections, as works well in New Zealand. There is no more effective way of keeping a Government under control, ensuring that the Government serve the causes of the people and that MPs work for the people—that we do our duty in our constituencies—than having three-year Parliaments. That is what we need.
I will not go on; I have only a couple more points to make. The measure has been described as binding, but of course it is not. An extension of the parliamentary term could easily be repealed by the next Parliament because Parliament cannot bind itself. Indeed, it could be amended in this Parliament—if the Liberal Democrats do want to break away at some stage they could bear that in mind. The measure does not abolish the Prime Minister’s power. There is the example of what Schröder did in Germany in 2005. He arranged a vote of confidence, told his Ministers not to support the Government and was defeated so that he could have an election. That case went to the constitutional court to decide whether it was legal. There could be a similar situation here, with, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said, MPs from the Back Benches being sent on lovely trips to the Seychelles, so those safeguards do not apply.
The main point is that we have an opportunity to bring ourselves closer to the people. We should ratify and accept the power that they wanted. There was alienation in 2009 and 2010. Let us get close to the people; let us have triennial Parliaments.
We last debated this matter in the House on 16 May 2008. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said earlier this evening, on that occasion the Conservative Opposition did not oppose the Bill. I know that because I was speaking for the Opposition on that day. We said the matter was worthy of exploration and discussion and that we did not oppose the principle of fixed-term Parliaments.
I am sorry to have to quote myself, but I have checked exactly what I said:
“A cross-party organisation called Fixed Term was set up in October 2007…and has published the results of a poll conducted in October 2007. It found that 25 per cent. of Conservative MPs, 41 per cent. of Labour MPs and 88 per cent. of Liberal Democrat MPs support fixed-term Parliaments. If anything was to convince me to be against any Bill it would be the fact that 88 per cent. of Liberal Democrats…are in favour of it.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1714.]
Well, times change—[Interruption.] Don’t they just. I do not know what the percentages are today, but there are good reasons for the Bill and I am happy to support it. However, that does not mean I shall not criticise it.
When the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the proposals some months ago, he said that the Bill was intended to strengthen the power of the House. I do not believe that it does so. At the moment, the House can bring about Dissolution by a simple majority, but the Bill will require in most cases a two-thirds majority. I do not believe that the Bill takes power away from the Executive and gives it to the House. That does not mean the Bill is fatally flawed; it just means that we ought to look at what it really does and not pretend that it gives more power to Parliament.
I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to the concern we debated earlier and which was raised by the Clerk of the House before the Select Committee. I am honoured to be a member of the Committee and I endorse what its Chairman said earlier in the debate. Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, it is possible that the Bill could bring about judicial review of events that occur and decisions that are taken in the House. I do not want to see that happen, not just as a matter of principle but because it disturbs the stability of the constitution and of the House. I sincerely hope that the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend have taken into consideration the concerns expressed by the House today and by the Select Committee and that we will return to these matters in Committee.
The evidence put before the House today is not conclusive. It is one legal opinion against another legal opinion, and the integrity of the House and what happens here should not be left in the balance between one legal opinion and another. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider that point in Committee.
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is possible that the very fact that the Clerk of the House of Commons has taken one view and that other lawyers have taken another view—albeit in a strange sequence—could be a reason why a court would be more than concerned to issue a judgment in its jurisdiction?
Yes. As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important legal point and we must not lose sight of it. We must remember that at one level we can have party political banter and House of Commons arguments, but at another level we must respect the stability of our constitution. It is not just a matter of legal opinion but of consulting the law properly. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has just said will be taken into consideration by Ministers.
We have to put the Bill in its true context. It is rare for me to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).
It’s a nice experience.
It is a great pleasure.
There is no harm in being honest about matters in the Chamber. The measure is entitled “Fixed-term Parliaments Bill”, but no Parliament can bind its successors. The measure is really “The date of the next election (cementing the coalition) Bill”. That is what it is for, and I support it for that purpose, but we should not pretend that it is for any other purpose. It has many practical advantages, which are obvious and have been debated well this evening. The stability of the coalition and of the Government to get this country out of the dreadful economic mess in which the Labour Government left us requires such a Bill if we are to make progress.
The hon. Lady suggests that the Bill relates strongly to the coalition, but it is foreseeable that the coalition could dissolve, but not Parliament, so we would be in a twilight zone.
That is exactly the point that I am about to make. We are discussing the transfer of power, and the Bill brings about the transfer of immense power to the person of the Deputy Prime Minister. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the arithmetic shows that the 14-day process could be instigated under the Bill. It is perfectly possible that as early as next spring the Liberal Democrat party could decide not to support the Conservative party in coalition. We could go into the 14-day period, and a coalition could be formed by the Labour party, all the other Opposition parties, and the Liberal Democrat party. There could be a completely new Government without our consulting the electorate. That could happen in the foreseeable future, although I sincerely hope that it does not. I do not think that it is likely, but the arithmetic means that it is possible, and we must be aware of that as we introduce the Bill.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I would like to do so, but I cannot, because other Members are waiting to speak.
The Opposition have been self-righteous in their criticism of the way in which the Government are introducing constitutional change. Let us not forget the piecemeal way in which the Labour Government brought about constitutional change. Indeed, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that they introduced received about 18 months of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was introduced in the House, and completed all its stages in plenty of time. Half an hour before Third Reading, the Labour Government introduced about 100 pages of amendments. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and just before its final consideration, they added an entire new Bill on a referendum on the alternative vote. The Opposition should therefore be careful in their self-righteousness about the way in which we conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. Having said that, I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee—he had no responsibility for the previous Government, or very little, I think.
It is wrong to introduce constitutional change in a piecemeal fashion. We should look at the overall effect of the legislation before us, not just the particular issue that is under consideration. It is wrong, at any time, to do constitutional change in one place, then in another. We ought to look at the whole constitution to see how it is balanced. It is, however, our duty in the House to do not what is the short-term expedient but what is in the long-term right. I am willing to put aside that important principle this evening for the greater good of the stability of the coalition and the stability that that brings to our country. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to support the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate about the future of this place and our place in society. It is a pleasure to listen to so many speeches about various aspects of the Bill and to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who spoke for eight minutes about aspects of the Bill, but by the end I could not understand many of the things that were praiseworthy about it.
The Bill, which is one of a series of major constitutional measures to be introduced by the Tory-Lib Dem Government, represents a short-term compromise to hold together two coalition partners, but with a long-term hangover, or a series of hangovers, as the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged today. Our constitutional settlement has emerged and endured. Over the generations, the wash of constitutional change has flowed over the rock that is Parliament, sometimes gently eroding and reshaping. At other times in violent squalls our settlement has been remodelled. The Bill, alongside the Bill that we discussed previously, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, places high explosives under that rock, and the Tory Government, propped up by Liberals, are perfectly happy to light the fuse. Perhaps there are legitimate arguments for doing so. Perhaps the Conservatives are true revolutionaries. I would like everyone’s voices to be heard first and to proceed by consensus.
The previous Government took the view that constitutional change reflects the fact that we are custodians of that consensus, not masters of it. In other words, they sought to proceed by consultation, even at the cost of measures such as House of Lords reform failing to go forward. The present Government are content fundamentally to redesign major aspects of our constitution with limited consultation and scrutiny, at a time when our constitution is evolving by convention as a result of events, and largely for their own short-term gain. That cannot be right.
I cannot support the Bill in its current form. Even if the case can be made for fixed-term Parliaments, safeguards in the Bill serve to take power from Parliament, rather than give it back to this body. Without a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill or pre-legislative scrutiny, we are being asked to agree a big practical change to the way that our Government and Parliament act. That cannot be right, either.
Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote against the Bill, although those on his Front Bench said earlier that they would vote for it?
I am happy to clarify that. If there is a Division on Second Reading, I will vote with my conscience. I do not believe that this is the right Bill and I shall explain why in more detail.
The Bill is the wrong prescription for a problem of the Government’s own making. If they were truly committed to giving power back to Parliament, they would give us a free vote on the length of the term. They would consult prior to the publication of the Bill. They would seek to bring the Opposition parties with them, but they have not done so.
As we heard earlier, when a five-year parliamentary term was introduced by the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, he believed that that would
“probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1749.]
One hundred years on, I find no fault in his analysis and no credit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s interpretation of his words earlier today. I was tempted to intervene and point out that I had known H. H. Asquith, and that he was no H. H. Asquith.
If the Bill is passed in its current form, we will see four-year Parliaments, followed by one-year election campaigns. The mood of the British people is not for that. Most European countries have four-year cycles, and I believe that the disinterested consensus in the House would be for four years. Four years is surely better than five. Even so, I accept that under the amendment to be moved tonight, which would introduce a four-year term, the risk of a lame duck Parliament looms large. It is an inevitable cost of having a fixed term for our Parliament, and it deserves far greater discussion than it will receive today.
The hon. Gentleman says that most European countries have four-year Parliaments. Is he aware that France and Italy, as well as South Africa, have five-year Parliaments, and that two of the last three Parliaments in this country have lasted for five years?
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which the Deputy Prime Minister made earlier. Perhaps we should not take that as the primary decider for how we set that term. We could look at how good or bad those five-year Parliaments were, a matter which I am sure many Conservative Members will wish to raise.
Let us be clear as to what drives the Damascene conversion of the Liberal Democrats from a four-year fixed term to five, and of the Conservatives who had no measure in their manifesto to bring this about. It is to prevent the Government Members from breaking out in a “West Side Story” style gang fight before the next election. The British people should not have to pay such a high price for their lack of self-discipline. The constitution should not be forced to endure such breakneck change. By seeking to serve themselves, the Government have done a disservice to the people whom they claim to serve.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). I agree with much of what he had to tell the House. I also very much agree with the two brilliant speeches that we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox).
I became involved in this debate quite early on in this Parliament when I was lucky enough to be called to move the first Adjournment debate of this Parliament on 25 May on the subject of the Dissolution of Parliament. On that occasion there was a lot of ridicule of the Government in relation to the proposal for a 55% threshold and a binding motion relating to that. The Deputy Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench now, responded to that debate and asserted that it was absolutely important to stick to the 55% commitment because it was in the manifesto, and so on.
I am delighted that the coalition had second thoughts, and I hope that it will have second thoughts about a lot of this Bill as well. But I am very concerned that a couple of things that the hon. Gentleman said on that occasion have not been borne out by tonight’s proceedings. He said that there would be a second opportunity, after the debate on the original motion, to consider the constitutional legislation. He said:
“Unlike what happened under the previous Administration, it will not be guillotined.”
We will see what happens at the end of two days of debate, but if at the end of those two days not all the amendments have been reached, the only consequence will be that it will be guillotined, and the only consequence that will flow from that is that what the hon. Gentleman said on that occasion will not be capable of delivery. I am happy to allow him to intervene on me now to put the record straight and say that if at the end of two days’ debate we have not covered all the ground, we will get extra time from the Government.
The next thing the hon. Gentleman said was that he believed that
“there is merit in listening to what people have to say about the legislation after it is published, rather than being too precipitate in moving from the motion, which will be debated…to the legislation in due course”,
and he sought to give some reassurance to the House. In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), he went on to say:
“May I remove any view that the hon. Gentleman might have formed that I am reluctant to entertain the possibility of pre-legislative scrutiny? We have simply not determined the treatment of the Bill yet…but I hear what he says. There is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I do not want to extend the consideration of this legislation into the following Session, because that would not be appropriate.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 147-152.]
In the light of what has been announced today, that gives us, on my understanding, about 18 months in which we can consider this Bill in detail. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House did not have that in mind at that stage, because this Government seem to think things up as they go along, but now he realises that there will possibly be a two-year first Session of this Parliament, would he like to intervene to assure me that as a result there will be more time to discuss this Bill?
I am particularly keen that there should be more time to discuss the interaction between the Bill and the proposed changes to the other place. If we were to have an elected Second Chamber, on what basis would we have those elections? When would they be held? How would they interact with the fixed-term Parliament arrangements that we are discussing? It seems as though, almost by design, the Government are legislating in a piecemeal fashion so that this Bill will be out of the way before we are able to ask any questions about the interaction between it and the proposals they are going to bring forward in the form of a draft Bill at the turn of the year. This is an extremely serious matter. I despair at the fact that the Government seem to think they can pull the wool over the eyes of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This Bill is unnecessary. Why is the Prime Minister’s word that he will not go to the country until 7 May 2015 not good enough? It is certainly good enough for me; why is it not good enough for other people? As we heard in the evidence from the Clerk of the House, if there is a desire to give some sort of quasi-statutory backing to these proposals, that could easily be achieved by changing the Standing Orders of the House. The Bill challenges and undermines the historic right of this House to vote a Government out of office with a bare majority. In the Select Committee we heard evidence from Professor Blackburn, who was in favour of a simple majority in order to bring a Parliament to an end if that were the wish of the people. Why do we not trust Members of this House? Why do we not trust the people? I can remember when Ted Heath thought he was acting in his own self-interest and went to the people, and the people had a different view. That is exactly what happens if one trusts the people—why tinker with the constitution in this way?
I am very concerned about this Bill, and I am sorry that, for the second occasion in as many weeks, I will not be supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight. However, that is not a consequence of my failure to follow our manifesto—it is a consequence of the Government introducing legislation that was never in the manifesto. Indeed, in the middle of the election campaign the Prime Minister made a comment that was totally at odds with the current proposals. I could not follow what the Deputy Prime Minister said about how the Bill effectively builds on what the Prime Minister said on that occasion about having a general election within six months of a change of Prime Minister. That would be more popular and more understandable; perhaps we could make that amendment to the Bill. Instead, the Government seem to want to ensure that this Parliament continues not only for a five-year period but perhaps even for a couple of weeks beyond that. It is not justified, and it is completely over the top. In the end, this sort of behaviour by the Government—the high-handed procedural way in which they are trying to force this legislation through, and its content—will be their own undoing.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I will be brief.
I want to address in particular the length of the proposed fixed terms and how, by choosing the dates that have been chosen, we are running into totally unnecessary conflict with the devolved Parliaments. In opening the debate, the Deputy Prime Minister suggested that he had now realised there was an issue with this. When he came to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee before the recess, that issue was pointed out to him very clearly, but until today he appeared to have chosen to ignore it or to brush it off as irrelevant.
There may have been confusion in some people’s minds between the potential coincidence of next year’s Scottish Parliament elections and the AV vote and the potential clash in 2015. There are some problems with both things, but I concede that next year’s clash is not in any way as serious as the potential clash in 2015 and the one that would come along some years further into the future, although most of us would probably not be around to deal with it—not as elected Members, at least.
The coincidence of the two general elections is a serious issue. I do not know whether everybody is aware that in Scotland a decision has been taken to move the local elections, which should have been due next year, to another year, to avoid the clash that happened in 2007; that was between local elections and the Scottish Parliament election. We have already made that move, only to discover that in some ways it has been completely undone by what might be allowed to happen here in Westminster.
The matter has been raised not only by the Select Committee but by many other commentators and it should have been addressed before now. There is no reason not to address it. Given that the bulk of the information and evidence that has come to the Select Committee also supports four-year terms, the easiest way out of the difficulty is for the Bill to be amended to allow for such terms. All the complications about whether to have the elections a month apart, which, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, would be absolutely ludicrous, or six months apart, which would be equally unacceptable, would disappear if we set four-year terms in train.
The change would be simple to make and it would be nice to think that we could carry it out without getting into complicated cross-jurisdictional issues about election dates. The elections are different and the issues are very different. It is undoubtedly true that the issues that the devolved Parliaments would want people to pay attention to will simply be swamped if there is a Westminster general election at the same time. I do not mean that we as politicians would cause that to happen; the media, however, would certainly concentrate on what they would see, rightly or wrongly, as the big election.
Let us not underestimate the differences between boundaries. When the Scottish Parliament elections take place next year, my Westminster constituency will have four different MSPs in it; that is how different the boundaries are. These are no minor differences.
The hon. Lady has just verified the criticisms that many of us made in respect of the importance of coterminosity between one legislature and another. I hope she will agree that that ought to be borne in mind by future Governments.
We appear to have lost coterminosity entirely in Scotland, and that is an issue because the situation there is making it extremely difficult for people to have more engagement in politics and a better relationship with their elected representatives. When I tell people, “I am your Westminster MP, but this person will be the candidate for that part of the constituency, although not in your sister’s area, which is not that far away,” it is difficult to make them understand. We also have local government boundaries, which are completely different again.
I am not necessarily saying that we have to change the situation in Scotland immediately; we are learning to live with our different boundaries. However, there is absolutely no need to walk into the situation that I have described. A simple change, backed up by the evidence, to a four-year fixed term, would cure the problem. I hope that the Government will at least consider the issue again—and quickly, so we can get it out of the way.
Obviously, there are other issues. I am not qualified to comment on the detail of some of them, but they are important and we need to spend time on them during the passage of the Bill. I hope that at last the Government have heard the question.
I fear that the hon. Lady is perhaps underestimating the sophistication and intelligence of her constituents and those in the rest of Scotland. The evidence seems to suggest that when elections have coincided—for instance, the local elections on 6 May this year and the county council elections previously that coincided with general elections—people have been discerning and have made separate decisions. I would vouchsafe that that was the case in Scotland.
I am not suggesting that people cannot make separate decisions, but there are practical difficulties. However, over and above those difficulties—which we saw clearly in 2007 and because of which we have taken a step to move elections apart—the overwhelming objection is that we would be in danger of drowning or swamping the important issues of the different legislatures. That is important for what we have built up under devolution. I may now be an elected representative in this place, but those of us who fought hard for devolution did not do so to see everything disappearing in the way that it would in such elections. That is why we should simply amend the Bill to have four-year terms. Then I would be much more supportive of it than I am in its present form.
Did my hon. Friend not previously give an answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), when she said that the issue was not whether voters could cope with the different issues, but whether the media could handle the spread of coverage and, in particular, whether the broadcast media could handle the detailed legal requirements for balanced coverage, which would be almost impossible to achieve if those elections were melodeoned together?
I absolutely agree.
This has been a fascinating five hours of debate, and I have learned a great deal. I have been vastly entertained, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but I have to admit to being somewhat puzzled. I thought that I would hear the great champions of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary sovereignty—
I have not been called.
One of the great champions has not been called, but he has certainly intervened many times, and we have heard from other great champions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I thought that I would hear them make an argument for giving Parliament even more control over matters as vital to our democracy as the timing of elections, but no. We have been given an object lesson in that great phrase “looking a gift horse in the mouth”.
I just wonder what would have happened to the Government if they had come to the House with a proposal to abolish elections altogether or to abolish the role of the Speaker in deciding whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be dragged here to answer an urgent question. Imagine what our reaction would have been then. I listen to the criticism that has been made—that the proposal is somehow fragmentary and piecemeal—and I ask myself whether those critics have any education in the history of our constitution at all. I am the least historically educated person I know, but I know that this country has only ever made change fragmentarily, in a piecemeal fashion and for naked partisan political interests. We even invented an entire new Church—the leader of the Church from which we separated ourselves is about to come to this country, and we welcome him very much—just to enable our sovereign to marry somebody whom he fancied rather more than his wife at the time.
That was just the starting point for a whole generation of constitutional change, so let us not deny the value of fragmentary and piecemeal constitutional change. Let us instead take advances when we get them, and if they are in the interest of the Government proposing them, let us be grateful for the fact that that interest is so well aligned with the interest of this House.
Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence that Professor Blackburn, the constitutional lawyer, gave to our Committee on the Bill? In question 75, I asked him:
“Does it enhance the power of the House of Commons at all?”
“I am not sure that it does.”
I have always found it easy to disagree with academics on almost any subject, and I disagree with Professor Blackburn on that.
My hon. Friend’s question leads me neatly to my next point. With much more trepidation, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with what the Clerk of the House said in his contribution to our evidence about the risks posed by the Bill. I recognise that I am probably the least qualified person here to comment on orders of this House, and on the risks of judicial review that the proposed statute might create, because I am not a lawyer, a long-standing MP or a constitutional historian. However, it seemed inadequate for the Clerk of the House to suggest putting this fundamental provision into the statutes of the House—the orders of the House, as I believe they are called—because surely the House can do away with those orders on a relative whim.
The one advantage of the statute that the Government are proposing is that it will have to make its way through the other House. Any further changes will also therefore have to make their way through the other House, and we have a commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that we will see full-scale reform of that other House before the next election, to which the Bill would apply.
The hon. Gentleman is making a witty and amusing speech, but does he really believe that the courts inevitably act in a totally rational way in all circumstances? My experience of them, certainly in matters of this kind, is that they can be very capricious.
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point—I should like to call him my right hon. Friend; I am very keen on people joining the coalition, as Members might know—but I am not sure whether the courts are any more capricious than Members of this House. Is that a terrible thing to say?
I am troubled by the proposal of the Clerk of the House, and I fear that those on my own side who advance it are doing so not because they really think that he has a better way to secure fixed-term Parliaments but because they do not believe in fixed terms, and they want to undermine the Bill. If it is going to be brought in, they want it to be introduced in as weak a form as possible. So let us not be deluded by that argument.
I want to turn briefly to the argument about election dates. I shall approach the subject with great deference to those who represent parts of the other nations of the United Kingdom, because they of course must be the ones who speak for their constituents. However, in the United States—a place where individual states have much more power and at least as much sense of their own independence and individual character—all the elections always happen on the same day. In that fine democracy, they happen on the first Thursday in November, either every four years or every two years. In the United States, people would consider it a constitutional outrage if elections were to happen on any other day.
If elections were held on different days, minor elections—I do not venture to suggest that elections to the devolved Assemblies are minor; I am talking about any that people thought were minor—might be used to express an opinion about a major subject, such as the economic policy of the UK Government. It is only by having elections on the same day that people can be guaranteed an ability to express their opinion on every issue that matters to them, be it local, regional or pertaining to their state, their governor, their mayor or the Government of the day. The same applies to referendums, which is why I also support the idea of their being held on the same day. I venture to suggest that hon. Members should really question whether they are assisting the independence of their local elections, and the autonomy of the decision making on the issues in those elections, by proposing separate election dates. I fear that they might achieve the reverse.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the United States of America, where there are no rules on media balance and supposedly no statutory protections for parties in the broadcast media or anywhere else, and where massive amounts of money are spent. The electoral climate in the United States is entirely different from ours. If he is suggesting that elections to our devolved Parliament and Assemblies and to this Parliament should be conducted in the way they are in America, what does he think the turnout would be?
If people have to go to the polls only once and have to take seven decisions that will affect every single part of government, I suggest that that will make them more likely to vote in the “lower” elections than they would if those elections took place on their own, particularly when people might be busy, have to take the kids to school and get to work. I suspect that the turnout would advance, but let me make it clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will want to understand the concerns and that the final decision will be made in consultation with the devolved Assemblies.
In the remaining time available, let me deal with one suggestion—for an amendment to the Bill—made by the Select Committee, of which I am lucky enough to be a member. I hope that the Government will consider it in further stages. The suggestion was that, after an extraordinary or exceptional Dissolution, to avoid any jiggery-pokery or any attempt to engineer a Dissolution to the benefit of one party, the term of whatever Government came in after that Dissolution would be just for the balance of the normal term. If the extraordinary Dissolution came after three years, there would be only two years left for the succeeding Government. I think that might go some way to reinforce the Bill’s intention to ensure that a Dissolution is not done in a frivolous, arbitrary or partisan way.
In conclusion, let me say that that is the only amendment that I would propose and that I propose it in the spirit of improvement rather than criticism. I very much hope that Members will see fit to support this fine Bill.
We have about eight minutes left, with two speakers to go. I call Richard Shepherd.
Four minutes to go. Thank you, Sir.
Bills of this nature rankle. If I think about it seriously, this looks like an attempt to entrench a Government. On that basis alone, I would vote against it, as it is not my intention to prolong beyond its natural life, the life of any Government. I have listened to two interesting speeches, which I contrast. The first was that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), which took me back to the schoolroom. I listened carefully; this was the constitution I learned as I was growing up. The speech also reminded me of my undergraduate years, and of when I came here and saw all those things cast aside by a simple vote.
Tony Benn has articulated more clearly than anyone else that it is no longer the monarch that is crucial; the Crown resides in Downing street. That is what this Bill is about and, in a sense, has always been about. We changed our Administrations by slaughter on battlefields and then we evolved a constitution. I will follow that constitution to the end.
I have no problem with fixed-term Parliaments, but how does the Bill relate to the constitutional programme put forward by an inept Deputy Prime Minister who cannot bring coherent constitutional measures to the Floor of the House? How does this Bill integrate with the supposed reform of the House of Lords, which is going to be elected? All these issues need to be thought through, but that is not happening. That is why it is legislation on the back of an envelope. There is a cheerful cynicism about it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) suggested, and he is talking the truth.
This has always been a place that has had its machinations and purposes, with Governments striving to last for longer. Everything said by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Select Committee Chairman, was in a sense trying to identify what was the ideal. I have reverence for the constitution that was, but that went. We had 13 years of the Labour party bringing forth constitutional measures on the back of an envelope time and again. I saw the corruption of this Chamber. I saw the spirit of this House, which the Select Committee Chairman wants to revive. This House still holds all the power and sovereignty of this country should it wish to exercise it. That is all it has ever been about. If we conspire and work together, we can overthrow Governments, or Governments can come to the end of their time.
As I said last week, I support this coalition because it is the agent by which I hope to see sensible economic, budgetary responses to the dire situation we are in. However, we are confronted with the cheerful cynicism of the Front Bench: “How do we protect ourselves in office?” That is what I feel that this is about. I do not want the people of Aldridge-Brownhills, who sent me here, to be forced to live under a Government extended by an artificial device when that Government’s time has gone. The Government have the Parliament Act 1911, which gives them five years if they can make the course and hold the attention of each of us as individual Members from constituencies across the country—and I hope they can. However, they can do it without this half-baked legislation.
The Bill was not in the manifesto, and the Prime Minister effectively conceded the case against it some time ago. In addition, there has been no consultation whatever. As I have said, far from giving more power to Parliament, which I regard as a wholly disingenuous argument, it gives more power to the Whips. I love the Whips, but they do use their power to ensure the passage of legislation. I do not hold that against them—they have their job to do, and we have ours.
This issue is not just a matter for the coalition: there is a connection to many other legislative programmes, including the alternative vote Bill. In my judgment, despite the Liberal Democrats having reached a very low point in the polls, the Bill is largely for their benefit. On the constitutional questions that arise periodically of who governs the United Kingdom and how—whether it is on this issue, AV, or matters European—the Liberal Democrats are wagging the tail.
I endorse the concerns of the Clerk of the House, and I do not need to repeat my points on that. There should be pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills of this kind. The Bill is being brought in with precipitate haste and is fundamentally flawed. I also believe that Standing Orders would be able to deal with the issue. The idea that, on a whim, the House would reverse the Standing Orders is faintly ridiculous.
Lastly, it is fundamental that we govern ourselves in the House, because we are here on behalf of the people; it is their Parliament, not ours. If we want to subscribe to that principle, there is one simple solution: give us free votes and put it in the Standing Orders and/or in the Bill, that any legislation that contradicts the principles of the Bill should be endorsed by a free vote of the House. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a free vote if there is any attempt to upset the arrangements of the Bill?
We have had an excellent debate, kicked off by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the Opposition. I cannot let this debate pass without remarking on the fact that he intends that to be his final speech from the Front Bench. He has said that he will retire from the Front Bench: he has done 30 years of hard labour on the Opposition and Government Front Benches and has given distinguished service. He has been called many things: my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) referred to Barbara Castle’s remarks about how he had a degree of low cunning about him. I must say that I have found him wily as I have worked for him over the past few years, and wise. I thank him for the time that he has given to junior Ministers and spokespeople. He has always been illuminating to work with, and we will all miss his speeches from the Front Bench, although I am sure that we can look forward to many more from him from the Back Benches in future.
As my right hon. Friend explained, we agree with the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, although we believe that it should be for a shorter period than the proposed five years. We had a manifesto commitment to a fixed term favouring four years, and for that reason we will not be voting against Second Reading. However, the House should not misinterpret that as anything more than our agreeing with the principle behind the Bill. We have grave concerns about many of the measures proposed in it, about its timing, and about the way in which the proposals have been developed—although “developed” may be too grand a word for a Bill that seems to have been thrown together on the Deputy Prime Minister’s whim and then repeatedly altered as each new problem has emerged, all without the slightest effort to consult anyone else. As many Members have said today, that is not a recipe for good legislation.
We shall be looking closely at the details of the Bill and suggesting amendments. Indeed, it might be better if the Government took the whole thing away and started again from scratch, given the confused and shifting mishmash that appears to be before us and that so casually sets about riding roughshod over one constitutional convention after another. Little thought seems to have been invested in the devising of a scheme that works before the appearance of legislation to implement one that probably will not. Given that the Leader of the House—who is present now—suggested this morning that the present parliamentary Session would continue for two years, why should the Government not take the opportunity to take the Bill away, consult on it properly, and return with something that is in rather fitter shape?
It is almost as if the Deputy Prime Minister does not really care whether the Bill works or not, as long as he can send a reassuring signal to his parliamentary party and his Tory ministerial collaborators that this Parliament will last for five years, whatever the strains—which are already showing—may be in the interim. The rapidly changing provisions, the substantial but unthought-through shifts that we have already witnessed, the thoughtless interference with long-standing constitutional conventions which have been mentioned by many Members on both sides of the House, the indecent haste with which a major constitutional Bill has been introduced when there was no need for it to be rushed through the House, the total lack of consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny referred to not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Select Committee—all those things make us suspicious about what the true motivations might be.
So what is really going on behind the overblown rhetoric of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, who specialises in it, about the purpose of their constitutional innovations? The Prime Minister says that he wants to give power away, while the Deputy Prime Minister says that he is embarking on a programme of constitutional reform more extensive than any since the great Reform Act. Of course, he forgets just how minimal the reforms of 1832 actually were in substance. In reality, little or no justification has been offered beyond the rhetoric.
We have heard from Members in all parts of the House—from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) in interventions, from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in very witty speeches, from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) in a rather more portentous but very serious speech, and from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has form in this regard—some alternative theories about what might be going on. The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is using vastly overblown claims to hide a tawdry piece of fixing that took place over a few days in a testosterone-filled room packed with erstwhile political enemies who were intent on one thing: producing a political stitch-up that could deliver government to both parties, while preventing each from double-crossing the other for the duration of a Parliament. The fact that they decided to do that by using novel constitutional props is absolutely clear from the proposals that emerged.
Far from being born out of some kind of reforming zeal, and far from being derived from a carefully thought- out analysis of what is wrong with our current constitutional arrangement, the Bill was born out of a suddenly discovered political imperative to save the necks and promote the ministerial careers of those who negotiated it. That is what it looks like to us, because that is what it is. Let us have done with the overblown deputy prime ministerial rhetoric and just call a spade a spade. The long title of this Bill should be “A Bill to ensure that the inherent contradictions in the coalition Government are suppressed for a full five years; to make sure that neither party can double cross the other; and for connected purposes.” That would be a bit nearer the mark.
Those Government Members who are slavishly following the Government—many are not—may protest that I am being too cynical. If I am wrong, how come such an important piece of constitutional reform was not in both parties’ manifestos? It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto; they were in favour of a four-year fixed term in their policy, but we appear to have a five-year term in the Bill. How come the Bill has not been afforded the opportunity of pre-legislative scrutiny, or preceded by a Green Paper, White Paper or draft Bill? How come it did not involve all-party consultations and discussions with a view to reaching cross-party agreement, which there may have been some possibility of reaching? How come the Bill has changed in substance more than once as the repeated announcement of ill-thought-through expedients has hit the reality of their not actually being workable or acceptable in the cold light of day?
How come the Bill is in such a poor state that the Clerk of the House has indicated that it has the potential to allow the courts, and even the European Court, to be second-guessing the Speaker, the monarch and this House on such fundamentally political issues as the date of the general election, or whether or not a confidence motion has been passed? It is not just me asking these questions. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset all asked this precise question.
The Bill contains too many novel and contentious constitutional principles to be dealt with in the arrogant and high-handed way that is becoming a hallmark of the Deputy Prime Minister’s dealings with this House. The subjects that the Bill addresses are constitutionally fundamental; there is no doubt about that. It ends prerogative powers to dissolve but not to prorogue Parliament—something Charles I would probably have been able to work with—but with the potential to drag the monarch into party political controversy, which would be highly undesirable in this day and age. It introduces the novel, ill-thought-though and potentially dangerous concept of super-majorities into parliamentary proceedings.
As our Clerk has warned, and as the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon set out, the Bill puts elements of parliamentary procedure into statute, thus fundamentally changing the nature of the legislature’s relationship with the judiciary by potentially forcing it to decide what we meant to do in parliamentary proceedings that have hitherto been unavailable to judicial interpretation, thus potentially politicising the judiciary; a most undesirable outcome. The possibility of this is the danger, not the probability, as the hon. and learned Member made clear. I agree with him.
The Bill refers to confidence motions without defining them, thus potentially requiring judges to define them in court proceedings. It draws the monarch and the Speaker into the most party-political aspects of parliamentary proceedings with the obvious risk that their deliberations and actions will be tarnished with party-political controversy of a kind wholly alien to our constitutional arrangements. As we have heard from many hon. Members, the Bill has a serious impact on the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because of the planned date of the election. If the Deputy Prime Minister had bothered to consult in advance, that particular difficulty might have been pointed out to him so that he could have avoided it.
It is reasonable for any Government to propose constitutional changes, but there is a proper and improper way of doing it. This is not the best way of handling constitutional issues. Why the rush? This is the big question that many of us have been asking during the course of the debate. There is no need for such an ill-thought-through Bill to be before us. The coalition agreement on 12 May said that there would be a “binding motion” placed before the House, whatever that is. I thought that most of our motions were binding. That was to be followed by legislation for a five-year fixed term during which a vote of 55% of Members would be needed to bring the Government down. It just so happened that the combined strength of Tory and Lib Dem Members in this Parliament is 56%, so this represented a clear effort to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the legislature, not to mention preventing the parties to the coalition agreement from ratting on each other.
The furore that ensued has led the Deputy Prime Minister to think again, and that is a good thing, but by the time of the publication of the coalition’s programme for government on 20 May this remained the policy. By the Queen’s Speech on 25 May, the legislation had been brought forward to be a major priority in the first Session, although we were still promised the binding motion. The Deputy Leader of the House promised it to us before the summer recess, but in the event it did not appear. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister ought occasionally to inform his ministerial colleagues about the back-flips that he plans to execute before they assure the House that the Government are going to do something that he has already decided not to do.
My hon. Friend has given the House a superb explanation of why this is a rotten Bill; anyone who came into the Chamber just after she began her comments might mistakenly believe that the Labour party is opposing this Bill. She has given many good reasons why we should oppose it, but can she try to explain to me why on earth we are going to be sitting on our backsides during the Division?
My hon. Friend will do what he wants with his backside when the Division gets called; I am sure that he is capable of making his own mind up. We have made it clear that although we are not voting against the Bill on Second Reading, whether we support it on Third Reading will depend on how well it is put right in the interim.
The Deputy Prime Minister told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
“We felt that”—
“was necessary on the assumption that the legislation would then come much further down the track.”
Why not put the legislation further down the track, in order to enable proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny to take place and to allow there to be properly considered measures, with cross-party agreement, that might actually work?
By that time, the measures that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced were already unravelling, because those in the testosterone-filled room of self-interest of the coalition builders, who came up with the 55% super-majority, were so focused on protecting themselves against mutual duplicity that they failed to consider little issues such as the sovereignty of Parliament and other constitutional conventions relating to Dissolution. The proposals in the programme for government were running into the sand; all it took was the light of day and the unravelling began.
By 5 July, the Deputy Prime Minister had changed his mind again, but alas the new proposals are not better; they are just different. The 55% super-majority has been abandoned in favour of a 66% one, which appears unlikely to be used. I say in all seriousness to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), for whom I have a lot of time, because he has great difficulties in his Department: what is the rush? We are at the beginning of this Parliament, so why not consult? Why not seek cross-party agreement? What on earth is the argument against doing so? Why not have pre-legislative scrutiny on such an important constitutional Bill? Why not allow the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to do its job, instead of making it rush? Why not allow the time for concerns expressed by the Clerk about the risk to the privileges of the legislature to be properly addressed? Just asserting in the newspapers that he is wrong does not amount to a refutation of his arguments. Why was his informed advice not heeded a little more in the drafting of this Bill? Is it right that a Bill that provides for such massive constitutional innovation should be introduced five days before the House rises for the summer recess and debated one week after its return, given that the Leader of the House has just announced that this Session of Parliament will go on for two years?
The truth is that the Bill is a reflection of the Minister in charge of it and the political imperatives that led to its being devised. Our over-confident yet vacillating Deputy Prime Minister, who keeps changing his mind every few weeks about what should be in this legislation, appears armed only with his grandiose delusions of constitutional good sense and that characteristic overblown Lib Dem sense of self-importance, which all those who fight the Lib Dems at a local level will recognise very well. One wonders how much he is listening to, or absorbing and considering properly, the advice he must be getting. This is a dangerous combination for our constitutional settlement. We cannot and should not accept that constitutional arrangements that have worked well for centuries should be thrown away hubristically and without thought by a Deputy Prime Minister who cares only for his own neck and the short-term expedient of remaining in his post for a full Parliament.
We have a Deputy Prime Minister who flits from the whim of introducing super-majorities to allowing judges to tell us whether or not we can have an election, and who does not seem to understand that the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the Speaker are important principles that we should defend. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who appears more interested in lofty rhetoric about how radical his constitutional innovations are than the detailed work needed to make them both desirable and workable in practice. Members of this House will have to do the work for him. Her Majesty’s Opposition will play our part; we will seek to subject the Bill to the scrutiny it needs, and I also reiterate the fact that we intend to review whether to continue to support the Bill on Third Reading.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) seemed to spend rather more time talking about my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister than the Bill during her rather lengthy winding-up speech, and Members—certainly colleagues on the Government Benches—will have noticed that she had trouble keeping a straight face while making her speech. From that, we can detect just how much she really believed what she was saying while going through the motions of delivering her remarks.
We have had a good debate on this important Bill. There were 19 Back-Bench speakers and I will try to refer to their contributions as I go through the arguments. I should just say at the outset that today I sent a copy of the Government’s response to the memorandum from the Clerk of the House of Commons to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and placed another copy in the Library of the House, and I should also have sent a copy to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on behalf of the Opposition. I have apologised to him privately, and I would like to do so on the Floor of the House too. It was an inadvertent omission, not a deliberate discourtesy.
The issue of the time available for debating the Bill arose in a number of speeches from both sides of the House. As is clear from the programme motion, we have allowed two days of debate in Committee of the whole House, so every Member will get the opportunity to debate these important constitutional measures, and a further day on Report and Third Reading for a Bill that contains five clauses and one schedule, albeit they address very important principles.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present. In answering an urgent question earlier today, he made the point that in the first Session of a new Parliament it is simply not possible to do as much pre-legislative scrutiny as one would hope to be able to do later in a Parliament. However, we are not racing off at pace, and I encourage the Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), to continue its deliberations as I feel that there will be time for the Government and the House to learn from its deliberations before we move into Committee.
The Minister should be aware that the Leader of the House said exactly that at business questions last week, but that he then added that it was for political reasons.
Yes, the Leader of the House made the point and I do not think it is different from what I have just said. These are important measures and the Government want to get on with political and constitutional reform. That is why we are moving ahead with these measures, but they will be debated on the Floor of the House and all colleagues will have the opportunity to debate them.