| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pete Wishart:
It is with a due degree of anticipation that I listened to that contribution, and I am not disappointed or surprised by the hon. Lady's comments. Of course this is the United Kingdom Parliament, but all I am saying-and I hope that she will accept this-is that the Electoral Commission has obligations and
responsibilities beyond this House. It is unfortunate that the House of Lords refused to recognise that, just as this House has done. Once again, they are viewing these matters exclusively through a Westminster and House of Commons prism, and after all these debates we have moved no further forward.
I do not know how the role of the fourth commissioner, who is to be allocated to the minority parties, is to be determined. I still believe that they will have to be allocated to the Democratic Unionist party, as the largest minority party. That would be right and proper. Certainly, if the Scottish National party were the largest minority party and we did not secure that commissioner, I would be very disappointed. The commissioner will have to go to the largest party; there is no other basis on which that matter can be determined. That is not good enough, however.
We have failed to come to terms with the new reality of the UK. It is disappointing to see from these amendments that the House of Lords has not recognised the reality of a multi-legislature, multi-party UK. I hope that the Minister will spend a couple of minutes considering these questions, and that he will try somehow to reassure me that the new Electoral Commission, through the electoral commissioners, will be able to deal adequately with these issues and to look out for the whole of the UK and not just this House.
Mr. Wills: I will try to answer the questions relatively briefly, although, given the non-contentious nature of the issues, we have had quite a lively exchange.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) asked why the party leaders were still involved. If I may, I shall deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) as well. The whole point of people with electoral experience going on to the Electoral Commission is that they should bring with them not partisan affiliations or party political considerations but their experience of the political process. There has to be a selection process, and the party leaders are clearly the best placed to have an overview about who the most appropriate people in their parties will be. That should then be subject to an open competition. That seems to strike the right balance.
I say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that we can debate the role of the United Kingdom Parliament, and I again pay tribute to his persistence in trying to squash every issue through the prism of nationalist politics. Not everything should be seen in that way. There is still a position for the UK Parliament in the constitutional arrangements of this country, and that remains paramount, however much he would like to see it changed. This is the last exchange that he and I will have on this subject-on this particular Bill, anyway-and I would like to reassure him that, in the end, whoever emerges on to the Electoral Commission to fulfil the new roles of political commissioners will be expected to put aside partisan considerations. They will bring to bear their experience of the democratic political process in this country, and it will not matter whether they come from the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party, the Labour party, or, indeed, one of the smaller parties, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive my using that term. They will all be expected to put aside their partisan considerations and to bring their
experience to bear. I hope that, with all that, I have given hon. Members enough to persuade them to agree to the amendments.
Lords amendments 2 to 8 , 51 to 65 and 99 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question p roposed , That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.- (Mr. Wills.)
Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 10, 13, 28 and 66 to 68.
Mr. Djanogly: Clause 8 creates a new responsibility for donors to political parties to clarify the source of donations. Following the Government's recent amendments made in the other place, donors giving more than £7,500 will be required to make a declaration of whether another person is providing them with any money or other benefit worth more than £7,500. The impact of the measure will still be widespread and costly-even if not quite so much as before-in terms of time and money for parties at local level, which is where such burdens are most heavily felt.
Political parties need sufficient funds to fulfil their democratic functions. However, there is a paradox at the heart of party politics in the United Kingdom: although there is recognition that political parties are key in mobilising local political activity and are a central vehicle in implementing civic engagement, the membership of political parties, the turnout at elections and the trust and confidence in politicians are at an all-time low. That has major implications for the financial management of political parties. Modern centralised campaigns have resulted in escalating-
10 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83 F ), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.
Lords amendment 9 accordingly agreed to.
The Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 8 3F ).
Lords amendments 10, 13, 28, 66 to 68, 14, 48, 49, 100 to 102, 104, 15 to 24, 103, 25 to 27, 69 to 92, 107, 29 to 32 and 93 to 95 agreed to.
Business of the House
10.1 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Barbara Keeley): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. Given the situation in Afghanistan, I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the subject is appropriate for a fuller debate than we had originally planned for this week. I announce the following business:
The business for Thursday 16 July will now be-topical debate on the preparation for the Copenhagen climate change conference followed by general debate on Afghanistan.
In addition, there has been a change to one of the subjects selected by the Official Opposition on Wednesday 15 July. The first part will now be a debate on US/UK extradition treaty followed by a debate on care for the elderly.
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I thank the hon. Lady for her announcement and say that Conservative Members very much welcome her statement? The whole House, indeed the whole country, is concerned about the situation in Afghanistan, especially about the fate of our brave young men and women who daily put their lives on the line for Afghanistan's future and our continued freedom.
It is regrettable, however, that this announcement has had to be forced from the Government-and only after a weekend of bad headlines and distressing news of casualties. The House will no doubt reflect on the Government's tendency to take action only when it is in their own political interests to do so. Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us an assurance that she will do her utmost to ensure that no Government statements are made on Thursday so that we have the maximum time to discuss this crucial issue? [Interruption.] I fail to see why the Government Chief Whip is laughing; given the seriousness of this issue, I think it is perfectly in order to ask for it to be accorded the importance it deserves-an importance that not only we but the whole country attaches to it.
Barbara Keeley: I do not believe that the announcement has been forced in any way. Even today we spent some on the issue at Defence questions, and a significant chunk of the Prime Minister's statement covered the situation in Afghanistan as well as the G8 summit. We have already spent a significant amount of today's time on the subject, and it is perfectly right to swap around the topical debate and have even more time for a general debate on Afghanistan on Thursday.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Given the very serious situation in Afghanistan and the dangers faced by our young men and women serving in the armed forces, it is absolutely right to have time to debate the subject this week. I applaud the decision to turn over Thursday's late business for a debate on Afghanistan. Will the Deputy Leader of the House clarify whether the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or, preferably, the Prime Minister will lead that debate? There are clear interlocking defence and foreign affairs considerations in debating Afghanistan and it would be best to deal with both aspects of the case.
At risk of sounding like the first person to call for the recall of Parliament before we have even reached the summer recess, let me say that we are engaged in a very serious conflict. Circumstances might change over the long summer recess, making it necessary that the House is informed. May I ask the hon. Lady to give some thought to how Members will be made aware of any change of circumstances, and the circumstances in which the House will be recalled if that becomes necessary because of matters of grave concern that we ought to be debating?
Barbara Keeley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the announcement. I tried to contact him a number of times this afternoon to warn him of it. He will understand that it is not for me to say who will lead the debate; it will be decided through the usual channels. However, we have heard what he has said.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House made a point about keeping the House informed during the recess following last Thursday's business statement. I will ensure that she is made aware of the point that has been made this evening, and, if necessary, touches on it in this Thursday's business statement.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I welcome the statement, but will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us when she expects to fit in a debate on the Government's motion calling for a Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons? Last Thursday there was a spare hour that the Government did not use to enable the motion to be debated. Obviously it less likely now that we will have-
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away with the development of his question, let me say that it is fair to note that the question simply does not arise from the business statement. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but in that sense his point is not in order.
Mr. Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement made by the Deputy Leader of the House refers to this Thursday. If I had been given an opportunity to conclude my remarks, I should have suggested the tabling of a business motion on Thursday to enable us to debate the motion to which I have referred.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to explain to the hon. Gentleman a second time, but as it is obviously necessary, I am happy to do so. As I have already said, the question that he raised did not and does not spring from the business statement. If he wishes to raise the point that is of interest to him, he can do so in the context of the business statement on Thursday.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): Will the House be able to debate alternatives to military action to achieve the Afghan war objectives more efficiently, with more safety and with less cost?
Barbara Keeley: I have announced a general debate on Afghanistan. I am sure that it will be possible to touch on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised during that debate.
Business without Debate
delegated legislation
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put motions 4 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) (Uncertificated Securities) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) (Taxes and National Insurance) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
That the draft Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Foreign Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved. -(Mary Creagh.)
select committee on reform of the house of commons
(1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the following matters:
(a) the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees;
(b) scheduling business in the House;
(c) enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House; and
(d) such other matters as appear to the Committee to be closely connected with the matters set out above, and to report on these matters by 13 November 2009;
(2) That the Committee also consider such other matters as may be referred to it from time to time;
(3) That the Committee consist of eighteen Members;
(4) That Mr Graham Allen, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Graham Brady, Mr David Clelland, Mr David Drew, Natascha Engel, Dr Evan Harris, David Howarth, Mr Michael Jack, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Chris Mullin, Dr Nick Palmer, Martin Salter, Dr Phyllis Starkey, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young be members of the Committee;
(5) That Dr Tony Wright be Chairman of the Committee;
(6) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
(7) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament. -(Mary Creagh.)
parliamentary privilege
That the Order of 8 December 2008 relating to the Speaker's Committee on search of offices on the Parliamentary Estate be rescinded and the following Order be made:
(1) That, following the search of a Member's office in the Parliamentary Estate by the police and the seizure of material therein, a committee be appointed to review the internal processes of the House administration for granting permission for such action, to consider any matter relating to privilege arising from the police operation, and to make recommendations for the future;
(2) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report from time to time; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to appoint one specialist adviser either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
(3) That Sir Alan Beith, Mr David Blunkett, Sir Menzies Campbell, Ann Coffey, Mr Doug Henderson, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Michael Howard and Sir Malcolm Rifkind be members of the Committee;
(4) That Sir Menzies Campbell be the Chairman of the Committee; and
(5) That the committee report by 31 December 2009. -(Mary Creagh.)
Regional Select Committee (South West)
That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.- (Mary Creagh.)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |