Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Part of Nato – in the House of Commons at 9:36 pm on 20 October 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Michael Wills Michael Wills Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice 9:36, 20 October 2009

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in Northern Ireland it is a separate civil service and different arrangements apply, but this is obviously an issue that we can return to in Committee.

My right hon. Friend Keith Vaz also raised a typically serious point about engagement with the public. I would say that the public do not regard this as a road show, as it has been so derisively referred to by the Opposition. The public are pleased to be consulted on these matters, they think it is important for them to be consulted, and they think it is important for them to have a say in these matters. We are going to give them a say-and it is a great shame that the Opposition parties do not seem to share this view. [Interruption.] I hear a sedentary intervention coming from those on the Conservative Front Bench, saying "Name them." What I urge Conservative Members to do is to go on the Ministry of Justice website, where a recording of these events is available. They can then hear for themselves what members of the public think about these issues. If I were them, I would be a little more careful about questioning the public's judgment on these matters.

I note my right hon. Friend's support for the proposal on short-term peers, and Mr. Tyrie also made an important contribution on the issue. We have noted his and other views; we will reflect on them and come back to report in due course.

My hon. Friend Julie Morgan made an important point about House of Lords reform and the importance of devolution. I am very grateful to her for her contribution.

My hon. Friend Kelvin Hopkins started to make some very important points about the civil service. I am sorry that he was cut short by ill health, and I wish him a speedy recovery. Sir Alan Beith also made some important points-about decentralising power-with which we agree. However, I take issue with him slightly over his assumption that decentralising power and diffusing it-which, in my view, is a wholly benign process-should involve only local authorities. Of course they are an important part of the process, but we also need to devolve power much more directly to people.

Mr. Carswell made a characteristic contribution about the importance of direct democracy. The hon. Gentleman makes many very good points. He has clearly understood the mood of the British people, as I think all Members have, but I would caution him about being quite so cavalier as he sometimes is about jettisoning representative democracy. I was glad to note that on this occasion he put Parliament at the centre of any reform process.

In the context of direct democracy, it might behove all of us to reflect on the experience of California. As the hon. Gentleman will know very well, 100 or so years ago California was beset by a similar constitutional crisis when the people of that state began to lose trust in their political processes. In the end a raft of measures of direct democracy were introduced, including propositions and referendums. Very recently-just last week, I believe-the chief justice of California called the system dysfunctional. I do not think that a healthy, judicious introduction of measures of direct democracy-recall, for example-would in any way fundamentally compromise our system of representative democracy, but it is important that we do not jettison it.

A number of Members referred to the measures allowing peers to stand down and perhaps to stand again for election to the House of Commons. The Bill is designed to ensure that there is a framework allowing the House to deal effectively with discipline issues. We have seen the need for that in recent months, and I hope that everyone will be able to take advantage of it. It is right and proper, however, that in all other aspects of public life politicians are able to resign from office should that be the honourable thing to do, and we consider that the House of Lords should also form part of that process.

This has been a very useful debate. I think that the Bill is generally welcomed by Members in all parts of the House. Mr. Dunne returned to a subject that I know is dear to his heart, the registration of voters living overseas. As I intervened on his speech a number of times, I will not deal with all his comments again, but I want to make two points. At the end of his speech, he referred to the requirement to register annually. I think that that is a fair point, and I will look at it again constructively. He also referred to the need for an identity to be confirmed by passport.

The hon. Gentleman was intervened on by one of his colleagues, Mr. Bone, on the subject of service personnel, which I take very seriously indeed. I recently met representatives of service families to discuss how we could increase registration among service members. I have written to many Members inviting them to make suggestions, and I shall be very open to any ideas about how we can improve registration among service personnel, particularly at this time. I have offered a meeting, and I have not received many responses from Members so far, but I ask those who are actually listening to what I am saying-including those whose constituencies contain service personnel-to contact me with their suggestions.

We have had a very useful debate. I think that there has been a general welcome for the Bill, although many Members disagree with some of the detail and many believe that it should have gone further. This is not the end of the process, but the Bill is an important part of a continuing programme of radical reform, and I hope that the House will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.