| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey): The Labour party waited 18 years to govern. It is now 18 months since they became the Government and the Chamber is deserted. That is a reflection of new Labour's attitude to Parliament. If one looks at the Prayer Cards, one can see that there are about 25 on the Conservative Benches and only three on the Labour Benches. At 8 o'clock in the morning, the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) tend to be here placing their Prayer Cards to secure their seats, but there are a great number of Conservative Members present because we continue to think that the House of Commons is where issues should be discussed and debated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I have been a Member of the House for nearly 20 years and I have never used a Prayer Card. I see no reason for doing so and I see no purpose in it. There are more Labour Members present now than Conservative Members.
Mrs. Bottomley: During the debate on the Gracious Speech, about one in three, or fewer, Labour Members were present. That is the extent to which they have been told to stay in their constituencies, not to make trouble and to avoid debating the issues of the day.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): That remark is ludicrous. The right hon. Lady will see that there are far more Prayer Cards on the Tory Benches than there are people sitting in their seats. The right hon. Lady will also note that there are many more Labour Members present. She said that there were
only a few Labour Members present at the start of the debate, but she should note that there were many more Labour Members than Tories.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the Queen's Speech and not the procedure for putting down Prayer Cards. Both sides of the House have made their point and we must get back to the debate on the Queen's Speech. I am obliged to ask the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) to do just that.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): I want to point out that 25 per cent. of the Plaid Cymru parliamentary party are present.
Mrs. Bottomley: As I advance my argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see the relevance of my comments about the extent to which the Chamber of the House is consistently insulted.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister, who has voted on fewer occasions than any other recent Prime Minister and scarcely spends any time in the House--
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Bottomley:
Of course. I always believe in giving way, but I will just finish my sentence.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister chose to stay for the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) but not for the first Back-Bench speech which was made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I suppose that is because the right hon. Gentleman has had the nerve to suggest recently that the No. 10 press machine has been disregarding or trying to gainsay the work he did during his time in office.
Mr. White:
Does the right hon. Lady not realise that this House was brought into disrepute among the community outside by the actions of her Government over 18 years? Sometimes, we spend too much time contemplating the procedures of this place rather than debating the key issues affecting the country.
Mrs. Bottomley:
I am looking forward to advancing my argument, but I must make one further point. If hon. Members visited Speaker's Court on a Thursday, they could see the number of cars. Last Thursday at 3.15 pm there were seven cars and on the previous Thursday there were only three. That was when we used to have Prime Minister's Question Time and Ministers had the grace to come to the House of Commons.
I point that out because one of the measures in the Queen's Speech is the proposal to change the nature of the House of Lords. The debate about the House of Lords would not be so serious if it were not happening under a Government who have shown themselves more determined to destroy dissent, control information and reduce the autonomy of Members of Parliament than any other in living memory.
In a way, I was looking forward to the experience of Opposition. I chose my seat in the House because it is the seat in which the noble Lord Shore used to sit when he
was a Member of the House of Commons. Like me, Lord Shore believes in the process of Parliament and the scrutiny of issues and debate. My concern about the Government's vandalism towards the constitution of move first, think later, is that the House of Lords has often been--sometimes to the great irritation of members of the Government when my party was in power--the one part of the legislature that could reverse a Government's decision or make a Government think again. We have not in living memory had a Government with such a high-handed and arrogant regard for their own powers.
A couple of weeks ago, The Sunday Times published a detailed article by Robert Harris, who commented on the Labour party's Stalinist approach in seeking to control candidate selection and Members of the European Parliament, and in seeking--above all--to diminish the significance of Cabinet Government in a manner that Baroness Thatcher would never have been able to get away with.
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire):
The right hon. Lady has been an hon. Member longer than I have. Will she remind me of the number of times that the other place went against a Conservative Government on five successive occasions? If the other place is so in touch with popular opinion and the public mood, why did it not bat back to the House such unpopular proposals and ineffective legislation as rail privatisation and the poll tax?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I am not able to comment in detail on the thinking of the Lords or to express a view on the rights and wrongs of the conventions, but I can express my own viewpoint. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will discover, the joy of being a Back Bencher is that one is no longer required to be mild, obedient, good and kind, but allowed to be eccentric, opinionated and difficult. I intend to continue in that vein.
Opinion polls show that at least two thirds of the public support continuation of the role of hereditary peers in the other place until an alternative has been developed. Even that great newspaper, The Sun--which, as the Prime Minister so often works with it, must be right--has taken that view. The point is that the powers of each legislative Chamber are being diminished or removed. Only the House of Lords still has a sting, which, like a bumble-bee's, seems to work. Ministers are hell-bent on removing hereditary peers' power before developing an alternative for all to appreciate.
Dr. Lynda Clark:
Has the right hon. Lady overlooked the small matter of the Scottish Parliament, which will begin operating on 1 May?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I accept that the Scottish Parliament has much support in Scotland. However, the hon. Lady's question challenges me to deal also with the Welsh Assembly. The Neill report effectively condemned the referendum on the Assembly. A great deal of money was provided to support one side in the referendum, a small fraction of people voted, and it is unlikely that the referendum's outcome can be changed in the foreseeable future.
Among other matters, I strongly criticise the Government for failing to introduce measures to follow up the Neill report. The good name of politicians--in whatever Chamber or setting they serve--is important to all in the United Kingdom.
The Neill report made specific recommendations on the referendum process. It is deplorable that Ministers--who made so much of the issue when in opposition--have provided no legislative opportunity in the Queen's Speech to deliver Neill's recommendations on referendums, especially when the referendum in Wales will have such long-term effects on the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford):
Will the right hon. Lady remind us of the number of occasions on which she has condemned the Conservative party for receiving donations from foreign donors, some of whom have a dubious background?
Mrs. Bottomley:
It is enormously unwise for Labour Members to start raising issues of improper behaviour. At a time when the Paymaster General is, we imagine, on his offshore island; when--because of his compromised situation--he has been unable to speak in the House, except for 54 seconds last week; when there are real concerns about many Labour party members; and when the closed lists that have been used in the House of Lords consist of an enormous number of characters whose generosity seemed to know no bounds before the general election--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. If the right hon. Lady is criticising someone in the other place--that seems to be what she is doing--she must remember that the convention of the House is to table a substantive motion for debate. She must not question the good character of anyone in the other place.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |