| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
However, that puts the Government into a deep difficulty. They have no idea of what comes next. The Government do not know, the Home Secretary does not know and the Prime Minister certainly does not know.
Evidence of that comes from an interview that was given by Lord Richard, who until the reshuffle was the Government's leader in the House Lords. Asked what the Prime Minister's vision of the future was, Lord Richard replied:
More guidance is given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the enforcer-in-chief, in a remarkably detailed speech that he gave, evidently, in his constituency. Reviewing second chambers in other countries, he said:
Mr. Straw:
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain how the hereditary peers got there.
Sir Norman Fowler:
The point that I am making is this: if the Home Secretary wants to put forward a case
The Government have had to be pushed into even giving the appearance of going beyond an appointed chamber. We Conservative Members set up our own inquiry. We have set out the principles on which that inquiry will operate. The Government are now to set up a royal commission. Why have the Government done that? The answer was given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office:
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
I am delighted to respond to this debate on the Government's programme on the constitution and Parliament. I am sure that any hereditary peers who listened to the speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will realise the strength of my advice that they should throw in the towel.
Before I deal with the detail of today's debate, I should make a brief but wider observation. As Madam Speaker said, it is for the official Opposition to choose the subjects for the debate on the Loyal Address. I was intrigued by the fact that the Opposition did not want to debate home affairs issues that go wider than the subjects of this debate--as has been the usual practice of both Conservative and Labour Oppositions--but, having heard today's Question Time, I know why they wanted to avoid it. Today, we discovered the hollow words of the Opposition on, for example, police spending, which will rise in real terms. We know that the shadow Chancellor has said that that spending is reckless; therefore, the official Opposition are committed to it being reduced.
I am not at all surprised that the Opposition did not want to discuss asylum and immigration. We are putting right--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) alluded briefly to those matters before Madam Speaker made her ruling, I am prepared to allow
Mr. Straw:
My final point is that I am not surprised that the Conservatives did not wish to debate asylum and immigration. Through our immigration and asylum Bill, we want to put right the shambles that we inherited.
I shall now come directly to the subject of today's debate--the constitution and Parliament. Implementation of any constitutional programme has to be detailed and thorough--although sometimes the provisions must also be complex. Our vision is a simple one: to strengthen the nature of British citizenship, to give the British people a chance to exercise more control over their own lives, and, simultaneously, to show greater responsibility to their fellow citizens and to the wider community.
Why do we need such change? First, we need it because since the war Britain has become too centralised in its government. That process--as I conceded in a lecture that I gave last Thursday--occurred under Governments formed by both parties. However, the process accelerated under the previous Administration, to a point at which public confidence in the very processes of government reached an unacceptably low ebb.
Secondly, we need change because--as a paradoxical consequence of our otherwise enviable history in securing constitutional change peacefully and incrementally--we in Britain have a less explicit understanding of our rights and responsibilities than do citizens of other countries with more turbulent domestic histories than our own.
Thirdly, we need our constitutional change programme because it is an integral part of the Government's overall programme to improve our society and to increase the opportunities for individuals and for families within it. Full citizenship requires both freedom from and freedom to--freedom from fear, from crime, from ignorance and from disease; and freedom to exercise positive rights and duties.
Our vision of strengthened citizenship lies behind all that we are doing--on human rights, on freedom of information, on higher standards of public life, and on transfer of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to London. Yes, it lies also behind the long overdue reform to end the greatest offence to the very idea of democracy in the 20th century--the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. When he started it, he said that the hallmark of the Government's proposals was that they were detailed and thorough. Could he explain what is detailed and thorough about reforming the House of Lords by getting rid of hereditary peers without putting anything on the table about ultimate reform of the other place?
Mr. Straw:
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that point, and then happily give way to him again.
Of all the changes that we are making, the one that will probably have the greatest long-term significance is the Human Rights Act 1998, which received Royal Assent
last month. The Act will help to develop in the United Kingdom a human rights culture and a society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals are properly balanced. We have already implemented one important provision of the new Act, section 19, which requires the Minister in charge of a Bill to make a written statement about the compatibility of its provisions with convention rights.
We shall bring into force the Act's main provisions as soon as we reasonably can. A major programme for training courts and tribunals is being developed, and we are having public authorities review their procedures on compliance with convention rights. Implementation involves a great deal of work and I shall make an announcement on a timetable for full implementation as soon as I am able to do so. Meanwhile, I have established a task force, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, including representatives of non-governmental organisations and key Government interests who will help to keep up the momentum of implementation.
"I have no idea what the Prime Minister's views are. I have not talked to him about it. I don't think his mind has been engaged on this in any concentrated way".
Therefore, for the first year of the Government's period of office, the Prime Minister did not speak to the Leader of the House of Lords about his flagship proposal to change the House of Lords. Indeed, Lord Richard questions whether there will be a second stage at all.
"In some members are directly elected. In others elections are indirect. Some are appointed on the basis of their talent and ability."
As far as I know, among western democracies, there is just one parliamentary chamber that is wholly appointed: the Canadian Senate. We are fortunate to have an up-to-date survey of the appointed upper house in Canada, which was carried out by the constitution unit. According to Meg Russell's report:
"The appointed nature of the Canadian senate coupled with the use of political patronage in appointments means that it has little respect amongst Canadians. Its work is largely ignored and even ridiculed by the media and political commentators."
So there we have it. That is the precedent for the Government's second chamber.
"If we hadn't have promised a Royal Commission the Tories would have tried to attack us for not consulting people".
That does not sound like a Government who are committed to sensible reform. Not only have the Government been forced into a royal commission; they have also introduced legislation before that royal commission has had the opportunity even to take any evidence. That cannot make sense as a way of approaching the constitution.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |