| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need to scrutinise the Ministers in the other place, given the extremely controversial nature of some of them at present?
Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend may be leading me on to political ground, which may be a little outside the scope of the Committee.
What we can say about the Ministers who serve the Crown in another place is that they have not sought election or endorsement. Indeed, many of them have not stood for any sort of public office or even taken the trouble to be a member of the political party that has
appointed them. It is all the more important that those unelected crony Ministers should be properly scrutinised. That is why I am delighted to see that function spelt out in subsection (2)(c).
On subsection (2)(d), I am not the first member of the Committee to draw attention to the excellent work of the Select Committees of the Upper House, whether in scrutinising European legislation or scrutinising science and technology. By the way in which they have carried out their work, the noble Lords who serve on those Committees have built a strong reputation for them, both in Brussels and in Whitehall. Their reports are widely respected. It is part of the tradition of the House and we want to see the transfer of the knowledge and experience that have been built up.
When I spoke on the previous group of amendments, I was told that the reason for keeping the Privileges Committee, even though it would be adjudicating on claims that have nothing to do with the current House, is that it has great tradition and has built up a great body of knowledge. That is to be kept for a function that it is no longer necessary for it to discharge, but the Government are happy to see that retained simply because the expertise built up is so great. If that applies to the handling of the Ampthill baby or the various Moynihan babies, it certainly applies to the handling of European legislation.
I am delighted that my hon. Friends have tabled this new clause and enabled the Committee to focus for the first time on the functions that the reformed House will exercise. It has enabled us to bring out the threat to the second Chamber that lies in almost every paragraph of chapter 7 of the White Paper. If we accept the new clause, it will give some comfort to those whom we are inviting at very little cost--as we discovered under an earlier group of amendments--to serve us. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
Mr. Garnier:
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for introducing the new clause and for reminding the Committee of our party's support for the need for a discussion about the role of the interim Chamber and our commitment to a second Chamber. We all know that there is no certainty about the length of time that the second Chamber will last in its interim form. I believe that I am right in saying that, if there are members of the Committee who want a unicameral legislative system, they are to be found on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches. It may well be that not many Labour Members desire a unicameral system.
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
Mr. Garnier:
I am corrected by the Leader of the House. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford is in favour of a unicameral legislative system. Be that as it may, he is very much in the minority. As he is not in the Chamber, he should be able on another occasion to explain the reasons for his preference.
I fully endorse the need for a second Chamber, and for a strongly equipped second Chamber that will perform all the functions stated in new clause 24. I shall deal with those duties in a moment. First, however, I have a couple of queries, with which my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) or the Minister may be able to deal.
We should examine the functions of the interim second Chamber in the light of the constitutional disposition that is shortly to come into effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring pointed out, a new Parliament in Scotland and Assemblies in Wales and in Northern Ireland have been established. The Committee would be far better employed working out the proper relationship of the constituent parts of the Union, their relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament and the governmental systems of the European Union that have some effect on our deliberations before we consider the composition of the membership of the second Chamber--which, as my hon. Friend quite correctly said, seems to be the Government's primary concern.
The Government have yet to tell us what they believe is the proper relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, or the relationship of the Scottish Parliament, the Assembly of Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have yet to hear from the Government what they believe is the proper place of the United Kingdom Parliament in the United Kingdom constitution.
The Government have yet to tell us also what they want the second Chamber to do, in either its interim form or its final form, whenever that may come. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring that we need a strong second Chamber that is able to hold the Executive to account. Under our current constitutional arrangements, the Government may appoint Ministers from both Houses, and both Houses are able to question Ministers. Of course, whether they receive answers is another matter.
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department and I have had our little disagreements about his ability to answer questions and to allow himself to be held to account. Perhaps, when attempts were made to hold the Government to account, he would be encouraged to answer questions more satisfactorily if he were not only available to be cross-questioned in this Chamber and in the Select Committees of the House but required occasionally to attend the second Chamber to answer questions. Perhaps future constitutional academics, and we politicians, will have to consider that matter.
Equally, perhaps better scrutiny of Government could be achieved if Ministers who are appointed by the Prime Minister to the other place are available for scrutiny also in this place.
Dr. Starkey:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be making those points in a submission to the royal commission--which is considering precisely those issues on the role and functions of the second Chamber? Is he not pre-empting that consideration?
Mr. Garnier:
This is the House of Commons. One reason why I was sent to this place by my constituents was to discuss Government legislation. We are here to discuss the Bill, which, sadly--with some honourable exceptions--most Labour Back Benchers have not condescended to come and support with their words.
Mr. Letwin:
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the comment of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes,
Mr. Garnier:
I was thinking in Committee yesterday evening that it seemed to many Labour Back Benchers that the White Paper, not the Bill, was the legislation.
Mrs. Beckett:
Has it not struck the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was smart enough to spot that the Government do not propose any change to the functions or power of the interim House?
Mr. Garnier:
If that is the case, more's the pity. The current second Chamber is diffident about using its powers to scrutinise and amend Government legislation. That has been the case under this Government and under the previous Conservative Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher.
Mr. Stunell:
The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an interesting point. What is his evaluation of whether the upper House was more inclined to give serious scrutiny to Conservative legislation or to the legislation of the current Government?
Mr. Garnier:
I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but many Conservative Bills were given serious scrutiny by the House of Lords. The rights and remedies available to the House of Lords under the constitution and the precedents and traditions of our country are not sufficiently used for fear of offending the elected House. There is nothing wrong with that, because we are the elected Members and the Labour party has a majority in this House, by a huge chalk. It is permissible for the House of Lords to restrain itself. However, if we are revisiting the workings of our constitution, are we not entitled to invite the Committee to apply its mind to the proper functions of the second Chamber in its interim form and in its permanent form, if there is to be one? The proposals in the new clauses on the job specification of the Members of the second House are worthy of consideration.
Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South):
I have listened with great interest to many speeches, particularly that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The new clauses talk about a declaration of a willingness to serve. What criteria would he use to judge whether that willingness had been made a reality? Does he envisage a penalty being imposed on those who did not make such a declaration?
5.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |