| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman does not like Privy Councillors, he is at liberty to amend the new clause to specify a different group--perhaps anyone but Privy Councillors. I am sure that Opposition Members would accept that.
Mr. Tipping: I am entitled to recommend and advocate the approach that I believe in, which is an appointments commission established as I have described.
Were it not for Lords amendment No. 2, substantial progress would already have been made in establishing the appointments commission. Treasury permission to begin implementation of the commission has already been secured. Indeed, work had already begun in establishing it. However, Lords amendment No. 2 has brought a premature halt to that progress. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] It would have been inappropriate for progress in establishing the appointments commission to be made while we were considering an amendment from the other place that proposed dealing with the matter in statute.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
With the greatest respect, so far no reason that the Minister has given to reject the amendment has made the slightest sense. If the Treasury has authorised establishing an independent commission, the fact that the other place--entirely in line with the Government's proposals--has proposed a statutory basis for the commission should not stop preparations. Which feature of the proposals no longer attracts the Government? The argument about Privy Councillors was incomprehensible. The Minister has not given one reason why all the members should not be Privy Councillors. It is also entirely irrelevant that the Bill has made no mention of Privy Councillors. What is the Minister's objection to any part of the proposal, and why should any part of the proposal stop the Treasury financing preparations for the commission?
Mr. Tipping:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we have not made greater progress. I take the view that it would be an insult to Parliament--to the
Mr. Tipping:
No, I shall not give way again--I have already given way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman plenty of times. He also asked why the appointments commission cannot be statutory. As I said, our own proposals will work.
Mr. Tipping:
What is important is what works, and our proposals will work; they are well tried and well tested. The appointments commission will operate initially during the transitional House, and it may well be that, in the light of the royal commission's report, we shall want to adjust the process. However, that will depend on the Wakeham report.
As I said, I should have hoped that we could make greater progress on establishing the appointments commission. Unfortunately, a stalemate has developed. Our desire quickly to implement an appointments commission has been unnecessarily delayed by an insistence on its statutory basis. Today, however, we shall have the opportunity to break the logjam. If the amendment is rejected, the way will be clear to set in motion again the process of establishing the commission.
Whatever the critics may say, we want and are determined to make quick progress. Our proposals will work; our route is well established; our desire is absolutely clear. We will reduce the powers of patronage in the interim House. With that, I ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I have heard some speeches in my time, but never have I heard such a threadbare speech from someone on the Government Front Bench. It was an extraordinary speech. The Minister, who is an amiable cove, was blasted out of the water by his constituency neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It was an Alice in Wonderland speech--if I say it three times, it is true.
If the Prime Minister genuinely wants these appointments to be conducted by an independent appointments commission, what is the logical objection to having a statutory commission? The Minister has not advanced one plausible reason to vote against the amendment. Is he saying that because the House of Lords passed the amendment, the Government were suddenly struck by legislative paralysis, totally incapable of tabling amendments of their own and of making it a little more workable if they thought it not workable? Are they totally incapable of making any progress with their own appointments commission, so that the Minister could stand at the Dispatch Box tonight and tell us a little more about that? The whole thing is absolutely incredible.
The Lords amendment seems very modest. Our colleagues in another place have taken the Government at face value. They have said that they accept and welcome the fact that the Government are going to have an independent commission and that that is a good idea. They have therefore said, "Let us put it on the face of the Bill,
set it up on a statutory basis and, what is more, go to the Government's White Paper to select the criteria for the commission." I cannot for the life of me understand what is objectionable or wrong about that.
The faces of some of the Minister's hon. Friends were studies indeed. Their looks of amazed incredulity as he stumbled through the reasons for not doing so were wonderful to behold. No one in this House who has studied the question could attach any credibility to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Even tonight, amendments were tabled to Lords amendment No. 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) withdrew them, but they had tabled them and they were debated. If the Government had chosen to table some amendments, they would most certainly have been selected and debated. If they had done so, the Minister could have told us why Privy Councillors were not appropriate, or why the new clause did not fit and where we could improve it. But no--the hon. Gentleman merely turned the amendment down, without giving any sensible reason.
The hon. Member for Thurrock made a good point about the annual report to Parliament. The Minister replied that there are other annual reports to Parliament. What he seemed not fully to understand is that this is a unique--for once, I use that word totally correctly--situation. We are talking about the appointment of legislators, not of members of health trusts or anything else, important as they are and valuable as the work that they do is. We know from the previous debate that there is considerable anxiety among Labour Members--including the hon. Member for Thurrock, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)--about the power of patronage and the influence that the Prime Minister will have.
The Minister's comments about the Prime Minister's appointments commission did not address the central issue that it will be appointed by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Hogg:
What is more, did not the Minister speak about adjusting the situation, should developments require it? Who would adjust the remit of an independent appointments commission?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
There are only one or two people who could do that--the Prime Minister or the all-knowing, all-seeing, fingers-in-everything Mr. Campbell--and by Jove, they would if they did not like the situation. The Prime Minister has appointed one quarter of the strength of the House of Lords as it will be next week. He has created 171 peers--some of them a trifle odd--in the past two and a half years. That is more than the previous Prime Minister appointed in seven years. Those are facts, not just things that I am dredging up from the back of my mind. Against that background, is it any wonder that there is a credibility gap in the House--on both sides--and outside?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |