| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mackinlay: Under any sensible legislative process, we would have had this debate at the House of Commons Committee stage of the Bill. It is worth noting again that the Bill that was presented to us was, to use the term offered by the Clerk, tightly drawn. It did not allow amendments in the House of Commons, so we could not probe or suggest improvements. That was demonstrably a large flaw in our process. The Lords were able to table amendments such as the one that we are debating, flawed as it might be. The measure has not had the scrutiny that it would normally have had in the Committees of the two Houses. In a sense, we have been denied our Committee stage. I make that point in case any colleagues not in the Chamber are irked that some of us are detaining the House. It is an important issue, and we have a duty to scrutinise and examine it.
I have grave misgivings about the legitimacy of so-called Cross Benchers in an appointed House. Whom do independents or Cross Benchers represent but themselves? In this place, we are distinguished because we have the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who has a demonstrable mandate. He can justifiably be proud of that; he has faced an electorate. The Cross Benchers in the House of Lords, however, do not attract me at all. However, I find common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and disagree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), in that the issue of selecting Cross Benchers is indivisible from the appointment of peers from political parties.
My great concern about what has been proposed is no personal criticism of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or their successors, but a matter of human
nature. People do not appoint to bodies persons who can be an irritant--or at least, it takes a very special person to do it.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mackinlay:
Not for a minute, because I am on a roll.
It is in the nature of an appointed House that it will contain those who match the image and likeness of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. It is naive to suggest otherwise. I therefore reluctantly, and with regret, conclude that, for however many years we have the interim appointed House, we need the Cross Benchers to provide that which would be denied by appointments made through the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
I have said publicly elsewhere that it is still within the powers of the current Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to ensure a degree of transparency in the party nomination processes. No doubt the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats could have some form of regional procedure, and I cannot see why that process would not throw up people for consideration by the party leader. For that matter, we in the Labour party should make similar provision.
The case for that can be found in my surprise at the elevation to the other place of certain people nominated by the party leaders. I should like to conduct an audit of some of those people to discover, for example, how long they had been members of the Labour party; of which Labour party they were members; for which Labour party they had delivered leaflets; and for which Labour candidates they had been prepared to sit outside in the rain taking numbers at the polling station. Although some of them would qualify, others would find it a great strain to demonstrate that they had stood by Labour in bad times as well as good.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us suspect that the audit conducted is of a different nature?
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am lost for words, but I recall promising to give way to my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
Mr. Bermingham:
Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to consider a thought that crossed my mind as he gave his accurate appraisal. Will he define what qualities a person would need to have to be appointed to be a Cross Bencher, if he was not someone who had served a party?
Mr. Mackinlay:
My point is that nominations by party leaders will result in clones--I do not use that word in an extravagant sense, but such a result is in the nature
The reason for my feelings on the subject is that I recall discussing with a member of the current Government the democratic deficit in respect of Gibraltar. The Minister said I probably had a point, but then realised what I was up to, looked me in the eye and said, "You don't mean that bloody fool Bossano, do you?" Joe Bossano is no fool, but he is certainly an irritant, and I do not believe that party caucuses or groups will result in the appointment of irritants.
The Lords amendments are flawed: for example, I find it repugnant that they require that the members of the commission should be Privy Councillors. Although I do not mind people holding the title--I do not lie awake at night worrying about it--I want the Privy Council to be abolished. Any further institutionalisation of that club would be wrong. Even now in the House of Commons, we sometimes see a two-tier system comprising those who are Privy Councillors and those who are not, and that irritates me.
I think that the Lords amendment is flawed, but not fatally flawed. In addition, it states that the appointments commission will not consider for nomination to the Cross Benches peers who are members of a political party. That is too prescriptive, for the reasons that I have explained earlier. It is possible to be act independently while remaining loyal to a political party.
I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation of the Government's proposals. I was attracted by his idea that the body should exercise the function of the political honours scrutiny committee. That would cheer me a bit if I thought that there would be an annual report to Parliament. I look the Minister in the eye: if nothing else happens tonight, it is surely not beyond his mandate--granted by those who are not in the Chamber but who will want an account of the proceedings--to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that the commission will give an annual report to Parliament. There should at least be a reasonable chance of allocating some parliamentary time to debate that report on the Floor of the House.
We have an obligation to scrutinise the appointments commission. The gravity of this matter is sometimes lost: we are talking about the appointment of Members of Parliament, albeit in another Chamber. That duty cannot be taken lightly, and we must build in guarantees that we will oversee the commission's work.
I have a feeling that this independent body will comprise the great and the good, and a few of the glitterati. That troubles me greatly. I rarely use the term "class"--I certainly would not have used it during the previous debate. However, I believe that Parliament--even this Chamber--has an increasingly narrow social base. One of my party's strengths was that it threw up
people who used to be called blue collar workers. Such people had to learn the tools of their trade and had some experience of life outside; that enriched the Chamber.
If we are candid, we will agree that today's Members of Parliament are pretty grey. We are of a similar ilk. In a democracy, we should try to ensure that our legislative assemblies are a microcosm of the nation. Therefore, we should work hard to guarantee a mix of Members--and that is not happening at present. Although there may be divisions between left and right--the divide is pretty narrow nowadays--hon. Members come from similar social groupings. We must reverse that trend.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |