| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully to what hon. Members are saying, but they are now straying far from the motion that is before us. I ask them to look at it; I know full well what we are doing at this particular time.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, and do not wish to test your patience. However, I am worried that we may adjourn before the legislation that we have sent to the other place has been tidied up so that individuals are not disenfranchised.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make passing references, but he is getting into matters of great detail. Quite frankly, he should bring his remarks to a close rather than go into details discussed during the passage of the legislation.
Mr. Burns: Madam Speaker, I am again grateful and shall again seek not to try your patience. I remain bothered that, before we adjourn, the other place has time to discuss the Bill again and to make further amendments that would remove an injustice. A number of people from the other place happen to live in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The Bill, if unamended, will mean that former members of the other place will be disenfranchised at the by-election there on 25 November. Before we adjourn, the House should allow the other place to amend the legislation, because the Government have singularly failed to produce regulations to enfranchise the disenfranchised.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): Alternatively, the House should not adjourn until the business in the other
place has been resolved. The Government could then introduce, if they wished to do so, the order necessary to rectify the problem. That must be done, because failure to do so would put us in danger of breaching the human rights convention and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to adjourn and to prorogue before next week's state opening when a group of individuals will be disenfranchised at an election in just two weeks' time. Those people are being stripped of their democratic right to cast a vote for a representative in this House, even after the Bill deprives them of their role in the legislative process.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Clause 4(3) of the House of Lords Bill, as amended, does not confer a right to vote on peers removed from the House of Lords by the Bill. Instead, it allows the Secretary of State to make an order to allow peers to vote. No such order has been made, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will shortly ask when such an order will be laid before us.
Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. It seems inconceivable that the Government have not produced that order. It has always been likely that the House of Lords Bill would be on the statute book by the time that we prorogued. The Government have had plenty of time to prepare regulations and place them before the House. For whatever reason, they have not done so, and they seem relaxed about disenfranchising individuals. The other place should amend the Bill to do the job that the Government have failed to do.
Mr. Fraser: The Government argue that it is not possible to update the electoral register. In fact, the Lords are already on it.
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not uncommon, if the Government find an argument difficult, for them to give it a gloss that has little relation to reality. In fact, the other place could easily amend the Bill. The electoral register came into force in February. Members of the other place were given a vote for the European elections, and they can vote in local elections. That proves that there is no problem with the register. The Lords are already on the register, though far from voting at a general election. The other place could amend the legislation today and send it back to us. Then, if we had not adjourned, we would be able to endorse what it had done, so that peers who will no longer be in another place after today could vote in the by-election.
Mr. Bercow: I am following the impeccable logic of my hon. Friend's thesis and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), but may I suggest another altogether more prosaic reason why the House should not adjourn yet? The other place will not meet and consider any messages that it might wish to send to us about last night's proceedings for about two and a half hours. In the light of the extraordinary ill grace with which the Government have treated the other place in recent times, is it not a matter of elementary courtesy that we should be here to deliberate upon, and
respond to, any messages, rather than obliging noble members of the other place to wait at least six days to hear of our consideration and our response?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows, as does every other Opposition Member, that sadly, over the past two and a half years, we have experienced a Government who have utter contempt for this Chamber. The Government would be more than happy if we adjourned immediately; we are considered a nuisance and an irritant, because we ask awkward questions and highlight the discrepancies and contradictions in what is, I gather, now known as "The Blair Project". The Government are so arrogant that they are not the slightest bit interested in anyone else's point of view.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me? I fail to see the logic of his position and that of his hon. Friends. My understanding of the motion on the Order Paper--[Hon. Members: "Hold it up; that is his script."] It is not a script, it is the Order Paper. My understanding of the motion before us is that Madam Speaker
- "shall not adjourn the House"--
Mr. Burns: I notice that, probably out of embarrassment caused by that inadequate intervention, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), is moving along the Bench away from the hon. Gentleman. Clearly she briefed him but he did not fully understand--now, obviously, she feels that, out of loyalty, to save his face, she must return and sit in front of him.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the motion says that we "shall not adjourn". If I did not understand that, Madam Speaker, you would not have allowed me to continue to contribute to the debate. I shall spell it out for the hon. Gentleman. I am arguing that it is right that the House should not adjourn until another place has had the opportunity to amend the legislation that we sent back to it last night. Then, the members of the other place who are to leave it for good when we prorogue would be able to vote in the Kensington and Chelsea by-election. So far, the Government have failed to place the regulations before the two Houses.
Mr. Gardiner:
So precisely what is the disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and the motion on the Order Paper? The motion says that the House should not adjourn, the implication being that it should suspend and therefore could be recalled at any time, should that become necessary.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) to wander around the Chamber, chatting to his friends and walking in front of those who are trying to address the Chair?
Madam Speaker:
Members very often move around this House, but it is better not to move in front of the person who is being addressed.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:--
The House proceeded to a Division--
Mr. Hawkins:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following earlier points of order about the Home Secretary's written answer this morning, I notice that it says:
Madam Speaker:
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware of our new procedures whereby it is possible to raise a point of order during a Division, but it must relate to the Division. Had he given me some indication of his point of order, I could have saved him from making it.
Mr. Joe Ashton (Bassetlaw):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The annunciator screen shows only the word "Closure", not "Division", and some hon. Members are not aware that a Division is in progress.
"The inquiry will be chaired by the noble Lords,"--
in the plural--
"Lord Burns."
That may be the result of the extreme haste with which the written answer was rushed out, but it occurs to me that, given that the other place is still considering the House of Lords Bill and the statement goes on to say that the other members of the inquiry will be announced later, even at this late stage, the Government might decide to retain in office some noble Lords so that they might be members of the inquiry, and that is another reason why you might feel that the Home Secretary should make a statement, Madam Speaker.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |