| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Opposition Day
[17th Allotted Day]
Parliament and the Executive
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I shall have to put a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back-Bench Members.
1.45 pm
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): I beg to move,
- That this House believes that Parliament is the essential and definitive link between citizen and government and should remain the institution at the heart of the nation's democratic system; regrets the accelerated loss of power and influence from Parliament to the Executive since 1997, rendering Parliament less able to hold government to account; and calls for the urgent introduction of the reforms necessary to reassert the authority of the House and to reverse the bypassing and undermining of Parliament in recent years.
Every informed commentator, every constitutional expert and every parliamentarian who is being honest with themselves believes that Parliament has been steadily diminished and is no longer able to do its job properly. The reason that this matters to everyone outside this building, as well as everyone inside it--
Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East) rose--
Mr. Hague: I shall make a little progress, and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
The reason it matters is this: only in a country with a strong Parliament is there genuine representative democracy; only with a strong Parliament is there good and accountable government; only with a strong Parliament is law making both robust and sensitive; and only with a strong Parliament do the people of that country have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.
It is true that Parliament's power to hold the Executive to account has been declining for over a century under Governments of all political persuasions; but it is also true that the present Government have done more than any other in living memory to create a Parliament that bows and scrapes to Ministers, that nods through complicated and important legislation with only cursory investigation, that lets Departments get away with poorly drafted and ill-thought-through laws, that is sidelined and marginalised from the national political debate, and that absconds from its democratic responsibility of holding the Executive to account.
That is not just a Conservative view. Let us hear from the Labour party's own former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster):
- I said that this place must never be the Prime Minister's poodle. Unfortunately, it has become so.--[Official Report, 13 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 259.]
-
Or let us listen to someone who has spent much of his professional life following our proceedings from the Press Gallery--Robin Oakley. This is what he wrote in The House Magazine:
In over 30 years reporting Parliament I can never recall a time when the proceedings have been
- The executive . . . cares little for Parliament . . . unless the government begins to respect the Commons more, will anybody else begin to do so?
Mr. Hague: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice).
Ms Bridget Prentice: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
If this place is so important for scrutinising the Executive, why has the right hon. Gentleman not called a debate on the economy and on the new deal on employment?
Mr. Hague: The Opposition hold debates about a range of issues on every possible day that is allocated to them in the House of Commons. We ask the Prime Minister about every single issue, but we do not receive an answer on many. That is our duty, and we try to carry it out.
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said in a recent debate, because this is not a concern of one side of the House alone:
- All Members of Parliament understand that we got here with the support of party politicians and need to defend particular party political views, but we also have a duty to ordinary men and women who have let this Parliament grow up over 900 years . . .
Parliament is not a rubber stamp for the arrangements of Executives or of Front Benchers . . . If . . . those groups succeed in getting what they want, we shall know that Parliament no longer represents the interests of the United Kingdom.--[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 687-8.]
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) rose--
Mr. Hague: I will give way again in a moment. I intend to give way many times and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have finished this point.
The Government's amendment also talks about devolution to Scotland and to Wales. We can debate the merits of all those things, but the House of Commons remains the keystone of democratic accountability in this country. [Interruption.] It is by voting for Members of our House that our fellow citizens believe that they can make a difference to how they are governed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that this debate will proceed better with less barracking and less shouting on either side. We want to hear the debate.
Mr. Hague: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will give way again in a moment.
Millions more people vote in the elections for this House than for any other elected institution. For most people in Britain, this House is the one connection between the opinions they hold and the actions of their Government. When this House is diminished, marginalised or sidelined, democracy itself is harmed. A weak or frightened House of Commons saps public confidence in the political process.
Mr. Salmond: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's case that that is surely a function of the Government's large majority based on a minority of the vote? In the Scots Parliament recently, we had an occasion when the Executive parties--Labour and the Liberals--tried to delay a Bill to abolish warrant sales. They were overturned by a parliamentary majority. That was possible because that Parliament has proportional representation and a balanced system. If the right hon. Gentleman wants this Parliament to do the same thing, why does he not support proportional representation?
Mr. Hague: Because this House must be the connection between the votes of the voters and how they are governed. Only in our electoral system is there the connection between how people cast their votes and which Government hold office--a view I know that the Home Secretary holds to dearly. Opposition would sometimes achieve more in the House of Commons if all the members of minority parties were regular in their attendance.
Mr. Hague: The time has come--[Interruption.] I am glad to have generated so much interest. I will give way again in a moment.
The time has come to arrest the steady diminishment of the House. The time has come to stop the increasing power of the Executive.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford) rose--
Mr. Hague: I will give way again in a moment. The time has come to stop the sidelining of Parliament. New reforms are proposed in the name of modernisation which will increase the power of the Executive and diminish and sideline our Parliament yet further. Unless Members of Parliament speak out now, it will be too late to do so.
Ms Ward: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he thinks that it is so important to have a presence to hold the Government accountable, why is no Conservative Member of Parliament in the top 200 for attendance at votes in the House?
Mr. Hague: I saw that someone had done a little research on voting records, so I did a little research of my own. In fact, I compared the voting records of the Cabinet with those of the shadow Cabinet. The Chancellor has voted in 18 per cent. of Divisions--[Interruption.] I am coming to the Back Benchers. The hon. Lady asked about Conservative Members, and I think that Labour Members should have the information.
So far this year, the Chancellor has voted in 18 per cent. of Divisions, and the shadow Chancellor in 53 per cent. The Home Secretary voted in 43 per cent.
of Divisions, the shadow Home Secretary in 51 per cent. The Foreign Secretary voted in 15 per cent. of Divisions, the shadow Foreign Secretary in 53 per cent. Shall I go on? Would right hon. and hon. Members like more information? [Hon. Members: "More."] The Education Secretary voted in 27 per cent., the shadow Education Secretary in 58 per cent. The Agriculture Minister voted in 43 per cent., the shadow Agriculture Minister in 50 per cent. The Culture Secretary voted in 38 per cent., the shadow Culture Secretary in 51 per cent. The importance of these figures to the hon. Lady is that it is not Ministers who stay here and vote but the mugs on the Back Benches whom they rely on to do it. [Interruption.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |