---

3.31 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I will not respond to that last remark by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson).

I am delighted to contribute to the debate. A number of us contribute regularly to these debates. Unlike so many other occasions in the Chamber, I am impressed by the sincerity of the contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House; there is little artificiality.

I want to pick out three contributions by hon. Members who referred to the Iraq war. Although the contributions were different, they were all sincere. I hope hon. Members accept that my colleagues and I acknowledge the sincerity of others on the subject. I hope that that will be reciprocated. I do not think that people have been opportunistic—the issue is very important. It is, perhaps, the biggest that most of us will face in our political lifetimes. Hon. Members have genuinely felt it necessary to take a particular approach in difficult circumstances. I do not think that it is so much a case of deliberately deluding other people as a case of self-delusion. It is important for us to remember that.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said. She reflected the important deep-seated concerns of many of our fellow citizens. That is summed up appositely by a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rodric Braithwaite, who said in the Financial Times on 10 July:

"Fishmongers sell fish: warmongers sell wars."

It is all too easy for those who have adopted an attitude to find good reasons to support it. That is not necessarily an exaggeration. Inevitably, if one has taken up a position, one tends to emphasise the things that support it rather than the things that oppose it. I recognised the sincerity of all three hon. Members who talked about Iraq.

The hon. Member for Halifax also referred to sleep-related driving accidents, which is another important issue. I have worked with her and the excellent pressure group, Brake. It is a sad fact that 20 per cent. of accidents on motorways are due to sleep-related tendencies. That is serious.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Tibet—[Hon. Members: "Tibet?"] I mean the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), who spoke eloquently on behalf of the people of Tibet. He was right. It would be a great mistake for the

17 Jul 2003 : Column 494

Prime Minister not to take the opportunity to represent the views of the forgotten people of Tibet when he meets the Chinese leadership. We all hope that the UK Government will continue to give robust and consistent support for the Dalai Lama, who has been put in a difficult position by recent developments.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) drew an interesting parallel between the issues that related to his constituency, all of which seemed to be about consultation. It is a feature of discussion on occasions like this that we are all concerned about the extent to which quite complicated proposals are put before us and before our constituents, but often in a way that either makes a fait accompli seem to be inevitable or, perhaps in some circumstances, makes it impossible for us to make a reasonable and intelligent contribution to an ongoing decision-making process.

That is true for the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I have followed him on four or five occasions in this sort of debate. On one occasion he was not in the Chamber when I had prepared my comments about what he would say, in anticipation. Although his efforts on behalf of the royal hospital have not been fully successful, the very fact that he has been persistent in seeking to draw the attention of all authorities at all levels to that centre of excellence has had an impact. However, there will now be a period of indecision. That is one of the problems of trying to hold back an unwelcome decision. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the special expertise that the defence medical team has had at the royal hospital, and moving it to Birmingham will inevitably be dislocating in the literal sense. I recognise that that is a real problem, but it is one that we all face.

Every time we challenge an apparent decision that is put before us, we shall inevitably increase the period of indecision. That is a price that we have to pay, but one that as local representatives we are only too willing to pay in most circumstances, if it results in a better decision in the longer term.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) talked about referenda. I hate the word referendums; it does not sound right. I thought that the hon. Lady was rather pushing her luck when she said that she was against a referendum on regional devolution but she would argue vociferously against the proposal that would be put forward. That sounds like not having one's cake and not eating it. That is an extraordinary attitude. If there is not to be a referendum, the hon. Lady would not have the opportunity to advance her argument.

Geraldine Smith : I said that I was against a referendum in the north-west at this moment because there are more important issues to deal with such as health, education, crime and antisocial behaviour, and because there was no support for a referendum.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Lady also said that she would argue strongly against it. If she did not have a referendum, she would not have that opportunity. She said that she was against all referenda, before she came to that section of her speech. I made a careful note. She said that she was against referenda. She also said that she was against a referendum on the European Union

17 Jul 2003 : Column 495

constitution because it would be premature. That is perfectly reasonable, but there may come an opportunity and a moment when we have to have recourse to the British people, to give them an opportunity to express themselves. I believe that that is highly likely, and so do my colleagues. For the hon. Lady to say in advance that we do not know what is in it and therefore we should not have a referendum is just as absurd as saying, "We don't know what is in it, therefore we should have a referendum." Clearly we should wait to see what the question is, and then decide how best to put it to the British people.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—this is a subject that I have heard him speak about before—

Mr. Bercow It is pronounced Ryeslip.

Mr. Tyler: I come from the far Celtic west and I confess that I do not know where these places are.

The issue was, of course, consultation. I accept very much what the hon. Gentleman said. I know a little about Harefield because some of my constituents have benefited from the extraordinary professionalism and skills at Harefield hospital. I am not so well aware of Mount Vernon hospital. However, that would seem to be another example where consultation is at the key of what will happen. Of course, in such a case, it is a matter of consultation not only within the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the immediate area around it; so many people, including some of my constituents, have benefited from the high quality of service at these hospitals.

In a sense, this is a half-term report. Unfortunately, I do not have an opportunity at the end of the debate to speak on behalf of my colleagues. However, I respect what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said about the debate on 18 March. It was a seminal moment for the House. There was not a free vote exactly, but it became a real debate. The hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the arguments and he took a view. I respect his sincerity. His view happened to be the same as mine. I equally respect the sincerity of those who took a different view, having listened to the debate.

On that occasion—I give credit to the Government in this respect—we clipped the wings of the royal prerogative. I doubt whether any future Prime Minister could possibly go to war—could send troops from this country to any major hostilities—without coming to the House for a definitive debate and a definitive vote. That is an important step forward for all of us who believe that parliamentary democracy should be strengthened.

I should like to put in my two-penn'orth now, and deal with my own hobby horse. I would like to tell the House a cautionary tale. Last Wednesday, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister. It happened to be the day on which, by firm convention, the Government should have given the House its response to proposals by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. They had two months to respond, but did not do so. As I said in business questions, they gave their response yesterday, and it was published at midnight.

17 Jul 2003 : Column 496

I therefore asked the Prime Minister

"how he intends to fulfil the undertaking to make the House of Lords more representative and democratic."

In his response, the Prime Minister did not shuffle the matter sideways, as has often been the case in the past, but said:

"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on 7 July".—[Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 853W.]

I therefore looked at the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who asked the Prime Minister

"what plans he has to ensure that political opinion in Northern Ireland is proportionately represented in the House of Lords."

The answer was:

"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 15 January".—[Official Report, 7 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 617–18W.]

I went back again and found that on that occasion the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—I am sorry that he is not here—asked the Prime Minister

"if it is his policy that the political balance of the House of Lords should be maintained prior to the implementation of legislation completing the second stage of reform."

The Prime Minister replied:

"While the way forward on reform of the House of Lords is still under consideration, arrangements for identifying new members of the House remain unchanged. Membership of the House is kept under ongoing review."—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 632.]

I should like to make two points to the House. First, those are three very different questions. Even if the first answer was right, it is clearly not right for the other two questions. Secondly, and much more importantly, since that first question and answer, we have had a major debate in both Houses and a major Division in the Commons, substantially rejecting the option of a fully appointed upper Chamber, which was promoted by the Prime Minister in concert with the then Lord Chancellor. There were 78 votes against that option—the biggest majority of the evening. Moreover, the Joint Committee has undertaken a careful analysis of the position and reported to the House. The Prime Minister, however, ignored that, because he referred me to an answer that preceded all those events.

I am not someone who thinks that the Prime Minister treats the House of Commons as a doormat, although I know that some Members think so. However, that is heavy and substantial evidence of the Prime Minister's level of respect not just for what is said in the House, but for its votes. The House voted firmly and securely against a fully appointed House of Lords and, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said immediately after my contribution to business questions this afternoon, the House clearly does not want a House full of Tony's cronies—we do not want a fully appointed upper House. However, the paper published by the Lord Chancellor today talks about a House that in the medium term, and not just the short term, would get rid of the remaining 92 hereditary peers and appoint all its Members. With that proposal for a fully appointed House of Lords, he is telling the House of Commons, "I do not care what you think".

17 Jul 2003 : Column 497

The attitude of some hon. Members to House of Lords reform, and especially its electoral aspects, has been conditioned by the concern that the Commons should remain pre-eminent. We have all heard that argument, but what does it say about the Government's respect for that view if, when the Commons votes against a fully appointed upper Chamber, they say, "To hell with you, we do not care what you think"? It is a ridiculous situation, and as soon as we return from the recess we must take the issue very seriously indeed.

---