| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): I welcome last week's announcement that, as part of the White Paper discussions on the draft constitution, the Special Standing Committee will continue to meet during the intergovernmental conference debates. However, should the draft be accepted as it stands, given that some provisions have significant implications for the workings of Parliament? Will the Leader of the House find time in the coming months for a debate on the Floor of the House on the specific provisions that affect the workings of Parliament?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that that will be necessary at some point. I am in communication with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and others who are considering these matters. I think that my hon. Friend refers to the important advance for democracy represented by the new draft constitution, according to which national Parliaments, including our own House of Commons, will have the ability to vet any new proposals from the European Commission to assess whether they should be considered at the Brussels level or remain at the nation state level. That is an important step forward for democratic accountability between Europe and its member states. My hon. Friend played an important part in achieving it, but implementation in the House is ultimately a matter for the House.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): May I draw the Leader of the House's attention back to the points made
by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others about pension provisions for our staff? He gave the impression that the concerns have somehow been exaggerated or put up, but I suggest that that is entirely erroneous. Many members of our staff are very worried.The Leader of the House gave the impression that his door is always open, but he needs to be more proactive than that. We will be away for about three weeks and I suggest that he calls a meeting, perhaps with the director of finance and others, as soon as possible to clear up any of our staff's misunderstandings and to give them some guarantee about their future and their pensions.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I sought merely to dismiss the concerns. On the contrary, those concerns—I have heard about some of them—are legitimate. The Speaker's Advisory Panel discussed the matter last week and is well seized of the importance of ensuring that everything proceeds smoothly and that staff's concerns are listened to. I shall obviously keep a beady eye on that process on behalf of the House, and I shall report back or answer further questions in the future when the opportunity arises. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter again.
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in welcoming the outcome of the referendum in Sweden a few days ago, and I am sure that he, like myself, would want to ensure that, if the UK has a referendum on the euro, the UK electorate are as well informed as the Swedish people. Could we therefore have a debate not only on the single currency, but specifically on article 107? If it became law, it would become illegal for Parliament, the Assembly or local authorities to influence the decision makers, who are neither elected nor accountable, but merely a group of bankers.
Mr. Hain: The Swedish referendum on the euro was a matter for Swedes and the British referendum, if and when it comes, is a matter for Britons. We will do things in our own way according to the route map laid out by the Chancellor on 9 June, which will see increasing convergence between the British and eurozone economies. If, at the end of that process, the economic circumstances have fallen into place, we will indeed call a referendum and I am sure that we will win it.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): That route map set out by the Chancellor included a roadshow. I cannot believe that the Leader of the House, as one of the Government's leading euro enthusiasts, has not been invited to take part, so can he tell us how many events he has participated in since the roadshow was launched? That would scotch rumours that the roadshow does not exist.
Mr. Hain: The Treasury has already done 55 presentations around the country on the euro. I myself chaired—[Interruption.] Well, I was asked a question, and I am about to give the answer. I chaired a meeting of the Wales euro preparation committee in July—[Interruption.] Indeed, and I am going to chair another meeting of that committee next week. The truth is that
this is a matter of live debate. The Treasury is consulting extensively around the country. In the end, Opposition Members can laugh and jeer, but their policy is to deprive the British people of the opportunity to vote on joining the euro, even if it is in our economic interest or the interest of our jobs and prosperity to do so. They all say "no"—never, ever—dogmatically and on principle. That is not a common-sense position. Ours is the sensible position: to prepare and decide when the economic circumstances are correct.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the New Testament, specifically to Luke, chapter 15, verse 7:
- "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."?
Mr. Hain: There are sinners and saints on both sides of the argument. I shall repeat a reply that I gave earlier: if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions about adjusting or improving the position, my door is open. That is how to move forward, but I repeat that the House took a decision for the rest of this Parliament. Such decisions should not be lightly swept aside. They should be respected and it is my duty to respect them.
Andrew George (St. Ives): Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall have an adequate opportunity properly to scrutinise regulations as they go through the House? I refer to the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which my right hon. Friends and I prayed against on 9 June this year and was debated in Committee this Monday. The Minister said that the
- "40-day period has passed so annulment is not possible."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 September 2003; c. 14.]
Mr. Hain: It is neither cynical—who would ever accuse business managers of being cynical—nor incompetent. I will look into the matter and I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I reject the suggestion of ulterior motives that he ascribes to the episode.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the third report of the Health Committee, which was published earlier this summer, on the subject of sexual health. The report begins with a
significant quotation from Dr. Helen Lacey, who is the consultant in charge of the sexual health clinic at Fairfield hospital in my constituency. She is concerned about the current crisis in sexual health and she tells me that my constituency has seen a 300 per cent. increase in the occurrence of certain sexually transmitted infections in the past four years. The burden of that increase often falls on vulnerable young women and is frequently caused by the reluctance of young people, parents and teachers to discuss those issues, so does my right hon. Friend agree that this House could set an example by holding a debate on the Committee's report at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Hain: That is an important issue and I will look into my hon. Friend's request. I know of the fine work that is done in his constituency. We are all concerned about the matter, and I am grateful that he has raised it.
Constitutional Reforms
1.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): With permission, I wish to repeat a statement made in the other place today by my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton about further reforms to the House of Lords, and on the office of Lord Chancellor.
The Government are today publishing two consultation papers on the next steps on House of Lords reform; and on the functions of the Lord Chancellor. Copies of both papers are available in the Vote Office. The papers form another significant part of the present phase of constitutional reform on which the Government embarked last summer, with the creation of a Department for Constitutional Affairs to take overall responsibility for the issues.
May I begin by apologising to the House because a report of the proposals appeared in a Sunday newspaper? I can assure the House that no one in my Department was authorised to speak to the press on the subject. It has always been the Government's intention to ensure that Parliament should hear first about the proposals.
I shall deal first with our proposals for further reform of the House of Lords. Last February, both Houses voted on the range of options for the composition of the second Chamber proposed by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Their lordships voted three to one in favour of an appointed House. In this House, there was no majority for any of the options. The Joint Committee, in its second report published on 9 May, reflected on the outcome of the parliamentary votes and concluded that
- "simply to maintain the status quo"
In those circumstances, we intend to make progress where we can. The Government therefore propose further reforms to ensure that we have a stable and sustainable House of Lords. It was never our intention that the remaining hereditary peers should remain members of the House of Lords for ever. When the interim arrangement was reached, as well as the immediate benefit of the agreement, we accepted the argument that the presence of the remaining hereditary peers would act as an incentive to further reform. That has not happened: there is no clear consensus in Parliament on the way forward. So the context for reform has clearly and significantly changed. The circumstances that gave rise to the original arrangement over the remaining hereditary peers no longer apply. The solution, which the remaining hereditary peers were there to help seek, is no longer available. The Government must act, and act decisively, to bring about stability and sustainability.
It is for the Government to act, but it is for Parliament to decide. It will be for Parliament as a whole to decide on the removal of the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and to vote. Therefore, the next step of our reform programme will be to introduce legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to remove the right of the remaining 92 hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, thus completing that element of the reform process on which we embarked in 1997.
In moving on from the current arrangement, the Government wish to pay tribute to the contribution that those 92 peers make to the other place. Many of them are among its most active and effective members. The Government hope that Parliament might continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them should they be nominated as life peers in the future.
We shall set up a statutory commission to select and oversee appointments that are made to the House of Lords. It will build on the present non-statutory Appointments Commission, which itself represented a significant voluntary relinquishing by the Prime Minister of his powers of patronage. The statutory commission will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in response to an address from Parliament. The three major parties in this House and the Cross-Bench peers will be directly represented on it, together with a number of members selected in accordance with the principles of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in an open selection process. The Government will discuss with the Opposition parties how they might best be involved in the selection process. The Commission's funding and accountability arrangements will maximise its independence from the Government. The consultation document asks for views on various detailed aspects of those arrangements.
We propose that the functions of the commission will be threefold. First, it will decide on the number and timing of new appointments to the House of Lords. This will be a massive—and voluntary—diminution in the Prime Minister's influence over the membership of the Second Chamber. In making its decisions in relation to political appointments, the commission would be subject to two main guidelines. They are that the Government of the day should not have an overall majority in the Lords; and that appointments for the parties should have regard to the outcome of the previous general election. The commission will also be expected to provide that appointments to the Cross Benches should average 20 per cent. of appointments over the lifetime of a Parliament. The Commission's second function would be to nominate the non-party peers, and thirdly, it would vet the nominations for party peers for propriety.
In the meantime, the existing non-statutory Appointments Commission will continue its work, of which the Prime Minister has already expressed the Government's appreciation. The Prime Minister will invite it to make recommendations for new non-party peers until the new statutory commission is in place.
We also propose to bring the rules for disqualification from membership of the House of Lords, in respect of detention following conviction for an offence, into line with those for the House of Commons. We do not believe that the difference of treatment can any longer be justified. We therefore propose that in the future such peers will forfeit their membership of the House of Lords exactly as they would if they were MPs. In addition, they will be deprived of their peerage. The provision will have retrospective effect. Parliament is a privilege, not a possession. Such peers will, of course, be free to seek renewed membership of the second Chamber, by applying to the Appointments Commission or their party, as relevant, for nomination, just as former MPs can seek re-election.
We propose that life peers, like hereditary peers before them, should in future be able to resign their peerages and membership of the House of Lords. That is a fairer and more reasonable arrangement that will allow those who feel they wish to move on and no longer sit in the second Chamber the opportunity to do so.
Nothing in the proposals relates to the powers of the House of Lords. We are not proposing any extension of the role of the second Chamber. For example, the traditional role of the Lords in relation to Finance Bills is clear and works well, its powers being constrained by the Parliament Act 1911 and Commons financial privilege established by resolutions in the 17th century. I am sure their lordships would not seek to extend their powers, for example in respect of Supply. The House of Commons should and must remain pre-eminent in our constitutional arrangements.
On further reform of the House of Lords, we will continue to look for a way forward. We will discuss any possible next steps with the current Joint Committee and how it can contribute.
Taken together, the changes amount to a substantial set of reforms to the House of Lords. When added to our previously announced decisions to set up a separate supreme court, and to remove the office of Lord Chancellor, thus leading to reform of the office of Speaker, they will create a House that is significantly different from that which currently exists.
The Government are also publishing today a consultation paper on the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor. Work to bring to an end the multiple roles of the Lord Chancellor is already well advanced. The Secretary of State is formally inviting views on the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage, his visitatorial responsibilities and other functions relating to specific charities, schools and other institutions.
The proposals the Government announce today are part of the programme of constitutional reforms that we have been pursuing since 1997. They will contribute to the further strengthening of Parliament. Alongside our earlier reforms of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act 1998 and freedom of information, they will take their place in the shaping of our nation, to make the institutions of the state fit and responsive to the demands of our citizens in the modern world.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |