| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Why can we not be honest and remind people that the Prime Minister made
his position clear a week before the crucial February vote? He wanted a wholly appointed second Chamber, which is something that I repudiate. If there were a vote in the Labour party outside the Chamber, the overwhelming majority of people would vote for—
Mr. Prentice: If the party did not vote for abolition, it would vote for a wholly elected second Chamber.
Mr. Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend to let me finish? On the theme of honesty, I have in my hand the Labour party national policy forum consultation document on democracy and citizenship. It says, "We believe"—that includes people such as myself—that individuals should
- "govern their society effectively through democratic institutions."
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend expresses his frustrations, which I think are largely channelled toward the lack of consensus last February, because if his opinion had prevailed, progress could perhaps have been made. All hon. Members expressed their views—he expressed his, I expressed mine and the Prime Minister expressed his—but a majority was not achieved for any of the options proposed at the time. We therefore face the question of whether to keep or reject the hereditary peers. I believe that it is right to remove them.
Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough): I respect the Minister's attempts to argue his case, but Opposition Members and, especially, Labour Members, have pointedly made it clear time after time that it is to be welcomed if we take it for granted that we should get rid of the hereditaries. The argument then shifts to what we should do. Those of us who voted for an elected Chamber in February want another chance to have that vote. Why should I and other hon. Members not be given the chance to go for that option before the next general election? I have not heard a single argument this afternoon that has convinced me that I should be denied that right.
Mr. Leslie: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, we had a lengthy and detailed opportunity to resolve some of the questions in February this year and the House declined to resolve the matter. Should we spend our time constantly revisiting the issue, perhaps at the expense of other priorities? Our constituents want to us to consider public services and other constitutional matters too. We must have regard to the decisions that Parliament took on 4 February yet make progress on disqualifying Members of the House of Lords who are convicted of serious offences, on setting up the statutory appointments commission and on removing hereditaries from the second Chamber. Many of those commitments were in our manifesto, so we must be realistic about making progress when we can.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth): We are losing sight of the moves that we have already made to
reform the second Chamber, on which the Government should be congratulated. I take on board the comments that have been made about this House's desire for a proportion, if not all, of the second Chamber to be directly elected, but I take issue with my hon. Friend's points about composition. He agreed with the comment in the Joint Committee's report that the status quo of the composition of the House of Lords was undesirable. Maintaining that composition should not be an option rather than merely being "undesirable" because this House's will is that the status quo should not be an option.Secondly, the extended activities of the second Chamber have been mentioned and it has been stressed that the pre-eminence of this House must be uppermost in people's minds. Will my hon. Friend give another assurance that there will be no such extension in respect of financial matters, such as the Finance Bill, and that we will resist all calls from the second Chamber to extend its role in that way?
Mr. Leslie: I confirm that the Government oppose any diminution of our rights and privileges to constrain the second Chamber in respect of financial privilege. My hon. Friend quotes the Joint Committee report as saying that the status quo is undesirable. We agree with that. Of course, the hereditary element is a significant part of that composition, which is why we want to remove it.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we should recognise the great progress that has been made. We have already got rid of more than 600 hereditary peers, and my colleagues have had a significant role in achieving that. We have proposed a new Supreme
Court, abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor and the establishment of a new independent judicial appointments commission. We have also given devolution to the nations and regions. Our constitutional programme is significant, but we still need to move forward. That is exactly what the proposals suggest.
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): Delighted as I would be to see the back of the hereditary peers, and intrigued as I am at the prospect of Jeffrey Archer not only being removed from the House of Lords but applying to return to it—that really would be a work of fiction—is there not an enormous irony? Not only are the 92 hereditary peers the only elected Members of the second Chamber, but my hon. Friend's proposal is the least popular option in the House, the country and the parliamentary Labour party. Is he still open to proposals to improve this measly measure so that, for instance, we can get rid of the equally illegitimate bishops, who should no longer sit in the House of Lords, and provide for a third stage of House of Lords reform?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is eager for more reform and we intend to provide it in our proposals. I underline that we do not close the door to future consideration of composition. We will continue to listen and respond to proposals and to discuss the deliberations of the Joint Committee with it to discover whether a consensus can emerge. This is not the final stage, but we have to accept that the decisions of the February votes provide us with a need to achieve a stable and sustainable House of Lords for the time being. That is basically what the proposals in our documents do.
Points of Order
2.23 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise Government abuse of Standing Order No. 22? It was clear from my exchange with the Leader of the House earlier that he is not prepared to protect the interests of Back Benchers on such a vital matter. You will know that as a result of changes in Standing Orders, the privilege of Members to ask priority written questions has been restricted to five such questions on any one day, yet Ministers, who hitherto said that they were so hard pressed that such a restriction was necessary, are not answering the questions on the named day.
There may be an excuse for that if the question is complicated, but why cannot straightforward questions—such as one on the costs of policing the Labour party conference in Bournemouth, the answer to which is in excess of £1.9 million—be answered on the day on which they are asked? I have just been in touch with the private office of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. It is clear that the answer to a question that I tabled for answer today is not yet available. That question reads:
- "if he will attend a meeting with students to discuss top-up fees when he visits the University of Bournemouth in October."
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Mr. Speaker would clearly expect Ministers to respond in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. The fact that the matter has been raised will mean that Mr. Speaker will consider the points raised.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A constituent of mine, John Tero, developed cancer while he was in prison and is now desperately ill. He was also the victim of a miscarriage of justice, which makes his position more serious. Because of grave concerns about the way in which he was treated, I referred his complaint to the Prison Service ombudsman. Bearing in mind the roles
and responsibilities of ombudsmen, constituents and MPs, will you give a ruling on whether it was procedurally correct for the Home Office to make a statement to a radio station two days ago, giving the broad findings of the ombudsman's report, when, to my knowledge, the investigation has not been concluded and the complainant, my constituent, has not been consulted and is gravely ill?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Although that is not formally a point of order, Mr. Speaker is grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to his attention. I want to express Mr. Speaker's sympathy to the hon. Lady's constituent. Mr. Speaker would wish that the hon. Lady be given the opportunity to meet the Home Secretary to discuss the issues regarding the release of information from the ombudsman to the Home Office and its later transmission to the media before her constituent was informed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |