| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale): Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents and me that he will not be bowed by the outrageous coalition in the House of Lords? When the Opposition campaign in our constituencies they say that they are trying to fight crime, yet they are doing exactly the opposite in the House of Lords.
Mr. Hain: Absolutely. My hon. Friend provides me with an opportunity to expose, as she did, the double standards of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who claim on the ground and in some of their public statements to be fighting crime, but who vote against measures that fight crime much more effectively.
On jury nobbling, 119 Tories and 53 Liberal Democrats voted against the Government. The truth is, this is not about the sensitivities of Cross Benchers, who were more or less evenly divided on each of the key votes. Nor is it about another spurious argument that was dragged into the debate yesterday—the outrageous attempt to suggest that some Members of this House are more equal than others when voting on Government legislation and matters before the House. These specious allegations seek to camouflage a carefully planned operation orchestrated by the new Leader of Opposition to sabotage the Government's fight against crime and frustrate health service modernisation.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): Would the Leader of the House comment on the views of that great conspirator, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said that if there had been a free vote only 50 Labour Members would have supported the Government's proposals on foundation hospitals? Is not the truth that the Government Whips are forcing through a measure that nobody in the House wants?
Mr. Hain: That is curious behaviour from the shadow Leader of the House with pretensions to be in government—he thinks that there should be free votes on key flagship Government legislation. What a shambles—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The shouting in the Chamber is so loud that sometimes I cannot hear the hon. Members who are speaking—[Interruption.] It is my duty to listen.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham): Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Steinberg: As one of the nobblers who voted against the Government, I promise the Leader of the House that I will not vote against the Government. [Hon. Members: "Groveller!"] Yes, I always grovel, especially to you lot. I shall certainly not vote against the Government, because it is quite outrageous that this has become party political. Even though I disagree wholeheartedly with the Government's policy on foundation hospitals, the will on this side of the House is that it should become law. Although I shall not vote for that, I shall certainly not oppose the Government on the issue any more.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he and colleagues on the Government Back Benches have sincerely held differences of opinion. However, the issue is not about sincerely held differences of opinion any more—it is about an unelected House of Lords defying the will of the elected House of Commons to take these matters forward.
Clive Efford (Eltham): Is my right hon. Friend aware that rumours are circulating that negotiations are taking place in the other place on a deal or bargain to win concessions from the Government? Does that not demonstrate sheer opportunism? I speak as someone who voted against the Government last night, but what happened in the Lords was not the result of a principled position in any way whatsoever—it was just an attempt to thwart the Government with an unelected Tory majority in the Lords. Will my right hon. Friend promise that in the Queen's Speech next week there will be an opportunity to discuss future reform of the House of Lords and have a free vote on its abolition?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Leader of the House continues, the House should remember that there is a motion before us, and we cannot go too wide of it.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following directly from what you have just helpfully said, you will, I hope, confirm that in the ensuing debate, in which I hope to catch your eye, there will be a full opportunity to explore the areas opened up by the Leader of the House as part of our response to what he said about the motion.
Mr. Speaker: I do not like to give the right hon. Gentleman assurances before he has delivered his speech. Let me hear what he has got to say—I can always stop him in full flow.
Mr. Hain: I, too, look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has to say.
I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), as clarity is now developing on the real issues that are at stake.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have the Division list from yesterday.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said that he voted against the Government, but looking at the list, I cannot find him there.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House should speak first.
Mr. Hain: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) wants to intervene, and I am happy to allow him to do so.
Paul Flynn: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been very generous in giving way.
As someone who has consistently voted against both the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, and did so again yesterday, I assure the Leader of the House that what is before us has now changed utterly. We are not talking for or against Bills—we are voting for which House is supreme. The House of Commons has spoken on those two Bills. I and many others will respect that and not vote against the Bills again.
Mr. Hain: I was about to come on to that very point, and am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification.
I am explaining the issue by speaking directly to the motion, because it is important that the House understand why the Government have found it necessary to introduce the motion.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) rose—
Mr. Hain: I shall give way again to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) in a minute, and also to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
The public have a right to know that the Opposition voted to allow juries to be nobbled. They also have a right to know that the Opposition voted to enable rich fraudsters to evade imprisonment by dragging out court proceedings, costing taxpayers tens of millions of pounds that should be spent on locking up criminals, not allowing them to get away scot-free. In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, the public have a right to know that, having lost the last two elections by huge majorities, the Tories have given up on democracy and are now ruthlessly manipulating their power in the Lords to defeat an elected House of Commons.
Mr. Stunell: The Leader of the House is deploying a series of irrational arguments to justify something. There is one Bill before the House that was not in the Labour manifesto. A large number of his Back-Bench colleagues voted against it and his colleagues in the House of Lords were divided on it. The Leader of the House has come to the House with a strange argument and is trying to reassure his Back Benchers of its
legitimacy. Will he assure the House that he will base our debate on the merits of the case for the Bills that he is talking about?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot debate the Bills now: there is a motion before us. I advise right hon. and hon. Members to examine the terms of the motion. [Interruption.] Order. I can hear the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) giving good advice on sticking to the terms of the motion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): And I am quite happy to be here on Monday and Tuesday.
Mr. Hain: As ever, my hon. Friend sticks to the terms of the motion.
In response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove: do the Liberal Democrats have a new policy to favour the supremacy of the House of Lords over the elected will of the House of Commons? That is what the motion is about. It is about the fact that the public have a right to know that Conservative peers have been acting under close instruction from the new Conservative leader in the House of Commons, who, because he knows that he cannot defeat the Government in the Commons, is deliberately organising defeats in the Lords, where the Labour Government have only 28 per cent. of the vote. If the leader of the Tories wants to provoke days of reckoning on fighting crime, on delivering better health services, and on the fundamental constitutional and democratic right of an elected Government to have the will of the Commons prevail over an unelected, undemocratic Lords, we are up for it. We are up for it today, we are up for it on Monday and we will be up for it on Tuesday, too. We will run this right up to the wire of Prorogation in time for Her Majesty to deliver her speech on Wednesday.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |