| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House is not giving way. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Order.
Mr. Hain: I have already given way generously. If I have time, I will do so again.
I trust that everybody understands what is at stake here. This has gone way beyond sincerely held differences on the detail of both Bills: it is about a naked and unprecedented attempt to block the will of the people, who want fraudsters and jury nobblers to be jailed, not let off—of a public who want better health services and do not want them to fail so that the Conservatives have an excuse to pursue their agenda of privatisation and charging for health. I repeat what health Ministers said last night: no matter how many times the Bill goes back to the Commons, it will come back with clause 1 and schedule 1 on foundation hospitals reinstated.
Let us remind ourselves, too, that the House of Lords has not been engaged in revising legislation—it is not a case of carrying out its normal duties to scrutinise and constructively to revise—because we have already accepted 90 amendments to part 1, on foundation hospitals.
Mr. Heald: Will the Leader of the House give way?
This is a naked attempt to thwart the democratic decisions of elected Members of Parliament on the instructions of the Tory high command in the Commons—a new, irresponsible and extremist Tory high command; and here is one of them.
Mr. Heald: If it is right that the Government made 90 amendments as a result of the House of Lords amendments that brought them to their senses, how can the Leader of the House say that the Lords are not doing a worthwhile job? Of course they are —they are revising the legislation and making the Government think again.
Mr. Hain: I am distinguishing between a situation where the Lords carry out their proper constitutional duties and the situation where, in an unprecedented fashion, and having clearly decided to confront the will of the elected Chamber, they simply adjourn, thereby denying the Government the chance to take the initiative.
It is important for the House to know, and vital to our understanding of the motion, that two crucial pieces of legislation are at risk. If we lost the Health and Social Care Bill, the results would be: a delay in implementing the new GP contract agreed with the British Medical Association; the loss to the national health service of up to £150 million a year through the provisions relating to the injury cost recovery scheme; the loss of the new provisions on NHS dentistry; the loss of the reform of the welfare food scheme; and the loss of the independent inspectorates. And if we lost the Criminal Justice Bill, that would mean not only a continuation of jury tampering and a free ride for fraudsters, but the loss of these measures: tougher sentences for murder, especially "life meaning life" for premeditated child murders; longer sentences for dangerous sex offenders; longer sentences for violent offenders; longer sentences for dangerous drivers who kill; five-year minimum sentences for gun offences; a crackdown on bail bandits to tackle reoffending on bail; more drug testing and drug treatment—
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is not the purpose of the motion to discuss the merits of the Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I think that the point is that the Leader of the House was not actually discussing the merits of the Bill.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker—I was seeking to make clear to the House, as I am entitled to, the consequences of proceeding down the course that the Conservative Opposition want to take.
If we lost the Bill, we would also lose more powers for the police in their fight against crime and terrorism, and the possibility of giving the police, prisons, probation service and victims a voice in sentencing for the first time ever.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, procedurally speaking, there is no need for the
Government to lose any Bills? If they simply accept the view of the Opposition, the Liberal party and House of Lords, the Bills will go through.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not, and never has been, appropriate for the person in this Chair to get involved in the debate.
Mr. Hain: I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman that what is at stake here is whether an elected Government with a majority in the Commons are able to carry on with a programme of fighting crime or whether the Conservative Opposition, with their Liberal Democrat allies, are going to thwart us in that objective.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Prime Minister himself voted to keep an unelected Chamber and wants an unelected Chamber to remain?
Mr. Hain: The House of Lords needs reform, and it will be reformed. We are talking about an unelected, undemocratic House of Lords—
Mr. Hain: It is very interesting that the Opposition are engaged in trying to wreck two crucial pieces of legislation on fighting crime and on health service reform and investment. That is their agenda.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I will not give way any more.
Let us be clear that where Labour is tough on crime, the Tories are weak on crime. Where Labour wants better health service delivery, the Tories want to cut health services, forcing people to pay for vital operations and go private.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is putting forward a number of extremely tendentious arguments regarding the constitutional position. Is it not correct that the Parliament Acts are available if the Government wish to use them?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that in no way is the occupant of this Chair drawn into the debate.
Mr. Hain: Of course, the Parliament Acts are available to any Government at any time, in particular circumstances, but we are not seeking to go down that road—we hope that the House of Lords will co-operate constructively, as, traditionally, it often has. If it does not, there will be serious consequences.
Where the Labour Government are for democracy, the Tories are for privilege and elitism. We are happy to fight them on that new ground, because we know that the people will be with us on cracking down on crime
and on better health services. The Tories may be able to defeat us in a House of Lords full of their supporters and hereditary peers, but they will not defeat us where it really matters: where the people have a vote in the next general election. Passing this motion leads us on the road to that victory.1.39 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): The Government are as intransigent as they are incompetent. The Leader of the House has created delight from Bromley to Bolsover by saying in the motion that we should sit for two more days. I want to take him up on his point that the House of Lords had considered these matters and that, over a period of some days, persuaded the Government to accept 90 amendments to the Bills. He is now telling us, however, that the House of Lords is full of arrogance for standing up against the Commons. Why does he say that?
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The Leader of the House says that that is the case because the House of Lords decided to adjourn at 11 o'clock last night, yet the Government spend all their time telling us that we should finish work at 7 o'clock every evening. In fact, we are about to lose the opportunity to use the Smoking Room after 8 o'clock because of the changes in hours that the Government have made.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): The House made those changes.
Mr. Heald: No, no. The former Leader of the House of Lords always used to argue that it was right for the House of Lords to have sensible sitting hours, yet when it suits the Government, they say that the Lords should sit all night. What sort of reform of the House of Lords is the Leader of the House of Commons talking about? He wants a House full of Tony's cronies. Even if the Government's reform to remove the hereditaries from the Lords had been made, they would still have lost every vote yesterday, because we were not relying on the support of the hereditaries to win them—we were relying on the support of Members on both sides of the House of Lords. Furthermore, in yesterday's debate on foundation hospitals it was very revealing that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that only 50 Labour MPs supported the Government's policy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |