| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bell: That is certainly the case. Many years ago Laurence Olivier was made a peer. He never showed up at all until his wife, Vivien Leigh, threatened to disrupt the proceedings. He had not even signed the form, but he thought he had better show up. At the Labour party
conference in 1977, Jack Jones asked about the origins of the peers and the liaisons in the time of Charles I from which the descendants are now profiting. I will not discuss the composition of the Lords, but I will answer one point that was made in relation to the debate.It was suggested that I had said that we should create Labour peers. I never said that at all. I said we should create sufficient peers so that the will of this House will be respected in another place. That is the essence of our short debate today.
Mr. Burns: May I remind the hon. Gentleman, as he seems to have forgotten, that it was under the premiership of the Baroness Thatcher that the House of Lords refused to accept the War Crimes Bill, and we had to use the Parliament Act to get it through?
Mr. Bell: I am one of the few Members of Parliament who, on the day Lady Thatcher retired from the House, praised her for her contribution, much to the chagrin of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as I well remember. The question was whether she had been the greatest Prime Minister since the war. My response was that the greatest Prime Minister since the war was Clement Attlee.
On the War Crimes Bill, I remember that well. I was one of those who, with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), sought to push it through and congratulated everyone when it was pushed through. But we are not dealing with that.
Whether we are under a Conservative or a Labour Government, the supremacy of the House cannot be challenged. Yet we see it being challenged even now. We sign sessional orders every time we open a new Parliament, so that we have access to the building. Hon. Members may have seen from their e-mails that certain entrances will be closed today. That is an infringement of the rights of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Blunt: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the House of Lords is not entitled to exercise its powers, as they exist under the Parliament Act?
Mr. Bell: There is such a thing as abuse of power. What we are seeing today and what we saw last night are clear abuses of power by the other place towards an elected Chamber. That shows disrespect to every Member of the House who was duly elected by the people of our country to govern the country. The legislation of which we were speaking, which I will not get into, is supported by the Cabinet and by the Commons, and the Lords are challenging it. That is an abuse of power, not a use of power.
Mr. Bryant: Is it not one of the greatest ironies of history that for the most part, the Parliament Act has had to be used on issues on which there had been free votes in the House but the Lords decided to throw the legislation out? A classic example is the Hunting Bill. Should the Lords not bow down and listen to the will of the democratically elected Members of the Commons?
Mr. Bell: I will not be tempted by my hon. Friend to widen the debate, but that is a clear case of an elected Assembly expressing a clear view, which has been disregarded subsequently by another place. The Parliament Act may have to be enforced.
Mr. Evans: Would it not be useful for the House to come back on Monday and Tuesday? People think we do not sit on enough days. We are discussing two controversial Bills that are deeply flawed and which do not have the full support of the House. We know that there are many reservations on the Government side. Debating the Bills on Monday and Tuesday would give us more opportunities to discuss their merits, which would be useful to the House.
Mr. Bell: I say again that I would be happy to come back on Monday and Tuesday to debate a recommendation from the Prime Minister to Her Majesty to create new peers. I would be happy to come back on Monday and Tuesday to debate a new Parliament Bill. I would be happy for a new Parliament Bill to be included in the Queen's Speech. I would be happy if we created sufficient peers so that the will of this Chamber was respected in the other place, and so that the will of a Government duly elected was respected. I would be happy to debate all those matters on Monday and Tuesday.
Mr. Miller: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to yesterday's debate in the House of Lords. The Cross Benches had been prayed in aid by the Opposition in the debate, but Baroness Finlay of Llandaff said:
- "I do not want to comment on the way in which votes have been cast in one way or another."
- "I sincerely believe that if we had more time to look through these proposals, more might have been achieved."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 2019–20.]
Mr. Bell: We are giving that time, but the Government have said, and the Leader of the House has said today, that the legislation is a vital part of the Government's and Parliament's programme to ameliorate situations in relation to health and crime. I shall not go into that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is where the Lords are interfering with our democratic process.
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A rumour is growing among Opposition Members, which I think is probably true, that some of my hon. Friends have tabled a manuscript amendment to the motion. Will you confirm whether that it is case, and if so, what is Mr. Speaker's decision?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Many hon. Members were present when the manuscript amendment was raised, and I repeat my ruling that that is a matter for decision by Mr. Speaker. The House will be notified accordingly.
Mr. Bell: I will give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman has talked considerably about the democratic rights of this Chamber, but in his contract with his electorate I do not recall his standing on a manifesto pledge to remove the right to jury trial or to have two-tier hospitals.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when I ruled that we are not here to debate the merits of any Bill.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to go into that, but in my political career I have followed the conservative line that Governments are elected to govern for a four or five-year period and to return to the country and say, "This is what we did." That was the philosophy and tradition of the Conservative party for many a year. I have sat in this House for 20 years, some under a Conservative Government, and I have voted on Bills that were never put to the people by way of a manifesto or never appeared in a Queen's Speech.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned the speech by Baroness Finlay in the other place yesterday. She is a highly regarded Cross Bencher and she complained that many questions had not been answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a constitutional expert, so could he tell me whether, when the Reasons Committee retires to put together the reasons why this House rejected the Lords' proposals, they could extend beyond one simple sentence? Could detailed reasons be given to the House of Lords as to why we have rejected its proposals?
Mr. Bell: I may be a constitutional expert, but that is a matter for the Chair or the Leader of the House.
Kali Mountford: Did not my hon. Friend's electorate elect him to use his considerable judgment, which has been amply demonstrated this afternoon—I do not require him to comment on that; I simply make that point? Given his great experience and wisdom, is it not the case that on issues such as this there comes a point when each House has to recognise that the argument is over, and have we not now reached that point? However many more days we spend debating the issues, the House of Lords should recognise that we will be answerable to the electorate while they carry on debating, and the constitutional position must remain that the decision lies ultimately with this House.
Mr. Bell: I, like many other hon. Members, have had to cancel a series of constituency engagements today. I was due to open a building, which happens about once every five years, but I had to tell my constituents that I would be in this Chamber and not one has complained about that because they know that this is my place and this is where I should be.
My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the debate is over and the reasoned amendments have been put. The amendments from the other place are no longer
reasoned amendments; what we are getting is rejection. We are now seeing a constitutional ping-pong. We are no longer here for reasons of principle; we are here because of a challenge to this House and its supremacy.
Vera Baird (Redcar): I apologise for not having been here all morning, but I have been listening to the proceedings in the other House. I take it that all hon. Members are perfectly well aware that the amendments now before their lordships' House were originally tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland on behalf of the Government and, having been withdrawn, have now been retabled by the Opposition. They are precisely the basis of an agreement that was reached this morning that would have resolved the entire issue. That ought not to be lost sight of.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |