| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who not only has a constituency next door to mine but is also a distinguished barrister who has participated in many of these debates. She demonstrates again not only that this is a constitutional ping-pong, but that the other place is showing cynicism of the highest order. Members of the other House have set aside their own principles and understanding of the constitution and taken a view that we have not seen in the entire life of this Government since 1997, and such as we have not seen since the early part of the century, or in the 1940s when we had a Labour Government with a strong programme of nationalisation.
Vera Baird: I have obviously not made myself clear. What has happened is that the Government have changed their mind and what they agreed this morning, they now vote down in the House of Lords. I cannot see how that can be given the countenance of a lack of principle in the Opposition.
Mr. Bell: It is for the Leader of the House to define the Government's policy, but that shows how we are open to argument in the interests of our legislation. Because of that we are still here debating the motion to sit on Monday and Tuesday. The House of Lords is usurping the powers that were given to us by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The hon. Gentleman has been very reasonable through much of his remarks, and he has a fine reputation in the House. He spoke about the Prime Minister going to Her Majesty the Queen in order to bring about the appointment of a number of additional peers, and he said that they would not necessarily be Labour peers. How could he guarantee that they would take the point of view that he is expressing in the Chamber today? Might they not support the cross-party opposition, not least on the erosion of jury trial, which I consider to be a constitutional issue? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Lords have a right to take a position on that to the bitter end, even if foundation hospitals are a political matter?
Mr. Bell: I have one eye on Madam Deputy Speaker, and she has one eye on me, so I shall not get into a debate on the merits of the Bills. However, I believe that the
Lords are wrong on jury trials, and I say that as someone who practised in jury trials in France as well as in the United Kingdom.On hon. Gentleman's point about the Prime Minister seeking to make recommendations to Her Majesty on peerages, I should say that my right hon. Friend has been reluctant to create peerages, either on the Labour side or on the Conservative side. We are at least 25 peers short, and there may be some announcement later. In the light of what is happening today, I urge the Prime Minister to use his constitutional right to make the recommendations.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point about competence, I am suggesting that, were we to have a debate on Monday on constitutional issues, sufficient peers should be sent to the Lords who would respect the constitutional issue of who is supreme. The Parliament Act 1949 would still be extant in the sense that the Lords would have the power to delay legislation. I am suggesting not that peers be created simply to support this Chamber, but to respect the constitutional position. So it comes down to a question of competence, not political ideology.
Kevin Brennan: Further to the point made by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), is not the point of principle not who did or did not table what amendments, but the thwarting of the democratic wishes of the democratic upper Chamber? This is the upper Chamber in this Parliament, and that is how we should refer to it.
Mr. Bell: If I may, I should like to go back in history a little, while staying within the confines of the debate. In 1911, the Prime Minister went to His Majesty and asked to create peers because of the constitutional position and the opposition of the Lords to a certain tax Bill that we will all remember, even if we were not here at the time. In 1947, the Lords had to yield to the Commons in terms of their delaying abilities. They had eternal delay at that time, but they do not have it now, except on a Bill that would prolong the life of this Parliament, which is not covered by the Parliament Acts. What we are seeing now is again a threat to the constitution, and my hon. Friend highlights that issue. Not as a Labour Member of Parliament, but as a Member of this House, I seek to ensure that the rights of the people who sent me here are respected.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there were two general elections before the extra peers were created in 1911? Is he suggesting that that should occur now?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a degree of levity, but I think that we should now focus much more strictly on the motion.
Mr. Bell: I am happy to stay on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Labour Members who have most to fear from a future general election, but Conservative Members.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of fact, it is not possible for the Prime Minister to create any number of peers. Any recommendations must go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not currently debating the composition of the House of Lords or its method of appointment and selection.
Clive Efford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to wait until my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) had finished his speech before raising this point, but he has taken so many interventions that I do not think that raising it now will ruin his train of thought. Earlier, I said that I had voted against foundation hospitals last night. Unfortunately, an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches—I shall not name him, as he is not present—suggested that I had misled the House. I seek your advice on how I may seek redress and put the record straight, as I resent the accusation that I would deliberately and knowingly mislead the House.
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had a very interesting conversation with the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby and I can confirm that he definitely voted with us.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order for the Chair, but it appears to have been satisfactorily resolved.
I must make an announcement to the House. The following manuscript amendment has been accepted by Mr. Speaker. The amendment, which was tabled by Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. Crispin Blunt and Mr. David Wilshire, is in line 2, leave out paragraph (1) and insert
- '(1) notwithstanding paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), Oral Questions shall be taken on Monday 24th November to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and on Tuesday 25th November to the Secretary of State for Health; and the shuffles for these Oral Questions shall be held at 6.00 p.m. at this day's sitting or one hour after the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion, whichever is later.'.
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the manuscript amendment, which I think most Opposition Members welcome, will there be an opportunity for the Leader of the House to make his position clear before the debate proceeds any further? If he is minded to accept the amendment—I hope that he is—we may well not need to continue this debate for much longer.
Madam Deputy Speaker: If the debate concludes naturally, it is possible that the Leader of the House will have the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Knight: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to challenge the
Chair, but I think that it would be most helpful if we could hear from the Leader of the House at this stage, rather than at the end of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although I have read out the manuscript amendment which is available in the Vote Office, it has not yet been moved.
Mr. Bell: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
Mr. Hawkins: Shortly before the points of order that we have just heard and your announcement, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out to the hon. Gentleman the peculiar behaviour of Ministers in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. In talking about the constitutional settlement, does he recognise that many Opposition Members feel that the other place has a particular revising function on criminal justice matters because of the presence there of Law Lords? Does he recognise that, as part and parcel of that position, the expressed views of the Lord Chief Justice, who has been very critical of the Home Secretary's legislation—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have repeated from the Chair on more than one occasion that we are not currently debating the merits of that particular measure.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your comments, and to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. As a brief answer, I must first point out that the Law Lords do not vote or participate in Lords debates. Secondly, the same arguments that he advanced on criminal justice were made on taxation in the early 1900s, when exactly the same point was made. I shall not pursue that issue any further.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |