| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): Of course we could have continued with the procedure last night if Members of the other place had not decided to take to their beds somewhat earlier than us. The hon. Gentleman said that the two Houses form one Parliament, which is constitutionally true. However, speaking as a House of Commons man, he must agree that the will of this
elected House should prevail over that of the unelected House. The electorate can deal with us, but they cannot deal with them down the Corridor.
Mr. Tyler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but the question is not who prevails, but when they prevail. I am perfectly willing to be here on Monday and Tuesday. As he knows, this place works by discussion—Parliament means talking. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was involved in discussions with Ministers in which a sensible compromise was reached. Ministers—not this House or that House but the Executive—pulled the plug on those discussions. The legislature—hon. Members on both sides of the House—has a right to hold the Executive to account. That is what my hon. Friend and Conservative Members were doing, and I hope that Labour Members appreciate that they also have a responsibility to hold the Executive to account.
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman's argument would be strong, especially on foundation hospitals, if it were not for the fact that Liberal peers have already caved in. They accept that this House should have its say in the end. Surely he should now agree with the Liberal peers.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the process—he has not been a Member for quite as long as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The whole point is that sensible conclusions may be reached through discussion, and such discussions are continuing.
The whole point of the sittings motion is to allow more time to ensure that Parliament does its job properly—I have no problem with that whatsoever. My problem with the motion is that it is unnecessarily circumscribed. When Parliament sits, one of our most important functions is clearly to hold Ministers to account, which is why I am delighted to support the manuscript amendment. However, the motion does not provide specifically for urgent questions, so I hope that the Government will assure us that if any urgent questions are tabled on Monday or Tuesday, they may be taken. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that if important matters were to arise over the weekend, such as terrorism issues, the appropriate Secretary of State would make a statement to the House. Nothing in the motion makes that impossible, so I hope that it will happen.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that Mr. Speaker has always been careful to say that Ministers and others in the Government should not make announcements before the House gets to hear of important decisions. Are you aware that the Government sent a press release to each trust in the country this morning for them to put out saying:
- "We are obviously very disappointed by the fact that Parliament has failed to pass the legislation that would have allowed us to apply for NHS Foundation Trust"
- "We are however heartened by the Secretary of State for Health's statement to the House of Commons where he pledges himself to continue the process of handing power down to hospitals like us."
Mr. Tyler: I shall return to the arguments advanced by the Leader of the House at the outset of the debate. He was peddling a completely new constitutional theory about the relationship between the two Houses. I cannot remember what he studied at university at about the same time as myself, when we were both young Liberals, and he was a true radical. However, I know from my experience given the way in which the relationship between the two Houses has developed over the years, not only in terms of the Parliament Acts, to which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred, but of the evolution of the relationship, that it is extremely important that we give proper time for discussion between the two Houses.
It is entirely at the behest of the Government's business managers how Bills come through during the course of the year. If those two Bills had been the subject of proper pre-legislative scrutiny, for example, of which the Leader of the House is in favour, and if they had come forward as draft Bills with proper discussion having taken place with outside interests as well as with Members, it might well have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to bring to this place a carry-over motion. Both Houses have now accepted that where there is proper pre-legislative scrutiny of such Bills, a carry-over motion can be considered.
Mr. Greg Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misled the House, and I am certain that it was inadvertent. He said that the original motion did not provide for allowing urgent questions. If he reads the first paragraph again, he will see that it refers specifically to Mr. Speaker being able to grant urgent questions.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was relating my remarks rather more to the question of statements. I apologise if I misled him or other Members.
I shall return to my central theme, which is the constitutional role and relationship of the two Houses. The Leader of the House will know—because he voted for it—that on 4 February I and a number of colleagues on both sides of the House voted for the other House to be elected. It happens that the Secretary of State for Health has since then said that because the other House is not elected it is not entitled to amend his Bill. The matter is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. If they do not want an ineffective House at the other end of the building, they are in a position to change the situation.
The Prime Minister voted for a fully appointed House. Any suggestion that the legitimacy of part of this Parliament is inappropriate in dealing with this particular issue is prime nonsense. It is true that we are
told—the Leader of the House may be able to confirm this—that a Bill will shortly come before us that will make modest changes to the constitutional position of the other House. As I read the Division lists in the other place, that would make no difference to the present situation and the two Bills that we have been discussing.
Mr. Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that what is at issue is not the right of the House of Lords to revise, scrutinise or come up with constructive amendments, but the right of the other place to veto? There is a distinction between a revising chamber and a vetoing chamber. What we have seen happening recently, and particularly yesterday, is the exercise of a power of veto, which is not acceptable to a democratically elected chamber—this Chamber—which is the supreme body of Parliament.
Mr. Tyler: There are two reasons why that is obvious nonsense. First, the Government originally introduced the amendments under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of that one. Secondly, the House of Lords cannot insert a veto into the process. It can only ask for time, and that is precisely what it has done. There have already been discussions and an attempt to compromise, but the timing is in the hands of the Government. If they felt that they wanted more time, why did they leave it until this week to complete the legislative process? The Government's business managers set the calendar, not me, and not our colleagues at the other end of the building.
Why are we in this situation? We are in it because the Government have mishandled the whole of the legislative process for the whole of the year. They have tried to get a gallon into a half-pint pot. They have taken some extremely difficult issues and attempted to deal with them in an extremely complicated way that has involved some substantial Bills. In the so-called spill-over Session—we could have had a longer one if the Government had so wished—we have had the so-called ping-pong.
I hope that the Government have learned some lessons for the future. We need to have a different process. We need better consultation not just between the two Houses and not just between the different parties, but between the Government and their own Back Benchers. Anyone who listened to the formidable speeches delivered by Government Back Benchers yesterday must have been struck by how little Government Front-Bench Members have been listening to their own Members, let alone other Members.
The timing of business is in the Government's hands, and the Government cannot wash their hands of the mess that they have made of this week. If we come back on Monday and Tuesday next week, that will not be down to the House of Lords. It will not be down to anyone in the House except the Government's business managers.
3.7 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for moving the amendment in my name and the names of my colleagues, which relieves me of the need to do so. However, I shall want to speak to it in due course.
First, I shall pick up the theme that the hon. Gentleman has been pursuing: asking, which we must do in terms of the motion, how we have got ourselves into this position. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, which is that this is the culmination of a year of mismanagement by the Government. Indeed, it is worse than that: it is a classic case of the Government attempting to put too much legislation, and too much controversial legislation, into a limited Session.
Here is where I part company with what has been said repeatedly from the Government Benches. The tragedy is that there is no time pressure in this place. Would that it were so. The tragedy of Parliament today is that the Government have so altered our procedures that they have complete control over what happens in this place. As a result, there are no longer any time pressures. That has become increasingly obvious as each year has passed with this Government in control. They have ruthlessly used their enormous numbers and huge majority to change the procedures of this place out of all recognition in such a way that Bills cannot be properly considered in Committee, as we know very much to our cost. All the other stages of consideration are so truncated that there is ample time in the House for almost any number of Bills.
The problem for the Government, as I am happy to acknowledge, lies in the House of Lords. That is excellent for the people of this country. The position is that the House of Lords remains what it is and should be: a constitutional backstop that provides protection against a Government who are abusing their enormous majority in the House of Commons and threatening the constitutional balance that we have cherished for centuries. That is why it is so odd that Labour Members have sought refuge—they have done so today— in the peculiar argument that the House of Lords has no legitimacy. The House of Lords is their House of Lords. It is the House of Lords that the Government have created. It is not the House of Lords that we have known for a very long time, and knew until only a few years ago. It is the Government's creation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |