| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, especially the announcement about the Penrose report. I have raised the matter with him on several occasions and on Tuesday I tabled early-day motion 741.
[That this House notes with concern the long delay in publishing the Penrose Report into Equitable Life and the consequent postponement of an oral statement or a debate on this important matter, which affects the life savings of hundreds of thousands of policy-holders and annuitants; and calls on the Leader of the House to ensure an early statement on the Penrose Report followed by a full debate.]
Given that it has taken the Leader of the House only two days to arrange the statement, will he announce on Monday that the review of Select Committees that early-day motion 760 mentions is imminent?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Ha, ha, ha.
Mr. Heald: It is always good to have appreciation.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a copy of the Penrose report, which is obviously complex, to be made available early to Opposition spokesmen? Will a full debate take place in due course on that important matter?
Is there any news about the date for a debate on the aviation White Paper or will the estimates day debate on 11 March be sufficiently wide to cover it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a full debate before action is taken to cap local authorities?
The Leader of the House will know of the increasing concern about the escalating number of allegations of abuse of all-postal voting ballots. What are the Government doing about that? He will know that the Electoral Commission sanctioned a strictly limited and controlled pilot of that system for the European elections in two regions, and that measures have been taken specifically to avoid election fraud. In Monday's European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Government are seeking to defy the commission and increase the number of regions to four. Can the Leader of the House tell us how the essential protections will be put in place in the two extra regions, given that there is so little time? Does that not raise the risk that unscrupulous parties such as the British National party, and politicians of that sort, will simply be given a free run to abuse the system?
Finally, the Leader of the House will know that today is world book day. Has he seen the survey that shows that hon. Members read more than journalists, but that they entirely avoid self-help and mind, body and spirit books? We are said to prefer biographies. In the current political climate, would he like to recommend a suitable self-help book to his colleagues on the Labour Benches? May I suggest "Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway" by Susan Jeffers or, as a suitable fiction title, "No Second Chance" by Harlan Coben?
Mr. Hain: On the future business of Parliament, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to assist the House? He will be aware that Lord Lloyd has tabled an amendment in the House of Lords—[Interruption.] This concerns the House of Commons as well. Lord Lloyd has tabled an amendment designed to put the Constitutional Reform Bill into Select Committee. That is unprecedented, against the express will of the Government and it will make it impossible to get the Bill through this Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman prevail on his
Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords to ensure that that amendment is resisted? That is important, because that manoeuvre could wreck the passage of a Government flagship Bill. I am sure that he will want to join me in opposing that. [Hon. Members: "Order."] Hon. Members say "Order", but it is important that a Bill supported by the Government is not wrecked as a result of that procedural manoeuvre.I shall now answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. On the Penrose report, as Leader of the House I always jump to attention on the hon. Gentleman's early-day motions. He has obviously had the desired result on that matter, but it was always the intention to make a statement on the report. I also confirm—I am sure that he will welcome this—that the Treasury will be publishing the report in full. I shall draw to the Financial Secretary's attention the hon. Gentleman's request to see an early copy of the report. As I understand it, it is a comprehensive report and no doubt his request will be taken seriously.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when there will be a debate on the aviation White Paper, but there will of course be an opportunity to raise all his colleagues' points during the debate on Thursday, which should go some way at least towards satisfying his repeated requests on that matter.
On postal voting, I should have thought that, in an era of declining voter turnout, it was in all our interests to encourage greater turnout, whichever party those voters support, to improve the health of our democracy. We face the phenomenon of declining voter turnout across the democratic world. In areas where pilots for all-postal votes in local elections have taken place, turnout has dramatically increased. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the Conservatives—although I understand that this is the Liberal Democrat position as well—that they do not want more postal votes and better access for voters? What are they frightened of? Are they frightened of a large turnout of voters in the north-west of England, Yorkshire and Humber, the east midlands and the north-east of England? I should have thought that he wanted greater voter turnout.
On fraud and abuse, the Electoral Commission has made it perfectly clear that it is satisfied that the pilots can go safely ahead without any real risk of serious abuse. On the point about having four regions instead of two, the commission listed other regions, including the north-west of England and Yorkshire and Humber, as possible candidates for pilot schemes if the Government so chose. Millions of voters will be given extra opportunities as a result of this, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservatives are seeking to deny those voters in the north of England the chance to vote more conveniently and easily in elections that are for local government and the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a full debate on the council tax before any capping takes place. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that, if he has to cap high council tax local authorities, he will do so. It is encouraging that at the moment the average increase seems to be about 6 per cent., which is much lower than it was last year and in previous years. The
Deputy Prime Minister intends to bear down on those councils, including Conservative councils, that are pressing for gigantic council taxes at a time when we have put record investment into local government and when the increase in grant settlement for Conservative-controlled local authorities is actually larger, at about 6.1 per cent., than that for Labour local authorities, although I am not sure that I should remind my colleagues on the Labour Back Benches of that. There is no excuse for large council tax increases.I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question on world book day. May I remind him that the survey also shows that Members of Parliament read in bed?
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect the long-delayed Bill to evict the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords? Will he also tell us whether the report in today's edition of The Independent, headlined, "Lords reform in disarray after officials bungle drafting of Bill", is correct? Will he now confirm that, as this is a major constitutional issue, it will be taken in full in Committee of the whole House? Does he recall that, in the votes last year, the option of an all-appointed House, which was advocated by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, was defeated in this House by 87 votes—a large majority? As the Leader of the House was on the right side in those votes, I am sure that he will also recall that 332 Members voted for a majority elected second Chamber. It would clearly be a contempt of this House if those votes were ignored, and if a Bill were produced that had the effect of creating an all-appointed second Chamber, without any steps being taken within Parliament to make progress towards completion of reform.
In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is taking seriously our proposition for a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee to examine ways in which we could fulfil the mandate of his Government and his colleagues? He will have seen that many Members on both sides of the House have endorsed that proposal as a way forward. Will he tell us what steps he proposes to take to allow the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, to make progress? I hope that he will agree, as he has been on the side of the reformers, that we have had plenty of consultation and independent analysis, and that it is now time for Parliament to complete this process and bring this long-running Whitehall farce to a successful conclusion.
Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for voting to extend by an extra day the time that the Higher Education Bill will be considered in Committee. I must also express my amazement that the Conservative Opposition voted against that programme motion, thereby seeking to deny the extra discussion on higher education in Committee that they have been pressing for. That is an extraordinary position.
On the reform of the House of Lords, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing untoward about the situation in respect of the Government's Bill. It is going through its proper process before being introduced into Parliament, and that will take place when we are ready to complete that process. In respect of the issue that he has quite properly raised in the past on the nature of
House of Lords reform, he knows that I voted in a similar Lobby to him on a number of occasions a year ago. It is vital, however, that he join us in seeking to tackle the essential obstacle and anomaly in the current situation, which is the presence of 92 hereditary peers. I cannot for the life of me believe that the Liberal Democrats, with their long-standing policy on this matter, would actually vote against a Bill that sought to get rid of those hereditary peers. I just cannot believe that—or maybe I can, depending on the position that the Liberal Democrats take.I know that the hon. Gentleman has had discussions on this matter with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He has also quite properly raised with me the matter of a third stage of House of Lords reform, to which I am strongly committed. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that it is our intention to proceed down that road. The hon. Gentleman says that there has been plenty of consultation, but the problem is that there has been no consensus. All the options were defeated a year ago, including the option for a fully appointed Chamber. I note, however, that the House of Lords, as I pointed out previously, voted pretty well overwhelmingly for a fully appointed Chamber. I would therefore find it extraordinary if the Conservatives, Cross Benchers and hereditaries were to seek to defeat a Bill that would maintain for the time being the present situation of an all-appointed Chamber but improve and modernise it by establishing an independent commission, and remove the anomaly of people making laws because a long-deceased ancestor happened to be awarded a peerage for no reason at all.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |