| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is to be congratulated on introducing this thought-provoking, but ultimately terrifying Bill—for if it were to become law, the last current Prime Minister will have achieved his final objective: to become President Blair in reality. With that, we should no doubt see Blair Force 1 replacing the Queen's Flight and a presidential coat of arms flying over No. 10 Downing street, or perhaps even Buckingham palace—who knows? Presidential decree would replace Cabinet government—but then what is new?
We already know that the decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution was made without any reference at all to the Cabinet, but the hon. Gentleman knows all that. Back in November 2001, he published "The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest about the UK Presidency", in which he says, as he said today, that a presidency has arrived in our nation in all but name. However, I oppose the principle of an elected Prime Minister. It would give additional legitimacy to the confused state of affairs that we already suffer under today, and it would sit uneasily and uncomfortably with the parliamentary democracy that we enjoy and which, in itself, forms part of a constitutional monarchy.
11 May 2004 : Column 160
Our parliamentary system is not compatible with a nationally elected Head of Government. First, with the principle of primus inter pares, the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—must enjoy the confidence of his or her party. Without that, no British political leader in government—and, yes, in opposition too—can or should survive. The appointment of a leader who does not enjoy the overwhelming support of his or her parliamentary party is doomed to failure. In that connection, I would dearly love to be a fly on the wall at meetings of the parliamentary Labour party—particularly so after 10 June.
So, do we wish to change the nature of our parliamentary democracy to become some sort of hybrid between a parliamentary and presidential system? I would argue no. Such a change, like the botched half-changes in the Lords, would simply be for change's sake. The Lords, now packed with cronies, is a less effective and less democratic place than ever before.
Would powers be vested in such a new Prime Minister to veto legislation of which he did not approve, as can be done in France and the United States—two examples given by the hon. Gentleman? The Prime Minister, under this scheme, would have an authority all his own. Where would that sit with the primacy of Parliament? What if a charismatic Prime Minister were elected from a party different from the majority party in Parliament?
Could cohabitation, as the French call it, work here? The Assemble Nationale in Paris has no powers except those that the President is pleased to grant it. The President of the United States enjoys powers of veto similar to those enjoyed by British monarchs until the mid-17th century, but there is a clear difference, which the hon. Gentleman ignored in his speech. Both the French and US Presidents are not only Heads of Government, but Heads of State. Our Head of State, however, is Her Majesty the Queen, and long may she continue to reign over us.
The Bill would weaken parliamentary institutions already weakened by this Government as power continues to ebb towards Downing street. It would weaken the role of the monarch as the ultimate protector of our people. Worst of all, until recently it would have meant, if the polls are to be believed, that all that power would be vested in the present Prime Minister. How comfortable would the Labour party, let alone the rest of the nation, be with that? An elected Prime Minister would weaken democracy, not strengthen it. The proposal would weaken the Commons Chamber, not strengthen it. The beneficiaries will be not our people and their legislature, but the Executive in Whitehall and its chief executive and Head of State, the newly elected Prime Minister—our own President Blair. Just think, it might even have been President Alastair Campbell. Either way, I oppose the motion.
Question put and negatived.
11 May 2004 : Column 159
11 May 2004 : Column 161
Housing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
12.51 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move,
That the programme order of 12th January 2004 in relation to the Housing Bill be varied as follows—
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table. In that column, any reference to new Clauses, Amendments or new Shedules relating to any of Parts 1 to 7 does not include new Clauses, Amendments or new Schedules relating to overcrowding or the definition of 'house in multiple occupation'.
3. The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
| Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
| New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 1 | One and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. |
| New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 2; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to the definition of 'house in multiple occupation'; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 3; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 4 | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. |
| New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 5 | Three and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. |
| New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 6; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to overcrowding; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 7 and any remaining proceedings on the Bill | Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. |
4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
We have important issues to consider today and I look forward to debating them. I therefore intend to be brief in speaking to the programme motion.
The Housing Bill will help to create a fairer and better housing market and it will protect the most vulnerable. It will fulfil two manifesto commitments, and will introduce many of the legislative measures necessary to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February last year. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I are genuinely grateful to all members of Standing Committee E for the full and positive contributions that they made in the substantial amount of time allowed to consider the Bill. We had full debates on all the substantive issues and, in my view, their contributions and amendments have improved the Bill.
11 May 2004 : Column 162
We have a number of amendments to consider today. My hon. Friend the Member for Castleford and Pontefract and I committed ourselves to revisit a range of issues, and I am delighted that we have been able to do so. I am sure that members of Standing Committee E will welcome the Government amendments, the vast majority of which respond to concerns raised in their debates. The Government have tabled a programme motion that allocates time for consideration of each part of the Bill. The proposed order of consideration broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the clause that first introduces them, as their provisions relate to that particular clause and it seems appropriate to consider them together. It also seems logical to discuss new clauses relating to each part alongside amendments to that part. Part 2 deals with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, so it seems sensible to consider amendments relating to the definition of HMOs when we consider that part. Government and non-Government amendments on overcrowding will be considered when we discuss part 6.
12.53 pm
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): This is a long and complex Bill. In fact, it could easily have been four or five separate Bills, and throughout our deliberations it has been subject to major Government amendment and change. Even on Report, many Government amendments have been tabled. Given the grouping of amendments and the knives, it is unlikely that the programme motion will allow us to do justice to all the important matters that need to be discussed as part of the public debate, so we shall oppose the motion. I do not intend to detain the House as we want to get on with business. However, the Government are again forcing a diktat on the House and we wish to make it clear that we oppose their manner of conducting business in the Chamber.
12.54 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |