---

Parliament Act

21. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab): What recent assessment has been made of the constitutional implications of the use of the Parliament Act 1911. [193529]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Parliament Act 1911, amended by the Parliament Act 1949, was enacted to ensure that the House of Lords could not ultimately overrule the wishes of the elected House of Commons in cases in which agreement on a Bill could not be reached. The Government continue to believe that the Acts remain a fundamental safeguard of our democratic legislature.

David Taylor: The Hunting Bill debacle resembles a table-tennis match crossed with a Ben Travers farce. There are constitutional issues that urgently require legislative attention. Does the Minister agree that we now need a new Parliament Act that would, inter alia, codify the Salisbury doctrine on the powers of delay of a reformed House of Lords, setting reasonable time limits for the passage of Bills through the other place and allowing it to focus on its role of scrutiny and revision of legislation, rather than endlessly frustrating the will of the Commons as expressed through, and endorsed by, the general election process?

Mr. Leslie: We will all have to wait and see what the other place does with the Hunting Bill. As for my hon. Friend's more general point, the Parliament Act supports the supremacy of the House of Commons. As we have said before, we shall return to the wider issues of House of Lords reform in our party manifesto. We cannot focus only on composition; we must also consider how we could retain Commons supremacy if the composition of the other place were altered.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): Does the Minister recognise that if the Parliament Act were misused by the Government to push through a Bill—the Hunting Bill—which was not in their manifesto, millions of people in the British countryside would regard that as an appalling misuse of the Government's power?

Mr. Leslie: I disagree. I believe that the use of the Parliament Act is ultimately a matter for this House and for Parliament. We hope that it can be avoided, because we hope that consensus can be achieved if possible; but
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1285
 
ultimately, if there is no agreement between the two Houses, the will of this House must prevail. That is the nature of democracy in this country.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): Does the Minister seriously think that the destruction of vermin in the countryside, however it is achieved, is a matter of such constitutional importance that the House of Commons should use its muscle in a way that can only lead to the interpretation that there are times when might is right and sense is entirely abandoned?

Mr. Leslie: The Parliament Act has been used for a number of different reasons historically. Examples are the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the War Crimes Act 1991, which involved a free vote on a matter of conscience, and the European Parliamentary Elections Acts—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is trying to answer the hon. Lady's question. There is no point in her shouting across the Chamber.

Mrs. Dunwoody: But, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am instructing the hon. Lady.

Mr. Leslie: As I was saying, there are a number of different ways in which the Parliament Act has been used, in the context of both matters of conscience and matters of Government policy. Ultimately, it is a matter for the House of Commons: we are all elected Members and accountable to our constituents.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Of course the elected House must have primacy—and far be it from me to criticise legislation enacted by a Liberal Government—but it is clear from the preamble to the 1911 Act that it was intended as an expedient until democratic reform of the second Chamber, for which we are still waiting.

In the meantime, does the Minister really think that the Act should be used to deal with matters that are not fundamental issues? More important, does he not believe that there is a rigidity in the process that restricts the opportunity for sensible amendment and poses the risk that bad law, whether well-intentioned or not, will pass through the House?

Mr. Leslie: There is certainly no rush in the case of the Hunting Bill; plenty of consideration is taking place on all sides. What may not be a fundamental issue for the hon. Gentleman may well be a fundamental issue for others. That, obviously, is a matter for the 659 Members of Parliament who come together to vote in the House of Commons.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Parliament Act as it exists should be used where appropriate? If on two occasions the House of Commons, by overwhelming majorities, has decided that hunting with dogs should finally come to an end, it is not up to the House of Lords to continue to veto our decision. If the Lords decide, as clearly they are
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1286
 
going to do, to oppose what the House of Commons has decided, the Parliament Act should be used. I hope that the Government will have sufficient courage to ensure that the Parliament Act is used in this Session and that, finally, hunting with dogs is ended permanently, which is what the majority of people in this country want.

Mr. Leslie: We have a second Chamber for a purpose. It is there to advise and to revise legislation but, ultimately, it is for this House to come to final decisions, for which we are accountable. That is why we have the Parliament Act. My hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue. He feels that it is a fundamental issue, even if the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, does not.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Does the Minister agree that to invoke the Parliament Act is a massive exercise of Government Executive power because it is a Government motion that is used to invoke the Act? It is the parliamentary nuclear option and should be used only sparingly. How does he justify its use on a Bill that his own Ministers admit is "unworkable" and "unenforceable"— their words? How can it be used in those circumstances? Does it not show the untrustworthy nature of this Government?

Mr. Leslie: I say "Steady on" to the hon. Gentleman in his new role on constitutional affairs, to which I welcome him—he is accumulating an expanding empire.

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): The hon. Gentleman is not in the shadow Cabinet, though.

Mr. Leslie: I am interested to hear that.

I do not believe that it is ultimately necessary to use the Parliament Act, perhaps even on the Hunting Bill. We still hope that the other place may reach agreement with this House. We will see what happens, but we know that the Parliament Acts have been passed for a particular purpose. They are used sparingly but, from time to time, their use proves necessary.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is the Minister aware that there is no better example for using the Parliament Act than fox hunting? The massive majority in this House has been repeated over and again, on a free vote. Then when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, where the Tories are in abundance, joined by other fox hunters—[Interruption.] There are more Tories than Labour peers in the House of Lords. They cannot deny it. They have decided that they do not agree with the House of Commons. This is a perfect example of where we should use the Parliament Act. We all—or most of us on the Labour Benches—look forward to it. Will the Minister tell every member of the Government that we look forward to using it on 17 November?

Mr. Leslie: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's views to my colleagues. It is an important point. When the public see how decisions are made and see elected representatives, time after time, discussing and coming to a conclusion, they find it hard to understand why a final decision cannot be made. In those circumstances—occasionally, as I say—the Parliament Act can be necessary.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1287
 

Freedom of Information Act

22. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): What steps the Department are taking to ensure that the maximum amount of information held by the Government consistent with national security is available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [193530]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Freedom of Information Act brought in by the Government will make access to information a matter of right from 1 January next year. Before then, the Government are taking a proactive approach and releasing material through the publication schemes, many of which are available on departmental websites.

Norman Baker: The Minister may be aware that freedom of information campaigners have sought access, under the open government code, to each Department's disposal logs. Sadly, they have not had an answer from four Departments, including the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Is that because his civil servants, in the proactive way to which he referred, are busy shredding as much material as possible before 1 January?

Mr. Leslie: No. The Freedom of Information Act comes into force on 1 January, at which point applications can be made, as can adjudications by the Information Commissioner. We shall see how it works in practice that from point, although I am glad that we have been able proactively to put a significant volume of material in the public domain, well ahead of the requirements under that Act.

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): My hon. Friend will recall that the Government took a power under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to give certain public bodies the power to serve a veto, in order to override the Information Commissioner's decisions. Do I understand from his recent written answer to me that the Government might not in fact give that power to a range of public bodies?

Mr. Leslie: Certain exemptions that are specified— for instance, to protect national security or to fight crime—and they prevent the release of particular information that it would not be in the public interest to have in the wider domain. In those few circumstances, it will always be necessary to be able to issue certificates to prevent a disclosure. My hon. Friend will probably find it more illuminating if I correspond with him on the details of the policy.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): Will the Minister arrange that when documents are released relating to the actions of the previous Government, and which could mention individuals and the decisions that they took, prior warning be given to those people so that if and when press inquiries are made of those possible Members of the House, they, too, have time to research the papers and the information that is to be put into the public domain?
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1288
 

Mr. Leslie: That is a very intriguing question from the hon. Gentleman, whom I hope is speaking not on behalf of the Whips Office in a wider context, but on behalf of himself. There are, of course, exemptions in respect of some personal information, if its disclosure would be wrong in those circumstances, but I shall certainly consider his request and see what can be done if information is requested that could have a bearing on decisions taken by particular named individuals.

---