| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“We will seek cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords.”
I am glad to have facilitated the Conservative party’s attempts to seek that cross-party consensus, albeit that they do so in opposition, through the work of the cross-party group, which I chair, and on which the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and two of her colleagues sit.
I believe that hon. Members will endorse the description and analysis of the conventions. However, as the Joint Committee said, the report describes the conventions as they apply today, with the existing composition of the House of Lords. It was easy to anticipate that most of today’s debate would turn on whether the conventions could remain in force in a reformed second Chamber with an elected element, and whether they would survive a significant change in composition. Opinions will differ.
I fully understand, for the reasons that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) outlined, that some people take the view that the second Chamber should be wholly appointed. They believe that for a variety of reasons, but one is apprehension about what would happen to the powers of this place if there were an elected element in the other place. I have considered the matter and shifted my position. I have been informed by the reports of four previous Committees, including the royal commission, which have considered the matter in detail.
My answer is this: first of all, I believe that if there is a reformed second Chamber—and provided that it is not a replica or rival to this Chamber—it is perfectly compatible with the widely accepted need in our system for a strong Executive. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) made that point. I have been a
member of a strong Executive for nearly 10 years and I opposed a strong Executive for 18 years previously. My view has not changed—if there is a strong Executive, one also needs a strong Parliament. The purpose of that strong Parliament is not to cause Executive gridlock, but to ensure that Executive decisions are of a high quality and based on the right judgments and considerations and to hold individual Ministers, for example Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries, to account for the considerable powers that they exercise on behalf of this place and the people of this country.
To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—originally in his Select Committee’s report on the future of the House of Lords—we are not playing a zero-sum game between having a strong Executive and having a strong Parliament, provided that the difference in functions is understood. For sure, if Parliament ends up seeking to be an Executive by another name, there will of course be gridlock, but if there is an understanding about the balancing functions, there is no reason why there should be gridlock.
The second issue is whether an elected element in the other place is compatible with what are regarded—I believe that we are about to endorse them—as the essential aspects of the primacy of this House, as expressed by the Parliament Acts, the conventions on finance, Supply and taxation, and by the other conventions set out in the report that put a gloss, for example, on the nuclear option of the Parliament Acts and enable these Chambers to function. Again, my answer is in the affirmative.
In their response to the Committee’s report, the Government sought to provide some detail about how those previous distinguished bodies of people came to the view that I have just expressed. The Wakeham report stated clearly in its second recommendation, which I read out in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), firmly and explicitly that the House of Commons was the “principal political forum” and should have “the final say” in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The Public Administration Committee said:
“There is no proposal for any major change to the role and functions of the House of Lords. This is one of the fundamentals on which there is broad agreement, and it is one of the firm foundations on which reform must be built.”
Significantly, the first report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, which was also chaired by my noble Friend Lord Cunningham, strongly supported the continuation of the existing conventions. The terms of reference were different, so there was no need for a paragraph 61. The report stated:
“We envisage a continuation of the present role of the House of Lords, and of the existing conventions governing its relation with the House of Commons. These conventions, which are of a self-restraining nature, impact profoundly on relations between the Houses and need to be understood as a vital part of any future constitutional settlement.”
The first report was written in the context of a number of different proposals on the future composition of the House of Lords ranging from an all appointed House right through to a fully elected House.
Mr. Spellar:
Why would an elected upper House that had faced the electorate on the basis of obtaining a
mandate of one form or another not seek to assert its views? Indeed, if its election had been more recent than one for the House of Commons, might it not argue that its mandate was based on a more recent expression of public opinion? Why would it restrain itself in those circumstances?
Mr. Straw: If we were establishing a replica Chamber, my right hon. Friend’s fears would be justified. They happen to be my fears, too, and those of anyone else who has ever thought about this matter. If we moved from the all-appointed Chamber that we have today to one in which all the Members were elected on the same day and all had constituencies, the present primacy of the House of Commons would not have a prayer. Everyone understands that; we would have two Houses of Commons. My right hon. Friend is right in that regard. However, that is not a proposition that anyone has seriously put before the House. Everyone accepts that we must avoid allowing the other place to become a replica of the House of Commons, and all the practical proposals have sought to do that.
The royal commission looked at the matter in some detail, and received some mocking when it said in answer to one questioner that the proposals for an elected element in the other place would mean that those elected there would probably be elected by a different electoral system, and would certainly be elected for a much longer period than we are. There would also be restrictions on whether they could stand again for election to the other place. All those measures were designed to ensure that it was understood from the beginning that their role in the second Chamber was a different one, and that they were not there to replicate the House of Commons. Up to now, that view has all been broadly agreed and reflected in all the reports.
The evidence of the Clerk of the Parliaments was cited in the debate, and I take it seriously. Indeed, I have always taken seriously the evidence of senior civil servants in the Departments in which I have worked but, in the end, we have to make our own judgments and form our own opinions. In paragraph 34, the Clerk of the Parliaments said that
“the number of elected members and the mode of election may be crucial for the survival of the convention.”
I agree with that. He went on to say:
“For example the preservation of an appointed element in the Lords and a system of staggered elections for the remainder so that only a minority of membership is elected at any General Election is one way of protecting the convention. There may be others.”
Lest hon. Members should accuse me of partial quotation, I should point out that he continued:
“All in all it is likely to be difficult to ensure that any definition of the convention now would survive a significant change in the composition of the Lords.”
I understand that point. The royal commission, chaired by Lord Wakeham, referred to “selection”. Whatever we want to call it, however, an indirect mandate is an indirect mandate. I make that point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. Model A in Lord Wakeham’s report describes people being elected by complementary voting, but paragraph 12.42
supports direct election to the other place by thirds, at the same time as the European parliamentary elections.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Where would be the democratic accountability of someone who was elected to a reformed House of Lords for only one period? That individual would never have to account for their actions to the electorate. Would not the democratic deficit be just as great under the Leader of the House’s proposals as he says that it is now in respect of the unelected House of Lords?
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Plenty of people have served in this Chamber for only one term, as it turned out, either by choice or by the decision of the electorate. That does not make their contribution any less legitimate.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
If we want a reformed Chamber, and if we want to answer the questions posed eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and others—about who the people in the second Chamber are, why they are there and how they come to be there—my judgment is that in the 21st century a significant proportion of the House of Lords should be elected; others may differ. It is no secret that I favour a compromise of 50:50. I will not die in a ditch over that, and the exact proportion will finally be a matter for the House to determine in a free vote; I am one of 650 Members.
That is simply my judgment, which is borne out by tests of public opinion—
Mr. Straw: I note the hon. Gentleman’s comment from a sedentary position. When people examine the method by which albeit distinguished people get to the House of Lords, they find the proposal that everybody should arrive there by that process a little eccentric. I used to have some spirited discussions with people who became friends in the Khatami Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I said that I thought that they should make their system a bit more democratic, and referred to the power of undemocratic elements within the system. They used to say to me the words, “The House of Lords.”
Sir Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend, who is normally charmingly articulate, is getting tongue-tied in an effort to deal with the situation. Does he really believe that anybody elected to this House of Commons acts in a kind of vacuum and does not look ahead to the consequences at the next general election of what she or he does? Is not it fantastic that all those who propose that people should be elected in one way or other to the House of Lords then seek to erect a firewall around them, to prevent them exploiting the fact that they get there through votes?
Mr. Straw:
If I was tongue-tied, I apologise. To the extent that I am confused, it is because my right hon.
Friend seems to have been on quite a long journey since he signed up to the royal commission report. The principles that I have been enunciating about a fixed term of, say, 15 years, and no possibility of standing for re-election, are those that he recommended as a member of that commission and a signatory to its report. I happen to believe that there was wisdom within that report.
I am sure that we will return to the central issue in much greater detail when the White Paper and the debate and free vote on composition and much else besides follow. I hope and believe that the hon. Member for Stone is correct in saying that sentiment is changing and recognising that we have to move on, but time will tell. Meanwhile, I yet again commend the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: With approval.
Mr. Straw: I commend the motion before the House for approving that Committee’s report.
That this House takes note with approval of the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions of the UK Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 1212 of Session 2005-06).
ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 8th February, do adjourn till Monday 19(th) February 2007.— [Mr. Heppell.]
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13347/06, Commission Communication: Monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania; and endorses the Government’s support for EU enlargement.— [Mr. Heppell.]
Climate Change
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Heppell.]
7 pm
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): A potential environmental catastrophe is facing the country and starting to unfold. If that catastrophe comes to pass, our children and our children’s children may not rue the day that we failed to take action, because those generations may not exist. I think that it is as extreme as that.
I am, of course, referring to the challenge of climate change. This Government have a very good record on the causes of climate change, on emissions and on global warming. There is the work done at Kyoto, and the fact that we are on track to meet the Kyoto targets for cutting emissions; there is the work that we have led on carbon trading schemes; and there is the leadership that the Government have shown on the world stage. When it comes to dealing with the effects of climate change, however, the Government’s record is rather more mixed. I say that despite the observation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that are better placed and better prepared to deal with climate change.
It saddens me that when we debate climate change in this place, we almost invariably talk about the causes—the emissions side—rather than about coping with the effects. I have made three long speeches in the Chamber in the past year on the effect of climate change and the things that I think the United Kingdom ought to be doing. As far as I am aware, I am the only Member who addresses the issue in the Chamber, certainly in any depth.
Climate change is not a recent development. I learned about the effects of greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons and so on when I was at university in 1973. The problem of emissions of certain gaseous substances changing our environment has been known about for well over 30 years, yet we are only now starting to take action on the effects side. Climate change is clearly happening. In my garden, until recently, we had Molyneux roses in bloom—from the excellent David Austin Roses, based near my constituency. We have had more floods and heavy rain in this country in recent years than we have experienced for thousands of years. We have also had very hot summers. My grandfather, Colonel Chetwode Crawley, skated on the Thames in the 1890s; that would have been unthinkable in recent years.
In a recent report, the OECD said:
“There tends to be a view that climate change is decades away and that it will affect faraway places. But if you look at the Alps... you can tell it is happening already.”
It is certainly happening in faraway places. Christian Aid says:
“Poorer countries are often located in the regions of the world where the climate is already variable and highly volatile. These countries are likely to experience a significant increase in both variability and volatility even if the increase in global average temperature was kept within two degrees.”
Christian Aid is absolutely right about the effects in other countries, and I do not wish to downgrade that,
but I want to focus on the effects in the United Kingdom, which can be crudely divided into winter and summer effects.
Winter effects include coastal erosion, with higher tides and increasing water levels as the temperature of the water rises, and coastal and inland flooding. The diameters of storm water drains are insufficient and larger diameters will be needed. The same applies to drainpipes on buildings. There is disruption to logistics in the supply chain if transport is interfered with, for example by flooding. Similarly and more prosaically, there is the problem of rats. We have more rats now because winters are less cold and they do not die off.
As for the summer effects, they include health effects such as an increased incidence of heatstroke and probably of skin cancers. The asthma season is getting longer and tropical diseases such as malaria are starting to come into southern England. Alien predator species are also coming in, there are effects on wildlife and the crops that we grow, and there is a need for reservoirs in the summer. We have had a drought in the south-east since 2004, and it is almost a year-round drought.
One subject that straddles the two crude sides of the equation that I have mentioned—the winter and the summer—is the issue of building regulations. We need to do more in respect of water efficiency and shade because of droughts in the summer. We need to do more in terms of insulation to cut emissions, too. There must also be improvements such as better waterproofing and drainpipes, because of heavier rainfall in the winter.
What are bodies other than the Government doing? Encouraging things are being done in the United Kingdom. Around the country, the Wildlife Trust is already dealing with the challenge. Its recent report, “A Living Landscape”, highlights the importance of landscape scale and gives examples of work being done. The black country urban park takes that approach in the urban area that the Minister and I represent—as do you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country has been working with the four local authorities in the area to identify and improve open spaces and to develop corridors for wildlife with rivers and canals. The Smestow valley in my constituency is one such focus. As well as improving the wildlife value of the black country, that work should help to build and repair local communities and bring economic and social and health benefits to the people who live there.
The City of London has commissioned a consultancy—called, appropriately, Acclimatise—to assist in developing a climate change adaptation strategy for the City. A report will be published shortly, and it will make recommendations for action and develop practical tools to enable the City of London and its stakeholders to take into account the changing climate.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |