House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Jul 2003 (pt 7)

Mr. Hain: It is good to see the shadow Leader of the House back at his job full-time, having taken time out to be wined and dined by members of the press upstairs last week. He missed an entertaining debut by his deputy, who was described by the Daily Mail's sketch writer as

"Handsome boy. Charming. Moderate. Witty without overdoing it."

The deputy shadow Leader of the House described his own performance in a notable column, in which he said:

"Explaining what I actually do is much more complicated. In fact, I'm still working on it."

The shadow Leader of the House asked several important questions, and I am happy to answer them. First, there is no intention to hide away anything on Northern Ireland. Such matters are debated on the Floor of the House, in the proper way, or Upstairs, in the proper way.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): The improper way.

Mr. Hain: That is a ridiculous comment. When the Conservatives were in government they had statutory instruments and other matters discussed Upstairs in the proper way.

The shadow Leader of the House says that the first week when we return is very light on business. There are Opposition debates on two of those four days—and if that means light business, the Opposition should consider more serious business and heavyweight agenda items for those days.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament had not been properly addressed. That is not the case. There has been much press speculation that the Government intend to delay the reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, but it was just that—press speculation. [Hon. Members: "When?"] I will come to that. There is no need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House at this stage. The boundary commission is required to submit its report between December 2002 and December 2006, and it is a matter for the commission when, within that time scale, it does that. As soon as may be after the commission has submitted its report, the Secretary of State for Scotland

17 Jul 2003 : Column 442

is required to lay the requisite order implementing those matters. We await the boundary commission's report. It is conducting important work, as no doubt you will know, Mr. Speaker. We shall see where we are after that.

On the question about jury service, there is no proposition by the Government to abolish the right to jury trial, or jury service, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged. Some reforms have been proposed that the House of Lords has voted to block. In the process, it also blocked very important measures in the very important Criminal Justice Bill. [Interruption.] Oh yes it did. Those measures deal with violent sex offenders and gun crime, and I would be very interested to see whether the Conservatives follow the leadership of their comrades in the House of Lords and seek to block those vital anti-crime measures that our constituents want implemented.

May I take the right hon. Gentleman up on the important point about the equality of Members of the House? We are all elected as Members of this sovereign House of Commons, whether we come from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, and I will assert to the end the equality of all Members of the House, who come from a United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively talking about dismembering the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): What about Scottish Members?

Mr. Hain: What about Northern Ireland Members? Such remarks are coming from a party that until recently called itself the Conservative and Unionist party—perhaps it still does. Is it a United Kingdom party or is it not? The right hon. Gentleman should come clean. Is he saying that Scottish Members should be debarred from equal consideration?

Mr. Forth indicated assent.

Mr. Hain: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman arguing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not shout at the Leader of the House.

Mr. Hain: What about the English Tory Members who imposed the poll tax on Scotland? We know all about such behaviour.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the 46 written ministerial statements. I think that it is important that Ministers have come to the House before the recess to bring the House up to date—[Interruption.] We have had a very busy time recently—[Interruption.] Indeed we have. That is why we have had to sit past the normal moment of interruption on a number of occasions this week. It is important that we have made written ministerial statements, and that there is to be a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, which will follow immediately after business questions.

The Government have laid out a clear position that will protect local pharmacies. However, the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to question the

17 Jul 2003 : Column 443

Secretary of State on that matter after the recess, or even to hold an Opposition day debate on it should he want to.

The Portcullis pension plan is, of course, not a matter for me. However, I want to stress that it was very misleading—inadvertently, no doubt—of the shadow Leader of the House to say that compulsion was involved. There is no compulsion involved in this process, and we would respect staff rights in this matter, along with those of everybody else.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I am delighted to associate my colleagues and myself with the comments made about Michael Foot. His strong Cornish connections mean that he is especially revered in the south-west. I also endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on the Portcullis pension scheme. There is real concern among staff in the House about the lack of consultation.

Will the Leader of the House examine carefully the way in which the Government's overnight statement in response to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform was brought before us? I hope that I can say that he had no part in its handling, because I hope that if I absolve him from responsibility he will take what I have to say in the spirit in which it is intended.

Clearly, after the recess we shall require an early debate on the document, which is a miserable little response to an extremely important issue. It is late—it should have been produced last week—and it is suspicious that it was released at midnight, so that no one could have the chance to consider it carefully. However, worst of all is the fact that the way in which the document has been produced seems completely to deny what happened in this House, because it is deliberately misleading in several respects.

For example, the Lord Chancellor's statement says:

"Those votes resulted in a clear decision in the House of Lords in favour of a wholly appointed House. There was, however, no such clear decision from the House of Commons, which voted against every one of the Joint Committee's proposed configurations."

The Leader of the House knows, because he too voted, that this House voted against a fully appointed House of Lords by a large majority, despite the fact that the then Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister supported that outcome. There is the first bit of misleading information, because this House voted down that option by a majority of 78.

The Government's response continues:

"The Government agrees with the Joint Committee's view that the Parliamentary votes have shown that there is no consensus about introducing any elected element in the House of Lords."

That is patently untrue. You will know, Mr. Speaker, as will the Leader of the House, that a total of 332 Members voted in favour of a substantial elected element in the House of Lords—more than half the Members of the House. The problem was that they did not all vote in the same Lobby at the same time—some voted for an elected element of 100 per cent., some voted for 80 per cent. and some voted for 60 per cent. It is patent nonsense to say that we did not indicate that we wanted an elected element in the House of Lords.

17 Jul 2003 : Column 444

The Leader of the House knows that the following statement is misleading:

"The Joint Committee highlights the position of the remaining hereditary peers. It remains the Government's policy, as set out in its White Paper in November 2001, that the remaining hereditary peers should be removed from the House."

However, that is conditional on the existence of a package of reforms for the House of Lords; it cannot be done as a simple tinkering exercise on its own. The Leader of the House spoke about the sovereignty of the House, and this miserable little document ignores the votes of the House, so we expect him to stand up for us.

Mr. Hain: Of course I will stand up for the House's rights in every respect, because that is my job. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that, which we have already started to do. May I also express my gratitude for his remarks, and those of the shadow Leader of the House, about Michael Foot? As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the arrangements for the publication of the document are a matter not for me but for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Copies of the document have been made available in the Vote Office in the proper way.

I shall now deal with the substance of the issue. Earlier this year, no option was supported by the House, which I regret. I voted for a fully elected second Chamber; that was my preference, and I had a free vote. However, there is no consensus in the House, and until that is achieved a sustainable long-lasting solution to the problem is not readily available.

Nevertheless, there are important issues to deal with in the short term. The Government have a manifesto commitment to abolish the hereditary peers and to deal with the question of a proper independent statutory appointments procedure.

Next Section

Index

Home Page