Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about many of the positions of the Plaid Cymru leader in Wales, not least on nuclear. We still do not quite know the party’s position on investment in nuclear power, but we know that project would be a huge boost to the economy of north Wales.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Has the Minister noticed some of the very fine print in the Energy Bill allowing pylons, which are already large enough, broadly speaking to be doubled in size without extra planning permission? Does he agree that that would wreck the landscape of Wales, as of England, and we ought to be extraordinarily cautious about it?

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have some unique and outstanding areas of beauty in Wales that need to be protected where possible, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, these projects are best dealt with case by case, balancing environmental considerations with those of affordability and, of course, the views of the local communities, which should be at the heart of all planning applications.

Afghanistan and EU Council

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly want to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I think it is clear from the advances that have been made in recent years in the availability of defence medicine—in Afghanistan, in aircraft transporting troops back from Afghanistan, and here in the UK, at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham and then at Headley Court—that it is second to none, and that we can be proud of what we make available. However, we must think about what happens next as well, and that is what the centres of expertise around the country are all about. It is also important for us to proceed with the work on the military covenant that is being done by the Armed Forces Covenant Sub-Committee—chaired by the Minister for Government Policy—and to continue to channel resources into these vital areas.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Most of the injured and the 444 British dead to whom the Prime Minister referred were brought home either through his constituency or through Royal Wootton Bassett in mine. The people of Britain are hungrily looking forward to the end of combat operations, and will welcome the withdrawal from a large number of forward-operating and patrol bases in Afghanistan that the Prime Minister has announced today. However, can he bring us up to date on what will happen to Camp Bastion once we have left Afghanistan? Will it remain as some kind of strategic base, or will we simply abandon it?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first, through my hon. Friend, pay tribute to the people of Royal Wootton Bassett, and also to people in Carterton and Brize Norton in my own constituency, who I think have shown the best side of Britain in welcoming back, sombrely and properly, those who have fallen in combat operations in Afghanistan.

No final decision has been made about Camp Bastion, but it is likely that it could be used as one of the bases led by the Americans for the purpose of their continued presence in Afghanistan. That would obviously be quite helpful in terms of the timetable governing the return of our resources. However, as those who visit Camp Bastion will see, a great deal of work is being done to return kit to the UK now.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

There are two points: one, we are doing it; and two, the Opposition did not do it 13 years.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Although we all strongly support openness and transparency of the kind that the Minister has described, does she agree with me that the sort of blatant entrapment carried out by the “Panorama” programme at the weekend would not have been prevented by any such register of lobbyists? Does she also agree that there is a risk of doing something simply in order to be seen to be doing something without addressing the real problems besetting us?

[Miss Smith]

Mr Speaker, I do not think you would want me to go into the details of the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers. It is important to draw from that, however, that the public expect us to act, that we have said for quite some time that we shall be doing this and that we are bringing forward the details from now onwards. I think that a number of factors might have gone into the events that we saw unfold over the weekend, and it is important to take a wider look at some of them.

Engagements

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the only party in this House offering an in/out referendum is the Conservative party?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman hates to be reminded of things that he and I have actually done together when we have been on the same side of the argument, but we spent 100 days in the early part of this Parliament passing legislation, opposed by the Labour party, that for the first time ever gives a guarantee in law about when a referendum on Europe will take place—when the rules next change or new things are asked of the United Kingdom within the European Union. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Conservative party are perfectly free for their own reasons to move the goalposts, but this legislation is in place and the people of Britain have a guarantee about when a referendum will take place, and that is what I suggest we should all go out and promote.

[Official Report, 15 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 627-28.]

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister is a great democrat as well as a Liberal, and I salute him for that. Will he therefore stand by the precise wording in this very fetching Liberal Democrat leaflet that I happened to find on my desk this morning, which says:

“Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide our country’s future.”

Will he now stand by that solemn pledge to the people of Britain and join us in the Lobby tonight?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I fully stand behind the position that I took then and my party has taken ever since, that when there is a change in the rules and new things are asked of the United Kingdom within the European Union, there should and there will be a referendum. Not only that, we have done better since we issued that leaflet in 2008: we legislated to guarantee that to the British people for the first time in primary legislation just two years ago. We spent 100 days debating that in this House at the time. If my hon. Friend wants to reinvent it all over again and keep picking away at the issue, what will he give up from a fairly crowded Queen’s Speech? Will he tell his constituents that we will not put a cap on social care costs; we will not deliver a single tier pension; we will not pass legislation to have a national insurance contribution cut for employers? I think that we should stick to the priorities of the British people, which are growth and jobs.

[Official Report, 15 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 635-36.]

Letter of correction from the Deputy Prime Minister:

An error has been identified in the oral answers given to the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray).

The correct answers should have been:

The Deputy Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman hates to be reminded of things that he and I have actually done together when we have been on the same side of the argument, but we spent 100 hours in the early part of this Parliament passing legislation, opposed by the Labour party, that for the first time ever gives a guarantee in law about when a referendum on Europe will take place—when the rules next change or new things are asked of the United Kingdom within the European Union. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Conservative party are perfectly free for their own reasons to move the goalposts, but this legislation is in place and the people of Britain have a guarantee about when a referendum will take place, and that is what I suggest we should all go out and promote.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. It was very worrying to see the figures announced yesterday that more than 4,000 children in the Swansea area still have not been vaccinated. In Gwent, more than 10,000 children have not yet been vaccinated, and we have particular concerns about a measles outbreak in Gwent. It is absolutely right that Welsh Government public health officials are doing everything they can by making clinics available at the weekend and so on. The onus is now on parents to go out and get their children vaccinated.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is essential roundly to condemn the totally incorrect research done by Andrew Wakefield many years ago linking MMR with autism? It simply was not true, and now is the time to say he got it wrong and that everyone must have the MMR injection.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is also right. Dr Andrew Wakefield’s research has been discredited not just in this country, but by medical and scientific opinion throughout the world. There is no reason for parents to feel alarmed about the MMR vaccine, and there is plenty of dispassionate advice for them if they have concerns or questions. They should crack on now and get their children vaccinated.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What does the hon. Gentleman think happened for 13 years under Labour? I am hugely sympathetic, as I am sure everybody is, to the plight of people who are unable to trace a liable employer or insurer against whom they can bring a claim. We announced our intention to bring forward legislation to introduce the scheme on 25 July 2012, and it is from that date that people have a reasonable expectation that if they are diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer and they meet the eligibility criteria they will receive a payment. But because we have also decided to pay dependants of people who have died from that cancer, the scheme will not be able to pay dependants of every person who has died, and that is why we have taken the approach we have.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister is a great democrat as well as a Liberal, and I salute him for that. Will he therefore stand by the precise wording in this very fetching Liberal Democrat leaflet that I happened to find on my desk this morning, which says:

“Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide our country’s future.”

Will he now stand by that solemn pledge to the people of Britain and join us in the Lobby tonight?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I truly welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think it is of concern to everyone in the House that, for example, 36% of people—according to a recent Electoral Commission survey—believe that electoral fraud is a problem. We are introducing safeguards to ensure that the maximum number of people can be individually registered. That includes the use of techniques such as data-matching, phasing in the transition over two years, a write-out to all electors in 2014, and a programme of work to maximise registration among previously under-represented groups.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

One of the lowest rates of electoral registration is found where it should perhaps be the highest, namely among our armed services. What can individual voter registration do to help to increase the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen who are registered to vote?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s confirmation that the civil service is a good and diverse employer. I expect that to continue.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

T6. Government spending on advertising and consultants of all kinds is nearly always wasteful, profligate and—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is straightforwardly discourteous. The hon. Gentleman is trying to ask a question. I want the Minister to hear it and to answer. If, instead of rabbiting away from a sedentary position when their views are of no interest or concern whatever, people were to have the manners to listen, that would help.

[Mr Gray]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Government spending on advertising and consultants is nearly always wasteful, extravagant and profligate. What was the annual spend of the previous Government, how much has my right hon. Friend managed to cut it by, and what further plans does he have to squeeze this kind of waste out of Government spending?

[Mr Maude]

We saved nearly £400 million a year by restricting the spend on advertising and marketing, which was wholly incontinent under the previous Government. There are sometimes good cases for using consultants, but we have cut the spend on them by nearly 70%. These disciplines will continue for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

So there are to be Christmas cracker jokes from the very beginning.

No; we will pursue this. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are already pursuing it, along with 15 other Commonwealth realms, but the process is very complex legally. Although the idea is simple—ending male primogeniture in the succession rules and allowing successors to the monarchy to marry Catholics, removing that discriminatory rule from the current arrangements—it is proving to be quite difficult and time-consuming to align all the legislative processes across all the realms, but I know that the New Zealand Government are doing all they can to expedite that.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Unlike the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will do a brilliant job in introducing these long-overdue reforms. Is it not ironic that, had the Queen had a younger brother, she would not be Queen at this moment? Is it not time to introduce the other reform to which my right hon. Friend referred briefly? At present, not only a monarch but anyone in the line of succession may not marry a Roman Catholic or, indeed, become one. That is an absurdity, and we must surely do away with it as soon as we can.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree that the current rules are anachronistic and explicitly discriminatory. That is the point of the reforms. It should be borne in mind that the new rules, particularly those on male primogeniture, came into effect from the moment that the declaration was made in Perth. Although some painstaking work is needed to extend the legislation to all the Commonwealth realms, it has already taken effect.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

Yes, I will explain why we are where we are. The hon. Lady would, I am sure, share my view that it is important when issuing a consultation to pay some attention to the responses received. When we issued the consultation with a set of proposals for a statutory register, an enormous number of responses were received. We are going through them, considering them extremely carefully. The Select Committee on Public Administration also reported on the matter—it was a weighty and serious report—and had a great number of things to say. We are also considering those, and when we have finished that consideration, we will come forward with new proposals.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk in that although a request for a register of paid lobbyists is perfectly reasonable, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater when all sorts of charities, voluntary organisations, trade unions and others who “lobby” perfectly legitimately are not paid lobbyists and should not be included?

[Mr Letwin]

My hon. Friend makes an important observation. One issue that came up in the course of the consultation, which many consultees and indeed the Select Committee commented on, is the question of scope. The Government’s initial proposals did not include any reference to lobbyists that were “in house”—the ones to which my hon. Friend refers—whether they be charities, businesses, social enterprises or whatever. Some respondents suggested that the scope should be wider. This is clearly something that needs to be considered, and my hon. Friend’s point is well taken.

House of Lords Reform Bill

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

In 1970 I had the privilege of sitting on the steps of the throne in the other place to listen to my father’s maiden speech. In 1995, following what I thought was his untimely death, I had the opportunity to go there myself to make my own speech. In the intervening period I often sat on the steps of the throne, largely because doing so was free and, as a trainee in the Savoy company, I was able to spend afternoons on split shifts there. I listened, watched and learned a great deal about the House of Lords. I remember many great noble Lords making many great speeches, but I came to the view that, however wonderful it was, it was no way to run a legislature. When I arrived in this place, in my maiden speech I made it clear, as I had done in speeches in the other place, that I would seek to work for reform of the Lords and would not rest until it was an elected House.

Therefore, I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill. When I made my maiden speech in this House, what I said on Lords reform was said more in hope than expectation, but let me tell him now that the expectation is high, because this is the right reform, at the right time and in the right context. I believe that for two fundamental reasons. First, in my view the House of Lords is broke. It does not actually work. An hon. Friend referred earlier to the number of Government amendments that the Lords voted against in the last Parliament, but the crucial point is the number that survived scrutiny afterwards in this place. As we all know, when an amendment that is made in the other place arrives here we are told that the Lords have asked us to think again but, as they are not legitimate or elected, let us, the legitimate and elected House, strike it down. That is the critical fix that we need to make.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument correctly, he is now saying that, because Members of the House of Lords are to be elected, when they turn something down and it comes to this House we will be more likely to give way to their views. If that is the case, surely he accepts that we are in fact giving up part of our powers?

[John Thurso]

Let me come to that point in a moment, because it is a critical part of the argument.

The second fundamental reason I believe that the House of Lords should be reformed is that for the past 50 years the Executive have gradually been pruning the powers of Parliament. For 50 years the ability in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, to hold the Government to account has been diminishing. For me, the Bill is primarily about the primacy of Parliament as a whole. It is not a zero-sum game. Increasing the legitimacy of the Lords will increase the legitimacy of Parliament as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have given way twice, so unfortunately I do not have time to do so again.

On the question of what voting system we use, I am aware that the coalition agreement said that we would use proportional representation and that it has some attractions. Some of the things we like about the second Chamber at the moment, such as the fact that some distinguished former Members of this House have been appointed to it, could be continued were we to carry on with that voting system. I would fight for Baroness Thatcher to be top of any list that the Conservative party would field, so from that point of view there are some merits in the PR system. However, it is clear that in many countries where PR has been used it is an extremely unsatisfactory system. Israel elects its “Commons” on the basis of PR, which often ends up giving the balance of power to undesirable elements. I would have a significant concern about that.

I think we all agree that Cross Benchers play an extremely important role, and if I were to move in any direction from what is proposed, it would be to give an increased weight to them. However, I now wish to discuss something that has not been mentioned—the geographical problems of what is being proposed—and relate it to my private Member’s Bill in the last Session on the West Lothian question. In its current form, the Bill would clearly exacerbate problems with the West Lothian question. We have yet to see the report from the West Lothian commission, but I anticipate it in this Session of Parliament. A further look at how the upper House worked would clearly need to be taken because of the West Lothian question, so I throw out a proposal to colleagues: rather than have the much larger geographical constituencies proposed in the Bill, let us do away with the geographical link altogether and have national proportional weighting in the allocations in the upper House. Such an approach would completely sever the geographical link, which I know a lot of colleagues have expressed concerns about, and would solve the West Lothian question.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have taken two interventions and have only a couple of minutes left. I want to allow many colleagues to contribute, so unfortunately I will not give way.

I wish to conclude by saying that I hope we can use the 10 days available to move forward constructively with the things the House agrees on. I hope that in this Session our proposals will carry the majority of the House, so that we can look back on this opportunity to reform the House of Lords and say that we did not fall into the temptation to filibuster and talk out the Bill, but were able to leave behind, for future Parliaments, a more reformed second Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

It is with a heavy heart that I speak to the Bill before the House. I am a reformer and I would welcome a well-crafted Lords reform Bill without election that reduced the size of the upper House, removed those who have committed serious criminal offences, improved the scrutiny of legislation, strengthened the appointments process, reduced political patronage, converted the hereditary peers to life peers, and separated the peerage as such from the legislature. Those measures would constitute a great reforming Bill and would, I suspect, pass through this House on a free vote. This Bill, however, is a hopeless mess.

Members of the House can properly differ on the merits of the underlying issues. What they cannot differ on are the flaws in the Bill itself. It is deeply confused and, indeed, dangerous legislation. It will prevent real reform. It will reduce diversity and deep expertise in our political system. It would be a catastrophe for this country if the Bill were ever enacted.

David Lloyd George famously referred to the House of Lords as Mr Balfour’s poodle, but if the Bill goes through we will have Mr Clegg’s lapdog—a Chamber full of elected party politicians.

There has also been an important failure of due process. The Government originally worked hard to establish a consensus on the Bill, but without success. The Joint Committee sat for longer than any in recent memory. Because of its internal disagreements, it was forced to put more issues to the vote than any recent Committee. It even produced an unprecedented minority report, signed by six Privy Counsellors, but the views of the Joint Committee have barely been heeded by the Government. Its key recommendations were that an issue of this constitutional magnitude required a referendum and that the crucial clause governing the relationship between Lords and Commons should be entirely rethought.

Those recommendations have been ignored or brushed aside. The result is that important matters have been introduced without any pre-legislative scrutiny. Those include a revised clause 2 on the relations between the Houses, and a party list voting system. Instead, the Government have treated the votes of a highly divided Committee as a consensus when they were nothing of the kind. The Government refused to allow the Committee to publish the costs of the draft Bill, and refused to schedule a debate on its report, as is normal practice. They have rushed to get the Bill into Parliament before the summer.

[Mr Gray]

As evidence of the lack of consensus that my hon. Friend so well describes, has he ever attended any Second Reading debate in which every speech of any substance at all was against the principle behind the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon—I listened dutifully and did not intervene. He seems to have become the Andy Murray of this House; he has gone from being a set up and at break point two years ago to being in deep trouble in the fourth set this afternoon. I suggest that part of the reason is that his arguments seem to centre on the point that we do not want to spend a huge amount of Government time on the Bill and just need to get on with it and get it through—we basically just need to agree with Nick. However, from what I have heard over the last few hours, very few of the Members who have spoken so far seem to agree with Nick, but there is still time and, of course, there is tomorrow.

Many Members have said that the Government should not be spending time on this issue right now and that no one cares about Lords reform, but I do not entirely agree. Governments multi-task all the time, so the Bill takes its place alongside many others, and that is the choice of Ministers this time. I also do not think that it is fair to say that no one cares about Lords reform. The truth is that those who care about it do so passionately. I suspect that they come predominantly from one political tradition, but that does not make their views any less valid, and I certainly do not dismiss them. I have received a huge number of e-mails from constituents over the past few weeks putting both sides of the argument, and I do not dismiss any of their points.

I agree with what so many Members have said today, but let me also state from the outset that I believe in the reform of Parliament, including the House of Lords. I stand by the manifesto commitment I stood on two years ago to work to build a consensus and deeply regret that we have been unable to do so.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend alleges that no consensus has been achieved, but surely the real feeling in this afternoon’s debate shows that there is a strong consensus that the Bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history?

[Steve Brine]

Although it is tempting to agree with my hon. Friend, there is quite a long way to go on Second Reading, but I certainly feel that there are straws in the wind.

I think that there is plenty we can do to reform the other place. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) touched on a number of things we could do without abolishing the House of Lords or jamming up Parliament for months, if not years, with a clumsy Bill that seems to get worse the more times I read it.

To be blunt, I think that we are approaching the whole business the wrong way round. Reform of Parliament should start with a simple question: what do we want this House and the other place to do? I think that we want a second Chamber that acts as a revising Chamber, largely free from the politics of the first Chamber and, ultimately, always subservient to it. In other words, purely with regard to the roles performed and the way we make the laws of this land, I think that we have it about right in the United Kingdom. We can argue until the cows come home, and no doubt until they go out again, about who should sit in this bicameral Parliament but, when it come to the system of checks and balances on the Government of the day, I think that most of the sensible people I represent would say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Let me turn to who sits in the upper House. What is proposed in the Bill is a host of senators—let us call them that for now—who would sit for an unrepeatable term of 15 years. From what I have heard so far this afternoon, that seems to be at the heart of the concerns right across this House. The record will show that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister in this House on 20 March whether he thought that

“a 15-year senator who is unable to stand for re-election is more or less accountable than a current Member of the other place”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 639.]

I have to say that the answer I received was hardly convincing. The current Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, helped greatly when he told the BBC recently:

“They’re not accountable… there will be no power of de-selection. Once they’re there, they’re there for 15 years.”

I accept that it is absolutely the case that under current rules, without the power of recall, Members of this House could leave the election night count, jump in a cab and go to Heathrow, take a flight direct to Barbados, sit on a deckchair on a white sandy beach for five years and that decision would catch up with them only if ultimately they sought re-election to this place at the next general election. I take that seriously. The point is that I am accountable to the people of Winchester only if or when I seek re-election to this place. A guaranteed job on £300 a day, with zero accountability—why on earth are we even considering creating such a gravy train? If it were not so serious, it would be funny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I regret that I will not be in the same Lobby tomorrow night as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), even though I agreed with much that he had to say today. I think that the primacy problem in this place has nothing whatever to do with the House of Lords or even the House of Commons. The real issue that lies at the heart of UK constitutional politics is the corrosive effect of the overweening primacy of the Executive.

Anything, but anything that provides an effective counterweight to the oft unchallenged power of the Executive is, in my view, a good thing. I remain to this day staggered by the sheer gutlessness of this place, including of many Members who will vote against this Bill’s Second Reading and programme motion tomorrow night, because we waved through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and it was a terrible bit of legislation.

That legislation cravenly supported a reduction in the size of this House, and it was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister on the basis of a fatuous saving to the public purse of £10 million a year, which even in his own words has been overwhelmed by the additional amount of money that will be required for the new House of Lords. At the same time, we failed either to nail down any commensurate shrinking of the size or cost of the House of Lords, or to address the constitutional iniquity surrounding the absurdly inflated Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish and Welsh Assemblies.

But I am a democrat, and since my maiden speech in this House I have supported, and will continue to support, a fully elected House of Lords. The case for the preservation of the “ancient traditions”, as many hon. Friends have assured me, of the upper House was conclusively lost in 1999. Once the vast bulk of the hereditaries had been removed, so too should all appointed Members have followed. Instead, today we have a bloated House of Lords, of which the Lords Winstons and Puttnams are assuredly the exception rather than the rule.

Over the past 13 years the ranks of the upper House have been swelled by literally hundreds of party hacks and large-scale political donors, along with dubious-quality legislators given the nod on politically correct grounds. In the charming words of my Liberal Democrat opponent at the last election, ironically herself also the daughter of a life peer, I was too “male, pale and stale”. That may well be the case, but I was also elected, and in a democracy that matters.

While I am happy to support the principle of electing the House of Lords both on Second Reading and in the vote on the programme motion, I believe that in many of its particulars the Bill is shoddy and poorly drafted.

[Mr Gray]

If my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Bill is shoddy and ill drafted, how on earth can he support the programme motion, which should have allowed us the time to put that right?

[Mark Field]

I will come to that at the end of my remarks, if I may.

The Bill misses the opportunity to propose an elegant solution that might have resolved effectively the four main domestic constitutional uncertainties that have plagued our whole political arena for the past three decades. I hope that when it is in Committee and in the other place we might be able to make some progress in that regard. With a federal UK parliament and four elected national parliaments, we could have not only maintained the monarchy, strengthened the Union, and resolved questions over the legitimacy of an unreformed House of Lords, but given independent and equal representation to citizens in England as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As many Members have said, the British constitution has been one of the success stories of modern politics. It has kept this country together, united under a common Crown and a common Parliament, for over 300 years—not for us the coups, revolutions and counter-revolutions that have plagued many of our European partners over that period. So successful has it been that we Britons had perhaps stopped thinking about some of its great successes. Until 15 years ago, nobody in this House or beyond gave much thought to constitutional issues; we knew instinctively that we had a British constitution that worked well for the whole of these islands. I am afraid that that was destroyed in 1999 when we got rid of the traditional House of Lords, removing much of the genuinely independent hereditary element and created hundreds of new life peers. Shamefully, this process has continued even under the coalition Government, with some 120 new life peers being created. That is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).

The two Members who have excited me the most in this debate are my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We need true, bicameral reform. Both parts of this Parliament need to look at themselves and ensure that we have a dynamic, active and reformed Parliament—one Parliament, two Chambers, which in my view should both be elected. I appreciate that the Bill is merely one step on the way and is not the answer to the big parliamentary deficit from which we suffer, but we have an opportunity to consider a new settlement between the public, Parliament and, most importantly, the Executive.

Although many people might have heard a lot of conflict in the debate and a lot of difference between the Government’s position and that of other Members, over the past 10 months the process of public debate, the proceedings of the Joint Committee, on which I served, and other discussions have delivered, in a strange way, a significant amount of consensus. There is consensus about a reduction in numbers in the Lords, the end of patronage and the decoupling of titles. Those are all fundamental points about the anomaly at the heart of our constitution, and I think we can agree on them. The sticking point is whether we have a second Chamber that is elected or selected.

In many people’s minds, the case for selection is that people without political bias would be appointed. Does that mean that membership of any political party would preclude someone from being put forward? What criteria would be used for the selection? As we have discussed before, we must consider whether people would represent vested interests and embed the status quo rather than offer a Parliament that can provide reform and take things forward. Are those people not a group of professionals who have benefited from the status quo and are part of the elite?

[Mr Gray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most passionate and powerful opponents of what the Government are doing with regard to, for example, the reductions in the armed forces are the field marshals, generals and others in the House of Lords? They are the passionate opponents of the Government, not their supporters.

[Laura Sandys]

Yes, but they have no vote on this matter, because it is one of financial restructuring. They can discuss it, but to be frank they do so more in the media than in Parliament. Formers members of the military, or of any institution, have every right to discuss Government proposals, but I am not sure they need the House of Lords to do that.

We have an example of how selection can be negative. One of the previous chairmen of the House of Lords Appointments Commission said, “We don’t want hairdressers in the House of Lords.” I am very proud that we have a hairdresser in our House. Any selection process will not choose people who have not been to the right dinner party. Those who do not know the right people, or who have not networked and become well connected, or those who do not come from the south-east, will not be selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

We are talking about our institutions where there is representation and where laws are made.

To any rational person, the current arrangement is absurd. We live in a democracy and we, the British people, should be allowed to elect those who make our laws and govern us. Equally importantly, we should also be allowed the opportunity to put ourselves forward for such a role. As things stand, I have to be able to explain to my constituents that, when it comes to the House of Lords, although they live in a democracy and we can vote for and be councillors, MPs, mayors and so on, they cannot vote for some of the people who pass laws over them, nor do they have the opportunity to hold such offices themselves. That cannot be right.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer one simple question: is he, or is he not, a hereditary monarchist?

[John Stevenson]

I do not believe that the monarchy is part of our constitution where effective—[Hon. Members: “What?”] No, it is not involved in our effective day-to-day constitution, in terms of the laws that are passed, so when my hon. Friend talks about the monarchy as such, he is talking about a different concept.