House of Lords Reform Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

House of Lords Reform Bill

Christopher Pincher Excerpts
Tuesday 10th July 2012

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffiths Portrait Andrew Griffiths
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is rather like saying that someone can be a little bit pregnant. We are changing the relationship between this place and the other place fundamentally, because the other place will have democratic accountability and legitimacy with it.

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Does my hon. Friend not agree that giving more power to the other place without giving it more responsibility is a bit like what Stanley Baldwin described as the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages?

Andrew Griffiths Portrait Andrew Griffiths
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend has made a very good point, and I commend the work that he has done in opposing the Bill. He has done a fantastic job, and I pay tribute to him and to others in the House.

I also struggle with the idea of having to confront my constituents, who are being expected to deal with austerity. We are expecting people to accept the cuts that the coalition claims are necessary if we are to put the country back on its feet and deal with the mess that we inherited, but at the same time we are telling them that politicians may decide to spend £153 million on more politicians. How can I look my constituents in the eye—the workers in my local council who have been made redundant, and the public sector workers who are having to accept pay freezes and make more contributions to their pensions—and say to them, “Yes, but what is important is for us is to have elected representatives costing £153 million”?

I find it worrying that the Government have tried to persuade us that savings made in the House of Commons can be offset against the extra costs in another place. We all recognise that reducing the number of Members here represents a massive saving, but that money should not be spent on more politicians in another place. I am also worried about the 15-year term. The possibility that Members of an upper Chamber elected in 1997 with Tony Blair’s mandate and Tony Blair’s election result would have only just finished sitting strikes me as undemocratic in the extreme.