Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Jack Straw Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
If I may, I will begin by paying tribute to the Leader of the House for his work as Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman will know from my interventions in the House that I have great admiration for the way in which he conducted that office and for his indefatigable energy. Few who have not held the office—still more who have not been married to one who has—appreciate its pressures. The Foreign Secretary—still more than, say, the Home Secretary—is never off duty and it can feel as though sleep is not allowed. There will be other occasions to pay such tributes at greater length, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the path from King Charles street to the office of the Leader of the House is now a well-trodden and, some may say, a distinguished one. It was begun by Geoffrey Howe, it was followed by Robin Cook, and is now taken—someone whose name I forget came in between—by the right hon. Gentleman. I wish the new Leader of the House very well.
The right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) referred to Macmillan’s nervousness about going into the Smoking Room. I regret to say that in the bad old days when the hours were long, the collegiality was great and the Smoking Room did what it said on the door, I had no nervousness about entering that room to drink and smoke—not a huge amount, of course, just like the rest of the House. I remember being offered for the first time, by one of my smoking mates, a cigar from a packet. I looked at the pack and thought, “I recognise that man. He is in the Clerk’s Office.” It was only on further examination, when I discovered the name of the cigars, that I found that the fine portrait on the front of the pack was not of Sir Robert Rogers but was in fact of Edward VII, whose name was given to the cigars.
As the Leader of the House said, Sir Robert has a distinguished bearing, which I am sure is designed to give the appearance—and indeed does—that he is a 24-carat gold, wholly signed-up member of the British establishment who takes a similar view to the Duke of Wellington that the British constitution is perfect and needs no alteration—[Interruption.] I remind hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches that the duke said that in the face of the Reform Act of 1832, in case they now propose to repeal what turned out to be a modest Act and return to rotten boroughs and much else besides.
However, Sir Robert’s appearance belies an intellectually adventurous mind and considerable radicalism—meaning not rampant, mad modernisation, but sensible reform—with regard to this place. As Leader of the House for a year, I saw his work and the careful advice that he gave to the Clerk of the Modernisation Committee when I chaired it and how he was able to steer the Committee’s bright ideas for timed speeches in the Chamber and topical questions and turn them into a reality that would work. It is never quite as easy as it would seem.
The Leader of the House spoke of the stronger links that Sir Robert forged behind the scenes with the Executive and the judiciary. It is worth saying a word about those, because from the feedback that I received from senior members of the judiciary I know just how valued they were. Previously, there had been an astonishing absence of real engagement by the Clerks responsible for legislation with those who had to form the legislation and those who had to interpret it—one of the hardest tasks in the world. Sir Robert put that right, and that demands great commendation.
In a country of which we are all immensely proud, with a vibrant democracy that still manages not to have a formal written constitution, there are some individuals on whom rests the working of our democratic arrangements and the responsibility for ensuring the proper balancing of the power of the state and the rights of elected Members and of the public. In that regard, there is no greater responsibility than that which rests on the Clerk of the House, who in many respects is the keeper of our constitution. No one has better met that role than Sir Robert Rogers.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
First, may I add my welcome to the Leader of the House and wish him well?
I endorse everything that everybody has said in the past half hour or so, but I rise principally to speak on behalf of Plaid Cymru Members past and present and Scottish National party Members past and present who, as one, are very grateful to Sir Robert for all the years of assistance he has given us as minority parties—I echo what the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has said—without fear or favour, always being fair and always doing his best.
I am standing down from the House myself next year after what I feel has been a rather lengthy 23 years. The fact that Sir Robert has been here for 42 years should humble us all and bears testament to his wisdom, leadership and guidance, all provided to Members in an unfailingly courteous and helpful way. It also, incidentally, speaks to his stamina and his great patience.
I was recently reminded of his great humour and his kindly ways when at Christmas time, in the lead up to the festive period, he had on a red and white hat and was serving food to the masses of Westminster in Portcullis House. He looked not too unlike a certain other Christmas figure and was in a similarly jovial mood.
Aside from his duties in the Chamber, it is a continual wonder that Sir Robert is also chief executive of the House of Commons service, meaning that he is responsible for a budget of £220 million and a work force of more than 1,850. From a bit of reading that I did when I was considering this tribute, I understand that he put in action the decision to move Select Committees to paperless briefings. As someone who is still coming to terms with my iPad, I have to thank him for dragging me into the electronic age, much to the amusement of my staff, members of the Justice Committee and everybody who knows me. I am conscious that the aim is to save the House money and cut down on some of the 8.5 million pages printed annually.
Sir Robert is a moderniser, despite what has been said about his stately appearance, and he has always been keen to use technology and to bring in all kinds of people to ensure that the Commons really does represent the times we live in. As he has said,
“My aim is to enthuse people who would be put off by the look of the building and think they will never have the privilege of working for Parliament.”
That sums up much of his thinking.
On Sir Robert’s educational background, I was very pleased to find out that he had studied mediaeval Welsh at Oxford university, along with old Norse and Anglo-Saxon, as has been said. Therefore I consider it appropriate to quote from the laws of Hywel Dda, Hywel the Good, from the manuscripts of Jesus college. This section sets out the treatment of thieves in medieval Wales:
“Cynnen a Rhaith yn Erbyn Lleidr.
Ny dyly Kynnen vot ar leidyr a berthyno y werthu yny vo manac arnaw yn gyntaf (trwy twg) yn tri lle, megys y mae racdywededic kyn no hynn.
Ny dyly bot reith ar leidyr kysswyn yny vo manac ar(n)aw yn gyntaf yn llys.”
I had the privilege of studying mediaeval Welsh laws, and it is entirely possible that within the confines of this building only Sir Robert and I understood what I have just said. I hope I pronounced it correctly.
Mr Llwyd
I quoted a passage about the treatment of thieves in mediaeval Wales, who were treated with a great deal more compassion than by some Ministers I could think of.
If I had known of his background before, I would no doubt have approached Sir Robert to discuss the golden period of Welsh literature—greats such as Taliesin and Aneirin, and the Mabinogi. I am sure he and his family will be very welcome at the National Eisteddfod or anywhere in Wales whenever he wishes to rekindle his interest in the field. I look forward to seeing him there if he does. I wish him a fond farewell and the best of luck to himself and his family for the future.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Jack Straw Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
No; I will give way in a moment. Let me turn to the substance of the issues.
Parliament agreed less than two years ago to a boundary review, and it did so for good reasons. There are major disparities in the size of constituencies. In England, East Ham has 92,000 voters; Wirral West has just 55,000. The differences are even greater in respect of other nations: Arfon in Wales has an electorate of just 41,000. This means that some votes count much more than others, and the principle of greater equality in the value of each vote is at the heart of this new boundary review. Votes should carry much more equal weight across the country in electing Members to this House and in deciding a future Government. If the current review were not to happen, in England the next general election would be based on the register of February 2000, with all the consequent disparities and inequalities which have been exacerbated since then. It would be 15 years out of date.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being just a tad disingenuous in claiming—
Mr Speaker
Order. Although the list of proscribed words ceased to exist some time ago, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman is on somewhat dodgy ground in using that word. In view of his known dexterity in the use of language, I exhort him to deploy another term to make his point.
Mr Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse somebody of behaving disingenuously, it is small comfort for that person to be accused of behaving only a tad disingenuously.
Mr Straw
Would the Leader of the House accept that he has put only a part of his argument when he justifies the measure on the grounds of seeking equality of electorates? That principle is agreed across the Chamber. The objection to the 2011 Act was that it was a wholly partisan measure, breaking a clear convention that this kind of measure be agreed across the parties, to arbitrarily reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That is the real reason.
Mr Lansley
Well, Mr Speaker, that was a long time to be sitting down. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am on occasions wrong, but I endeavour never to be disingenuous. On this occasion I am not wrong either. One could equally argue that it was a partisan effort on the part of the Opposition to frustrate the intention of the House to bring equality and fairness into the franchise when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was passed. None the less, my point is simply that Parliament voted on that legislation, which has been enacted. That was done on the principle of equality and fairness and the Boundary Commission has proceeded on that basis. Not now proceeding with the review would leave all the inequalities in constituencies, between constituencies and between voters that go all the way back to February 2000.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is inviting me to engage with a series of hypothetical situations. I will resist the temptation.
All four boundary commissions have completed their consultations and are finalising—
Mr Lansley
I will, but I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before and it took about five minutes.
Mr Lansley
As Leader of the House, I am answering for my party and for the Government—[Interruption.] My party will live very happily with the outcome of the boundary commissions’ review, I can tell you that. The boundary commissions are finalising their recommendations. They are doing that because this Parliament voted for that measure. This concerns a fundamental feature of our democracy—namely, the basis on which we are elected to this House.
Sittings of the House
Jack Straw Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Following up the important intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for those fortunate enough to bring up their children in inner London, as I was, notwithstanding the fact that I have a constituency 225 miles away, there is no rule to say that a 7 o’clock finish on a Tuesday is more “family-friendly” than one at 10 o’clock? As I know for certain, having talked to younger Members today, it varies greatly according to the family circumstances. No one should presume to speak for those Members—men or women—who happen to have young children about what is “best for them”.
Mr Knight
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I must tell him that the evidence that the Committee received from Members was rather mixed. There was little, if any, enthusiasm for September sittings. Many Members felt that little of substance was achieved during those two-week periods, and that any presentational benefit was outweighed by the financial costs of setting up the House so that Members could be brought back for just eight or nine sitting days before the conference recess. Many also regretted the loss of opportunities for constituency work in September, particularly visits to schools.
However, the view in other quarters—including, I believe, the Government—rather reflected that of the hon. Gentleman, namely that any move to return to the long summer recess would be very difficult in presentational terms, and would also create a long period during which the House would be unable effectively to fulfil its task of scrutinising the Government and holding Ministers to account. Indeed, that may well be the view of the official Opposition.
Mr Straw
Under a Labour Government, when we were operating the old system of no September sittings, the House had to be recalled on three occasions. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cost and disruption involved in recalling Members from their holidays, and the disruption of works in this building, far outweighs the cost of programmed, regular September sittings?
Mr Knight
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, I should add that the Clerk of the House has estimated that the additional cost of September sittings is some £1.5 million, mainly from the capital budget. That cost arises from the need to manage some projects within the tighter timetable that results from the breaking up of the long summer recess. Costs will of course vary from year to year. The key factor for the Parliamentary Estates Directorate is certainty about the parliamentary calendar to allow for effective planning. One reason for the Committee’s wish for the matter to be decided today, either way, is that at least it will bring certainty to 2013 and beyond.
The House has not had an opportunity since the general election to debate the question of whether September sittings should become the norm. We have had two years of September sittings since the election, and we think that the time is now ripe for all Members to judge the desirability of such sittings. The House has already agreed to a motion providing for a sitting in September 2012, and today we have an opportunity to decide whether we should sit in September from 2013 onwards. I have proposed that we sit in September, and any Member who opposes September sittings should divide the House and vote against motion 8.
We all have our own views on the sitting hours that we personally prefer. Today the Procedure Committee, above all else, wants the House of Commons, in the present Parliament, to have an opportunity to decide its own sitting hours. I hope that the motions that I have tabled will enable that to be achieved simply and with the minimum of fuss.
Dame Joan Ruddock
He has indeed. The motions are concerned with the hours in which the House sits. That is all we are concerning ourselves with. What matters to most of us is that we have to vote on legislation that comes before the Chamber. The timings determine when we are obliged to be here, as opposed to our offices, our local offices, at home working or anywhere else. It removes choice. It is about the choice of when we are required to be here and voting. If the sitting hours of the day are moved forward, there will be no question of working fewer hours; we will simply work different hours.
Mr Straw
My right hon. Friend referred to the Hansard Society findings about the pressures on families when people enter the House. Those are undoubted. Does she accept, however, that the vast majority of Members have constituencies and families way beyond commuting distance from here, so whether the House finishes at 7 pm or 10 pm is irrelevant to whether they see their families? Moreover, as I know from talking to new Members, the pressures on families arise not from whether we finish at 7 pm or 10 pm but from the fact that Members are under increasing power to work on Fridays, during the day and in the evening, and on Saturdays and Sundays?
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I shall stick to five minutes for my speech, Mr Speaker.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) for the work he and other members of the Procedure Committee have done. I have no nostalgia for the old hours at all. Sitting into the small hours and going on until 11.30 pm was absurd. I also strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) said about Friday sittings. We should not move private Members’ business to a separate ghetto after normal business. There should, for example, be 13 days allocated to private Member’s Bills in the normal sitting week, which the business of the House committee that would be formed would allocate according to need, and there should be proper knives coming down for that business, as with any other business.
We would be in grave error if we moved to a 7 o’clock finish on a Tuesday, however. We tried that, based on the 2001 Modernisation Committee report, and it was found not to be workable. In the words of one of my hon. Friends—who is not known as a neanderthal—in the Tea Room earlier, it was a “nightmare to operate.”
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
When it came to the vote, 225 voted to retain the early hours and 292 voted against, so 225 Members of the 2001-05 Parliament thought the hours did work.
Mr Straw
I am afraid I will not take any more interventions, or I shall suffer the injunction of Mr Speaker.
I remind the House of what was said at the time in favour of those changes. We were told that the changes to the hours
“would bring us closer to the people”.
Extravagant claims have been made about changing the hours, which have all turned to dust.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford did not push the family-friendly argument, as that was the argument that was made before and, as we have now accepted, there is no single rule about what suits families. As it happens, my family were brought up in London even though my constituency is a distance away. I did my best, like every other Member of this House, to meet my family obligations, including chairing the governing body of our children’s inner-London comprehensive. The old hours happened to suit that, because I could go and come back. The thing that made the biggest difference to family-friendly hours was nothing to do with the formal hours at which we finish; it was pairing. I was able to pair with Conservative colleagues who also had small children. If we wish to get back to sensible arrangements that take account of individual circumstances, we must put pressure on the Patronage Secretary and our own Whips to reintroduce a pairing system. A natural equilibrium results from a pairing system, as those like me, old stagers who do not have families to go back to, give way to those who do have families to go back to.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Straw
I will not, if the hon. Lady will excuse me.
Finally, the reason we had to change back, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out, was that there was a clash with the meeting of Committees and with the meetings of Government in Cabinet and Cabinet Committees. I tell my hon. Friends that I do not wish us to stay in opposition as a perpetual state; I regard it as temporary. I wish to be on the Government Benches. The change would also be disruptive, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would find, to the work of the Opposition. The shadow Cabinet meets on a Tuesday morning and will find that all sorts of meetings cannot happen.
The hon. Gentleman who is the Member for Slough—
Mr Straw
One of those new towns, anyway he made some important points about Tuesday morning being the only time of the week when he felt safe about holding meetings.
I hope that, taking account of all those factors, Members will not make the error that they made in 2001 and that the House had to put right, by a big majority, just a few years later.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Jack Straw Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I respect the hon. Lady, but it is important that she recognises that it is not playing politics to disagree with a programme motion on such an important matter on which the Government decided without consulting the Opposition. I hope she has realised from listening to my speech that the Opposition are serious about achieving reform of the second Chamber. I hope that we can work together to make progress on scrutinising the Bill appropriately.
The Government propose an 80% elected second Chamber, and 80% is better than zero, but a wholly elected second Chamber would be better still. A House in which one in five Members are not elected could still be one in which the unelected hold the balance of power. Indeed, they could decide every vote. Would that Chamber be truly accountable to the British people? That needs to be reconsidered.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I take my hon. Friend back to the issue of programme motions? She came here before we introduced them, and by the way, I regret that we ever did. [Interruption.] Yes, and I have been consistent on that. Does she accept that before programme motions were introduced, a number of major and constitutional Bills went before the House and were dealt with satisfactorily? New Members perhaps do not properly appreciate that a programme motion not only closes debate according to a timetable but restricts the rights of Back Benchers much more than an ordinary and open motion of committal to the Floor of the House.
Ms Eagle
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said earlier, both the Leader of the House and I have experience of getting Bills on to the statute book perfectly sensibly before the era of programme motions. The House is capable of doing that, and it can do it again.
The Opposition have other concerns about the Government’s proposals which we hope to explore further in Committee and on Report, but we will support Second Reading, because we believe the House should ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. We sat from July 2011 to March 2012, for about 90 hours in total. We heard from many witnesses, who had very different and sincerely held opinions. The Committee members also held divergent views. There were those who thought that we should have sat for longer, but I am not sure that those divergent views would have been reconciled, however long we had sat.
I do not intend to go into every detail of the reasoning behind every recommendation, but I want to draw the House’s attention to one important division, on a recommendation that the Committee agreed by 16 votes to six: that if there were to be elections, there should be 80% elected and 20% appointed, as a means of preserving expertise and placing the mandate of the Lords on a different footing from that of the Commons. That proposal has been criticised. However, I would point out that it will retain the best features of the existing Lords, with room for independent experts from outside politics. There will be 90 independent Members, which is more than currently turn up to contentious votes in the present House. The evidence is that the electorate favour an elected House, but there is also evidence that they value independence in their representatives. I am sure that if there had been a proposal to have a 100% elected second Chamber, there would also have been strong criticism from parts of this House. In fact, it is difficult to foresee any proposals that would not be subject to criticism.
Some of the proposals in the Bill are not new. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made similar proposals on size, appointments, powers, remuneration and long, non-renewable terms in the 2008 White Paper, which said:
“Provision that members of the second chamber could serve only a single term would help enhance the independence of, and reinforce the distinct role for, members of the second chamber…There is widespread consensus that elected members of the second chamber should serve a single, non-renewable term of 12-15 years.”
The White Paper did not become a Bill.
Mr Straw
Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposal that we agreed for long single terms of between 12 and 15 years derived from the recommendations of Lord Wakeham and his royal commission back in 2000? It might be wise for hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches to look at what Lord Wakeham had to say in support of that.
Ann Coffey
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
That White Paper did not become a Bill. There was a banking crisis at the time, and, as we have seen over the past 100 years, it is never the right time to reform the Lords. There is always a good reason not to change. However, the present House of Lords is unsustainable, simply on a practical level. If the current pace of patronage were to continue, its membership would rise to about 1,100. There would be so many peers that, soon, every town in the British isles would have its name in some Lord’s title. There is also a health and safety issue, with so many bodies in such a limited space, all trying to squeeze through the Division Lobbies.
Some say that the answer is to limit the numbers, but I have little confidence that the House of Lords could do that. For example, there was a debate recently in the Lords on a proposal to change the way in which their lordships address each other. One peer said:
“I think it is a retrograde step to start changing an age-old custom, particularly when it comes to ‘noble and gallant’, ‘noble and learned’ and ‘noble friends’. As I said on an earlier occasion, a right reverend Prelate shall ever be a ‘right reverend Prelate’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 160.]
The motion was lost. Change comes hard to the House of Lords. At some point, however, the numbers will have to be dealt with. Does anybody seriously believe that numbers can be dealt with, and patronage not?
Reform of an unelected House in which some Members sit by virtue of their birth and others sit courtesy of their friends is inevitable. Reform of the House of Lords is as inevitable as reform of the expenses of Members of Parliament. Then, as now, this House thought that it could hold back reform, but it could not do so. This issue is not about us preserving our privilege and our position; it is about what is in the public interest and what makes for good governance. The electorate are changing. Social media are changing the way in which we interact with our electors, and their expectations of us are changing.
I am in the same position as many Members of Parliament, in that more people voted for other candidates in the last election than voted for me, but I represent the constituency of Stockport: those who voted for me and those who did not. In this House, we value that constituency link, and many of the issues that Members pursue are pursued on behalf of constituents. Indeed, there are many examples of excellent cross-party co-operation on issues that do not, and should not, divide the parties. Part of the frustration for Back Benchers in this House results from getting Ministers to listen to those issues and to make sensible amendments to legislation.
I believe that, if Ministers knew that they faced a more assertive House of Lords, they would be less inclined to dismiss the genuine concerns of Members of this House about particular aspects of policy or legislation. They would know that, even if they could dismiss the concerns in the Commons, they would face the same concerns in the Lords, but without the same willingness of the Lords to back down as they do now. Ministers might also consider giving this House more time to discuss Bills. That might put a stop to successive Governments making amendments in the Lords that they have refused to make in the Commons, thus sending out a message that the Commons is ineffectual.
There are many excellent Members of the House of Lords whose opinion and expertise I value. This is not about the power and privilege of the House of Commons versus the power and privilege of the House of Lords; it is about improving governance in the public interest, and improving the way in which we fulfil our role as representatives of the public. It must ultimately be about the people we serve.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
As the House will be aware, I spent the last four years of the previous Labour Government leading on the issue of Lords reform. The House voted decisively in March 2007 for an 80% or a 100% elected second Chamber and against all other alternatives. I then chaired the cross-party working group, which worked hard and constructively to develop detailed proposals for reform. The Deputy Prime Minister has taken that work forward. Many, though not all, of the Bill’s proposals have come, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) pointed out, from the proposals that we brought forward. That includes the key proposal—I am sorry that I do not have time to go into all the arguments in its favour—for single, non-renewable 15-year terms and a ban on those elected to the other place from being able to stand immediately for this place. Although there is much in the Bill that could and should be improved, I support the measure, and I shall vote for it if the House divides tonight.
In the limited time available, I want to focus on one key omission from the Bill—a proposal for a referendum. During our period in government, I probably piloted through this House more constitutional Bills than any other Minister.
Mr Straw
I had such wonderful support from my right hon. and hon. Friends for all those measures.
On some, such as the Human Rights Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill, there was an understanding across the Chamber that it was appropriate for Parliament to have the final say. On others, however, there was a growing consensus that matters affecting the location and balance of powers in our constitutional arrangements required the endorsement of the British people because the fundamentals of the constitution belong to the people and not to us.
Among the measures I sought to introduce was the European Union constitution Bill, which made very significant changes in respect of our obligations within the EU. The Labour Government’s initial view was that we should do what successive Governments had done, most notably over Maastricht, and have this House make the final decisions. In making that case, as in previous debates on the principle, I advanced arguments against introducing a referendum for that Bill that were similar to those put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister. Those arguments related to cost, complexity and the fact that two of the main parties—his and mine—supported the measure. I have to say, however, that behind that—unwritten and unspoken—was the fear, particularly among my colleagues who were enthusiasts for the measure, that the British people might give the wrong answer. I believe that that fear also lies behind the refusal of a referendum in this case, even though I want a referendum and will passionately argue for a yes vote in any referendum.
Mr Straw
I entirely accept the hon. Lady’s point. In my written text, the word “wrong” is in inverted commas. Of course I accept what she says—that there is no wrong answer from the British people, and we have to respect the result of what they say.
The more I made the case against a referendum on the EU constitution, the less convinced I became by my own arguments; and, significantly, it was, among others, Liberal Democrat leaders who were most influential in causing me to change my mind. The Liberal Democrats were strongly in favour of the constitution, but argued that the measure was of such constitutional importance that it should be for the British people to decide. I then persuaded Tony Blair and the Cabinet that we must organise a referendum, and we would indeed have done so but for the fact that the French and the Dutch voted “no” before we could do it.
For reasons about which I wrote to you and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, I could not be in the Chamber yesterday, but I have read the report of the speeches with great care. The Deputy Prime Minister made many points of considerable substance, but I have to say that on the referendum issue he was, at the very best, treading water. His argument against a referendum lacked both conviction and coherence. He talked about cost and about the distraction caused by a Scottish referendum, and he claimed that a referendum was unnecessary because all three parties had agreed on the principle of reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the £80 million cost of a referendum is a one-off which creates no continuing liability. That is what the contingency reserve is for. As for his point about the alleged distraction caused by the Scottish referendum, it is frankly absurd. The Scottish referendum has a different time scale, and will involve just one UK voter in 10. However, the Deputy Prime Minister was at his most disingenuous when he claimed that agreement between the Front Benches trumped the need for the British people to decide. It does not.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Deputy Prime Minister of being disingenuous, but he has also cited an instance in which, he says, he persuaded members of his Front Bench to change their minds and support a referendum. Is he telling our Front Benchers that they should do the same, but should then change their minds again and break their promise?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is immensely versatile in his use of legitimate parliamentary language, that he might wish to reconsider his use of the word “disingenuous”? He has a very versatile vocabulary, and I feel sure that he can deploy another word.
Mr Straw
I am happy to do so, Mr Speaker. I will substitute the word “unconvincing”.
I hope that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will concede that I was persuaded by the arguments advanced in this place in favour of referendums. I am now urging the Deputy Prime Minister to do the same.
As I was saying, the fact that those on the Front Benches may agree on this measure does not trump the need for the British people to decide. Indeed, it strengthens the imperative for the British people to have the final say.
Mr Straw
I apologise, but I will not.
It is precisely when the political elite agree that our democracy is most at risk. In any event, is there not a prior question which should decide the issue of whether or not to hold a referendum, namely whether the measure is of such constitutional importance, and affects the balance of powers in our arrangements to such an extent, that it is owned by the British people and not by the political elite in the House of Commons?
The Deputy Prime Minister ignores two other facts as well. First, whatever the agreement between the Front Benches, this measure, as we have seen, is highly contested within, certainly, the two main parties. Secondly—and I offer this very practical point to those on the Front Bench in a spirit of support for the measure—for as long as a referendum is refused, those who take a contrary view, regardless of whether the Bill is subject to a programme motion, will use every method offered by the Standing Orders of both Houses to disrupt its progress, because this House on its own lacks the legitimacy to pass it. In contrast, the moment the Deputy Prime Minister agrees to a referendum, he will find both Houses much more constructive. That is exactly what happened in the case of the EU measures.
The Deputy Prime Minister destroyed the arguments that he was advancing against the principle of a referendum when, in responding to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), he conceded the possibility of referendums on phases 2 and 3 of the reform. He has conceded the principle of a referendum on a subsidiary issue; what he must do now is concede it on the main issue as well.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined us because he is, along with many other Conservative members of this Government, one of the sponsors of this coalition Bill to reform the House of Lords.
I made it clear in 2007 that I thought that the most important relationship was between the Executive and Parliament, and that the Executive were too powerful. I am happy to reaffirm that now as a member of the Executive, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) also said. I still believe that, and I believe that what we are about here is making Parliament stronger to keep the Executive under control.
This coalition Government have made important reforms to strengthen this House of Commons. We implemented the Wright reforms, we have elected Select Committee Chairmen and we have introduced the Backbench Business Committee—not always a comfortable experience for the Government, but the right thing to do. This Session, we will introduce a House business Committee. Now it is time to get on to reform the other place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) set out clearly in his speech and in his article in The Guardian exactly why we should do so—to make sure that a stronger Commons will make life more difficult for Ministers and make Ministers think harder about legislating. That was an argument that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out clearly, as well.
We have heard from many members of the Joint Committee. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) reminded us in an excellent speech that we should pay attention to the views of our constituents. In a recent YouGov poll, 39% of the public said that the way peers are elected to—I mean get to—the House of Lords [Interruption.] I would be very happy to elect them. The public say that they do not like the way in which peers are currently selected. That is the top thing they do not like about our political system. Whenever people are asked in polls, the overwhelming majority want to elect a significant number of Members of the other place.
Mr Harper
No, the right hon. Gentleman did not leave me any time to take interventions, so I am afraid I am not giving way to him. He spoke for far too long.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) set out clearly in his excellent speech the trends over the last decade whereby this Government have built on the work done by others, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). His White Paper of 2008 was similar to the proposals we have set out, which is why Labour Members will, I hope, support the Bill on Second Reading.
The proposal in the Bill is very simple—that those who make the laws should be elected. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) demonstrated beyond doubt in his example that Members of the other place influence and make the law. He and I, however, draw opposite conclusions from that. He draws the conclusion that we should keep an appointed House; I draw the conclusion that those Members make the laws, so they should be elected.
We have adopted a consensual approach. We established a cross-party Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and when we finished that process, there were only three areas of disagreement with the Labour party. Labour Members wanted a referendum—we were very clear about that—they wanted 100% and not 80% of Members to be elected, and they preferred a list system to the single transferable vote. We have moved on the latter in a spirit of consensus, which I hope will be reflected.
Mr Harper
No, I will not.
We then established a Joint Committee which considered our draft Bill for nine months, giving it exhaustive scrutiny. The Committee agreed with its central propositions, but recommended a number of changes, more than half of which we adopted. One of its most important recommendations was that the reformed second Chamber should have an electoral mandate. In a Division that was won by 13 votes to nine, nine Members of the House of Commons voted for an elected second Chamber and only one did not. That was a very clear result, and I think that we should accept it. [Interruption.] We will have a debate about the referendum in Committee. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will set out the next steps for the timing of the Committee debates—which will take place when the House returns in the autumn—during business questions on Thursday in the usual way, following what I hope will be a very clear and decisive vote in support of Second Reading tonight.
Let me now touch briefly on the proposed alternatives. Many Members have mentioned a Bill presented by Lord Steel. That Bill would achieve only two things. It would allow peers to retire, but even Lord Steel recognises that significant numbers are unlikely to do so without what he called a bronze handshake and what I call redundancy pay. I am afraid that, given the current financial times, our constituents would not understand it if we spent public money on rewarding some of the better-off members of society for leaving the other place, and without such payments the Bill would not achieve its objectives. It would also not remove any of those in the other place who have been convicted of criminal offences. On the basis of the two propositions that it advances, it will fail.
Finally, let me say something about the way in which we will proceed. The Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted the Bill to be out of the House of Commons in sufficient time for it to be debated seriously by the other place. The programme motion that we placed on the Order Paper, which will not be moved, would have meant our debating the Bill in the House of Commons until November. If the Opposition want the Bill to leave this House and go to the other place, they need to agree on a sensible number of days for debate. The only alternative is for Members to be willing to sit during the summer, or overnight, or for the House to do nothing but debate this Bill. That is not the right way in which to proceed. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) approached the matter in a constructive way by tabling an amendment. She did the right thing: she engaged in the debate.
I hope that, following the lead given by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, there will be proper negotiations between the usual channels, and we have allowed time for that to happen. I also hope that every Member who votes for the Bill’s Second Reading tonight and agrees to its principle will ensure that we can get it out of the House and into the other place and achieve reform, because I believe that there is a consensus in favour of that reform. We will test the opinion of the House tonight, and I am confident of the result. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Sir Malcolm Jack KCB
Jack Straw Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for departing as soon as I have spoken, but I am due to give the Gareth Williams memorial lecture in Gray’s Inn at 6 o’clock; I shall be late.
The Clerks of the House are the guardians of our procedure and—with you, Mr Speaker—our rights and privileges. Happily, we take the work of the Clerks for granted, their encyclopaedic knowledge as a given, and their efficiency as the norm. We would, however, soon notice the difference if the Clerks did not excel at their work. None has excelled more in his dedication, commitment and skill than Sir Malcolm Jack, Clerk since 2006, to whom we pay tribute this afternoon.
I have been in this place for long enough, but Malcolm had been a Clerk for 12 years before I arrived. In the 32 years in which our services have coincided, I have come to know Malcolm well, and to regard him as a friend. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House were sensitive enough not to mention which fool was Sir Malcolm’s adversary over the Parliamentary Standards Bill in 2009, but it was I. I had, in good faith, judged necessary a modest little provision putting a gloss on that most sacred of rights, parliamentary privilege, to ensure that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority could work better. As many will recall, Malcolm weighed in tenaciously with objections. Even with the usual assistance available to Ministers to enable them to take the intellectual high ground in debate—heavy whipping, arm-twisting, promises to recalcitrants of overseas trips—my task was doomed to failure. To every argument that I advanced from the Dispatch Box, the advice of the Clerk of the House was quoted back at me as holy writ. It was a hopeless task. The result of the Division was Straw, Jack 247; Jack, Malcolm 250. He won, I lost and the Bill, it must be said, was much better for it. If ever Malcolm had needed, which he did not, an expression of complete confidence in him by the House, that was it.
I know, too, from my many friends among the staff in the House that Malcolm is held in enormous respect and affection by them. He has carried his duties with a light touch and ready humour. I have great pleasure in endorsing the motion of gratitude to Sir Malcolm, and I offer him my deep personal thanks and every good wish in his retirement.