PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

71 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
72
[Tony Baldry]
May I say in my capacity as Second Church Estates
Commissioner that I welcome the introduction of a Bill
to reduce the burdens on charities by enabling them to
claim additional payments on small donations? Many
Members of Parliament are involved in charities, perhaps
as trustees or patrons. Church groups often rely on
Sunday collections and small giving by large numbers
of people. This move will allow extra support for charities.
Like all Members of Parliament, a fair amount of my
constituency casework involves helping families with
disabled children and children with special educational
needs, so I greatly welcome the proposals in the Queen’s
Speech to introduce measures to improve provision
for such children, and the arrangements for supporting
children in family law cases and reforming court processes
for children in care. That is important, painstaking and
detailed work that should improve the lives of many
children.
I do not think too much should be read into the fact
that the Queen’s Speech does not contain a specific
proposal for a hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. The matter
is now before the High Court, which is having to
consider several applications on judicial review involving
points of law on both the process and substance of
the HS2 project. Notwithstanding any judicial review
proceedings, however, I continue to hope that the
Government will reflect that the economic case for HS2
simply does not stack up.
It is clear that in this Session of Parliament the
Government will continue to strive for smaller government,
freer competition and greater international trade, and
they will continue to pursue policies that have been
proven to work in the past and that will also work in
the future.
Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
On 25 April, I told the House that the Leveson inquiry
had published certain information regarding meetings
that had been held between Rupert Murdoch and the
Prime Minister. I believed at the time that that was the
case, but it has subsequently turned out not to be true.
I have, of course, apologised to Lord Justice Leveson,
but I thought I should take this opportunity to apologise
to the House as well. I hope the apology will be accepted.
I had no intention of misleading the House; that was
purely inadvertent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I am grateful
to you, Mr Bryant, for your point of order and for
putting that apology on the record.
6.42 pm
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/
Co-op): I had not intended to talk about Lords reform
today, but I have been provoked to do so by the right
hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
(Simon Hughes). He said that one of the reasons for
House of Lords reform was to encourage more gender
diversity in the Lords. He is no longer in his place, but I
would point out to him that there are more men in the
House of Commons today than the number of women
ever elected. We must look at parliamentary reform
across the board, not just in the House of Lords.
Greg Mulholland: I agree with the hon. Lady’s point,
but does she also agree that we should have a fairer
system of voting for Members of both Houses of
Parliament?
Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to
continue for a short while?
One of my principal objections to the current House
of Lords reform proposals is that I do not agree with
the argument that we are making the House of Lords
more accountable by having Members elected for a
single term of 15 years without being able to stand for
re-election. I cannot see how, in a democratic system,
that is accountable. Members of the House of Commons
have to face the electorate once every five years, and we
have witnessed colleagues losing their seats as the electors
have made that decision based either on the individual
or their party. That is true accountability, although it
has been weakened by proposals to change the boundaries
every five years, as some electors will therefore never
have the chance to vote again for the MP who has
represented them. The Government are doing great
damage by reducing the accountability of the Members
of both Houses. That is a backward step, but it is being
dressed up as reform. We must reflect and improve on
these proposals if we are to have real change.
I come at this subject as a democrat. I believe that it is
beyond the pale to have even an element of heredity in
the House of Lords, and that that is rightly out of kilter
with modern attitudes. We must not rush headlong into
trying to improve the situation and see any change as
an improvement. Instead, we must take measured steps
and ensure that Parliament properly represents the people,
and that we do not fill the House of Lords with stooges
who have been selected by party leaders and who never
have to face the electorate.
Although I look forward to our debates on this
subject, I have to say that it was not raised even once on
the doorsteps in my constituency during the most recent
election campaign. Indeed, I am usually out on doorsteps
while on roving surgeries a couple of times every month,
and the last time I canvassed opinion on this topic
everybody said they supported a democratically elected
House of Lords save for one person who was of Nigerian
origin and believed there was some merit in the hereditary
principle. His was a lone voice, however. We need
democracy, but not in the way that is being proposed.
The Queen’s Speech was a big disappointment. When
I was watching it, I suddenly realised that it was nearly
over, but many of the issues I had hoped it would
address had not been mentioned. It is flimsy and expresses
no compelling vision of what the Government want to
achieve for this country. We agree with the opening
sentence, but its sentiments were not backed up by
proposed legislation. There is also no strategic approach
to the economic crisis. We repeatedly hear about the
need to tackle the deficit, but there are other issues that
need to be tackled alongside dealing appropriately with
the Government’s finances.
The Queen’s Speech demonstrates that the Government
are out of touch and unfair, and we are also increasingly
seeing signs of incompetence. The Prime Minister
acknowledged that the economy is a higher priority
than House of Lords reform, but the Queen’s Speech
does little to tackle the economic problems, and I am
particularly concerned for the businesses in my constituency
and about unemployment.