Home Affairs and Justice

Let us hope that that is the case. If hon. Members study carefully one of the most important paragraphs in the judgment—paragraph 119—they will see, as we shall see in the headlines tomorrow, that although the Court was"““struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention””," that general statement was then highly qualified. I am sure that the lawyers in the Home Office will be looking with great care at the nature of those qualifications—and quite right, too. I want to deal briefly with the points raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and then with other key points. The hon. Gentleman made much sport about the Government's programme of constitutional renewal. This has been the most radical constitutionally reforming Government since the war; there is no question about that. This compares with the paucity of constitutional change—in fact, the absence of it—during previous Conservative Administrations. The Conservatives might complain about the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, devolution, the establishment of the Mayor of London, and what we have done in respect of the House of Lords, but these are major constitutional changes that Vernon Bogdanor—a very independent-minded constitutional expert—has said will be seen as a quiet revolution in our constitutional arrangements. Moreover, although I accept that we have to do more, not least in terms of the time spent on the Floor of the House on Report, Parliament has been strengthened massively in the past 20 or 30 years, compared with the kind of Parliament that existed in the 1950s and 1960s. I shall refer—although I shall not read it out at length—to what Michael Ryle, a former Clerk of Committees of the House, said in 2005:"““a simple factual comparison with the 1950s and early 1960s shows that Parliament—particularly the House of Commons—plays a more active, independent and influential role in Britain today than at any time for many years…the major advances in the past fifty years should not be derided.””" Parliament in the apparently golden age of the 1950s was supine; there were no rebellions of any kind at all. It was a supine, part-time Parliament, and that has now changed for the better. The constitutional reform Bill is specified in the Gracious Speech. Everyone knows that what has changed since then is the overriding imperative of dealing with the world economic downturn, but the Bill will require parliamentary time. The Queen's Speech states:"““My Government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of Parliament and other measures.””" As ever, Her Majesty meant what she said—and that is my intention, too. On the proposals in respect of a Bill of Rights and responsibilities, documents will be published. I accept that they have taken more time than I had hoped, but the hon. Gentleman can hardly complain that I have been silent on the issue, nor has the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon. Indeed, I know that the hon. Gentleman has paid me the compliment of reading very important—if I may say so—speeches that I made in October last year and in February and September this year, and I have paid him the compliment of reading his speeches too, which are interesting, if to some extent misconceived.