Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

The hon. Gentleman says, "What's new?" I acknowledge that he has a personal approach, which is much respected by Conservative Members, in terms of being willing to articulate what he believes to be right. On that we are in agreement. We are less in agreement on two matters relating to the House of Lords. I do not wish to go over the first in great detail, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the Government's decision to get rid of the by-elections for electing a certain number of hereditary peers pending the final resolution of the constitutional status and reform of the Upper House is a flagrant breach of the undertakings that they gave at the time of the initial House of Lords reform. I very much regret that; this is not a final reform of the House of Lords. If it is, the Government have been misleading the public as to what the final reform might be. For those reasons, I do not think that this is a good idea, and I strongly believe that the Government will find that when the Bill gets to the other place, they may have difficulties there as well. Then there is an issue that is of deep concern to us but is quite capable of being resolved. I have to put the Minister on notice that unless it is sorted out, it will prejudice the ability of the Bill to go on the statute book; it is the extraordinary procedure by which it will be possible, under the Bill as it stands, for a Member of the House of Lords to resign and immediately stand for election for the House of Commons. I think that I am right in saying that the Liberal Democrats and ourselves—and, indeed, I suspect others in this House—tend to see that as a device by which certain Government Ministers who have found their political careers in this place ended by various problems and gone to the other place for a resting period while they recover their strength, like Lord Voldemort, can come back to this House, reinvigorated. Quite frankly that is unacceptable. There must be a period between resignation from the House of Lords and return or re-embodiment in this Chamber. There should be a period during which that return is not permitted. It is likely that that matter will be returned to in another place. If there is no time, and we get to the wash-up and there have to be discussions about issues in the Bill, that is one that will have to be sorted out to our satisfaction if the Bill is to go on the statute book. As it stands, it is contemptuous of the public and of the reasons why people should be going to the House of Lords in the first place as legislators; usually because they accept that some aspect of political ambition is gone and not as a springboard to a resurrected existence in this place. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will listen to the arguments in the other place and act accordingly. Finally we come, with some regret, to the issue concerning noise in Parliament square. The Government tabled some sensible amendments to the Bill to try to resolve some of the civil liberties issues surrounding demonstrations around Parliament where we were unhappy—the Government had begun to accept out unhappiness—that the structures that had been set up previously were a fetter on civil liberties and freedom of expression. We were supportive of the Government on that and pleased that they were in. We had also understood—we believed that the Government shared our concern—that in some cases the right to freedom of expression was being abused by people bombarding Parliament with amplified noise to such a level as to constitute a serious nuisance. Indeed anyone who works in this building will know exactly what the impact is, particularly if they have rooms or offices that are adjacent to Parliament square itself. It was our understanding that this was a subject where the Government recognised that there was an issue, were happy—we thought—for there to be a free vote and were encouraging that it should not be seen as a partisan issue, as indeed we did not. We tabled an amendment in good faith, which we very much hoped would command acceptance. Indeed, until very recently we thought it would receive considerable encouragement from the Government. It is therefore unfortunate that this Bill will be going ahead without a section dealing with the noise nuisance in Parliament square. I am the first to accept the cock-up theory of politics, rather than the conspiracy theory, and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, who answered for the Government on Report, appeared to say that he had been brought into this matter at the very last minute, so I can understand why he might not be aware of the Government's previously stated position on a number of occasions, particularly by the Secretary of State for Justice, and have suddenly got cold feet. I found it difficult to disentangle the reasons for that. On the one hand, they might have been procedural, in that he shared the intention but thought there was a defect in the Opposition amendment. I have to say that it is not the first time that Opposition amendments have been defective, however; it is often jolly difficult for Oppositions to draft amendments that are perfect, and if the Government support the principle behind them, we rather expect them to lend a hand in tidying things up. On the other hand, however, the problem might have been that the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism had suddenly decided that there was some electoral, or other, advantage in arguing that people should be allowed to bombard the Houses of Parliament with amplified noise at nuisance level for hour after hour every day. I do hope that the latter is not the case. Indeed, I find it difficult to believe it is the case, because of all the expressions of concern about this issue from Members throughout the House, including the Government Back Benches. May I therefore make a plea to the Minister? I hope that he understands that we felt that we had to put the matter to the vote, because of the Government's unexpected withdrawal of support for the proposal without coming up with any alternative. Clearly, the opportunity still exists to deal with this, and I urge the Minister to do so in a way both that sends out a message that the House of Commons supports civil liberties and freedom of expression, and, equally reasonably, that maintains that there are proper ways of expressing oneself that do not involve a noise nuisance perpetrated hour after hour. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of a parliamentary draftsman to put something together that can provide that without also silencing the bells of Westminster Abbey, as has been suggested in rather apocalyptic fashion. I am by no means persuaded that the amendment that was tabled would have done that, but it was clearly not the intention that it should do so. The Bill is lacking in this respect. The Government took a specific decision to deal with demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament square, which was a sensible move, but at the end a key component is missing. I urge the Minister to address this when he goes away to discuss these matters with his colleagues and to consider what is to be done in the other place. I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. This Bill has been a bit of magical mystery tour, in that we have never known from one day to the next what would be in it. It started out in concept as very grand indeed, but by the time it was launched on Second Reading it had shrunk to mouse-like size. It has since been mildly reinvigorated in some areas, but it is defective in others. We have got to try to sort that out. If we do so, I would like to think that even if the Minister is not completely satisfied with the outcome, he will at least leave this place with a proper sense that he has actually achieved something that is a monument to his endeavours. I say to him that I would like to see that happen. A bit of flexibility on the part of the Government in the dying weeks of this Parliament can ensure that it does.