Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords]

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 7:45 pm on 16 March 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Paul Tyler Mr Paul Tyler Shadow Leader of the House of Commons 7:45, 16 March 2005

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his second speech. I am reminded that lawyers sometimes appear to have a sort of taxi meter that charges in guineas according to the length of their speeches.

I directly reject what the hon. Gentleman says. During last night's debate in the other place, Members on both sides of the House made much reference to the fact that Roy Jenkins, who was a Member of this House, might well have been a much better champion in defending the rule of law than many Lord Chancellors of that time. I find extraordinary the idea that only somebody in that place—"as at present constituted", to repeat the Select Committee's words—can be in a position to rise above party politics.

How can those who continually tell those of us who have been engaged in cross-party consideration of reforms to the second Chamber that we must preserve the pre-eminence of the House of Commons say at the same time that the holder of this great office of state can be answerable only to somebody in the subsidiary House up the Corridor? It is extraordinary that both arguments should be made at the same time. Parliament is changing, hopefully for the best, and I trust that we shall reverse the gradual and debilitating loss of power to the Executive. However, the notion that only the Lords can preserve the rule of law is patent bunk. Both Houses need to co-operate in holding the Executive to account, whoever is in power, but at the very least we need greater flexibility to ensure that the pool of talent for the role is not artificially restricted.

In response to a contribution from my noble Friend Lord Goodhart, Lord Kingsland, the Conservative spokesman, said:

"What possible confidence can the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have that a non-lawyer sitting in the House of Commons would do a better job?"—[Hansard, House of Lords, 15 March 2005; Vol. 670, c. 1241.]

Lord Kingsland gave the game away. That is not the question that we are considering. We should be asking what possible confidence can we have that a non-lawyer sitting in the Commons will always do a worse job? That is the real issue. We should not say that the role must always be performed by a Member of the Commons. Flexibility along the lines agreed by our Select Committee remains the best option for an open choice of Lord Chancellor. I hope that the House will stand by its previous decision.