Parliamentary Standards Bill

When I came here, I came here as a Member of a Parliament. I look back across 30 years and I think, "What am I now?" I am on the outer reaches of a court. The King sits over there, the heir to the kingdom sits here, and I am a minor courtier if I hope to receive some favour—or not. That is what has happened. The slamming of the door is on the wrong person now. The Crown moved, as we have long known, from the end of the Mall into Downing street, and has now positioned itself here. The very person whom we did not want to take over the running of our country absolutely in terms of the making of laws and the divine right of Kings has now incorporated himself right in our centre; and fluttering around the King are all these Ministers—the shadows on our side, the substance on the other side. The Government have become so large that I believe there are almost more of them than there were members of the main Opposition party at one stage. That is where we have got to. Today, we face one of the Bills of which the Lord High Panjandrum, who is now busily looking at his papers, well knows. We have had a long relationship: he was Leader of the House, no less, was Foreign Secretary, and is now Justice Secretary. He has cast around and then come here himself in place of the current Leader of the House, who unfortunately had to attend a memorial event. I knew nothing about this 10 days ago. I do not suppose that anyone other than—apparently—those on my party's Front Bench, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the other party leaders knew anything about it. It does not even follow the old patterns. A Bill used to be deposited, and have a First and a Second Reading. Two weeks used to be provided before the Bill was dealt with on the Floor of the House, so that people could digest it. This Government prattle on about pre-legislative scrutiny, saying that it is embedded in what they are trying to do, but does not this Bill, more than any other legislation, require such scrutiny? There used to be a convention, no less, that all stages of a constitutional Bill were taken on the Floor of the House. It seems that the Lord High Panjandrum is going along with that—the Bill will be dealt with on the Floor of the House—but something else will be involved: a guillotine. That is the way we do business. Why trouble with us? We are merely minor players in the great drama—and what a drama! We saw an auction of places in this Government just three weeks ago. We saw them squabbling like anything. And we are supposed to take them seriously. What I am saying is that this is a very dangerous time for our nation and our Parliament. As the Government seek desperately to hold on to power, they are prepared to throw anything in. The Government say that they want to give more powers to Parliament, but what do they do? They write the reformation of Parliament themselves, in a quiet little arrangement involving Front Benchers consorting with the hon. Member for Foyle and others. That is no way for us to assert ourselves as Members of Parliament, and no way for us to hold anyone to account. This is an awful Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, rightly criticised it in making fundamental propositions about our liberty and due processes. He had to do that on the basis of a draft report, because the Joint Committee will not meet until tomorrow, when it would have sanctioned all the comments that he made today. Similarly, the Justice Committee will not meet until tomorrow, although it is taking evidence from the Clerk. This is how we are treated in this House. This is a terrible Bill because it tries to set out who we are. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) made some very good points. Ultimately, it is the electorate who define what a Member of Parliament is, and we justify ourselves to the electorate by the way we hold the Government to account and challenge the nostrums, propositions and grand performances by Front Benchers. We are the representatives of the people. When we talk about privileges, we mean the privileges of freedom of speech. I come here and I can attack a Prime Minister—and not only someone as unimportant as the Prime Minister, but even the Lord High Panjandrum himself. The Leader of the House is not going to follow through by concluding this debate. She could be here; we saw her make a fleeting appearance. I know why she did not take on that speech: it is because she cannot. As I look across at the shadows who flaunt themselves in front of us now, it is clear to me that this country desperately needs an election to clear out the clutter. We must now repudiate this Bill, and put it all in a proper and measured process. We have it in place to do so—but, no, someone has to show off and show that he is the king of Downing street with all the powers of the prerogative behind him and an obedient Government followed by their Whips, in order to ensure that this Bill passes. We should reject it, and we should most certainly reject the guillotine on it.