---

Constitution and Home Affairs

Let me begin by saying that that was an outstanding maiden speech by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). It was full of interesting content and probably gives us an idea of where she will concentrate her interests. I was particularly interested in some of the things that she said about the area she represents, because I contested the old seat of Houghton and Washington, as it was then known, in 1992, and I know well many of the places that she mentioned—the Penshaw monument, Shiney Row community college, and much else. I very much take her point about the Nissan plant and the effect that any Government decisions will have on the whole region if things do not go well. I was touched by her commitment to speak up on behalf of the most vulnerable in her constituency. Having got to know it quite well, I know what she is talking about as regards those former mining villages. It is clear that the two great themes in the Queen's Speech are the economy and the constitution: they loom large, and they are closely connected. Constitutional reform is needed, among other things, to restore confidence in our institutions, particularly Parliament and political parties. Without some progress on that, the coalition Government will struggle to secure legitimacy for the tough economic measures that are now needed. Without some public trust in politicians, leadership on the economy will be impossible. I think that that is what the Prime Minister was trying to make a start with in his speech today. Despite appearances, there is, on both the constitution and the economy, a great deal of common ground across the House about the overall direction of policy and the importance of acting. However, before I get on to the areas of agreement, let me start with a controversial measure—the attempt to entrench fixed parliamentary terms with a 55% threshold. That certainly will not be a consensus measure; the controversy has been evident today. We have not seen the proposal written down, so it might be premature to judge it, but I have to say that I do not like what I have heard so far. How could I put it? Let me just say that it could be misconstrued as, or as looking very much like, an arbitrary fix to bolster this particular coalition with a constitutional change. After all, why 55%, not 60% or some other number? At least, that is how the other place will see it. Nor does it benefit from any protection under the Salisbury convention, and I therefore expect that their lordships might carve it up. To sugar the pill for them, I have already asked those on my Front Bench to give it pre-legislative scrutiny. If it survives that, their lordships may be more accommodating. The 55% proposal is so clearly born of the particular circumstances of this coalition that I cannot see why it should remain on the statute book beyond this Parliament, and I therefore ask my Front-Bench colleagues to consider adding a sunset clause. Of course, we have not heard all the arguments on the proposal—as I say, it has not been published—and I am not going to rush to take a view on something that I have not even seen, but my instinct would be to try to entrench fixed terms with something less radical. Better, for example, to legislate a requirement that the Prime Minister can ask the Queen for a Dissolution only if he has been defeated in a vote of no confidence. Of course, he could still manufacture a defeat, but at least the electorate would see that ploy for what it was and could judge it accordingly at the polls. I said that I would start with some disagreement, but I ought to refer to the large measure of agreement across the House on all sorts of things. The principle of fixed-term Parliaments is pretty much agreed across the House. During the last election, Labour was more supportive of fixed-term Parliaments than the Conservatives; likewise on the idea of a vote on a Dissolution. On the House of Lords, there is now a huge amount of cross-party agreement. All three parties are agreed on the need for a largely or fully elected House of Lords. I have to say, as there are a lot of new Members present, that when I was first elected 13 years ago it seemed to me that in the 21st century only those who have received some sort of democratic mandate should have the right to make our laws. These days, that is the majority view right across the House, and in my party too. I strongly welcome that. The main opponent of change, of course, will be the biggest vested interest in our constitution, by which I mean the life peers. They are deeply opposed to any meaningful change and may even threaten to wreck the coalition's legislative programme if the elected House were to force the issue. At the moment, with the coalition facing the biggest economic crisis since the second world war, this House may decide that it has other priorities. Much depends on the arithmetic of coalition politics in the Lords and whether a measure could be whipped through the other place, but I am not optimistic. I cannot see the coalition risking a massive row and using the Parliament Act with so much other vital legislation to get through. It would be a bloody battle and a rerun of another Lords-Commons clash exactly a century ago. In the few seconds remaining to me I add one more crucial matter. We must clean up party funding. The stench in the electorate's nostrils about the apparent purchase of access, influence and honours is serious and knocks into a cocked hat what we have had on expenses. The problem can be solved only if all parties are prepared to bring the big donor culture to an end, whether the source is corporate, institutional, trade union or individual. We must find ways to protect parties that will be adversely affected by that change and ensure that democratic politics can remain fair. We cannot leave things as they are, and I hope very much that the coalition Government will have further talks to try to secure agreement. I find the Queen's Speech very exciting, but there is a lot of work to be done and debate to be had on it.