May I ask the part-time Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

I am delighted to see that the prefix has returned, because it was omitted last week and I felt a little neglected.

The business for the week after the conference recess will be:

TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 15 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

THURSDAY 16 OCTOBER—A debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 17 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week after will include:

MONDAY 20 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Courts Bill [Lords].

As the House will know, I informed the House yesterday of the date of the Queen's Speech. I intend to publish an annual calendar for this House for the new Session next month.

I am sure that the House will be particularly grateful for that last item.

Unusually, yesterday's Prime Minister's questions were almost completely free of porkies, obfuscations and evasions, so I think that we will leave them for another day. Following up what the part-time Leader of the House said about the date of the Queen's Speech, for which we are grateful, and given that it is relatively late this year, can he tell us how much pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills can now take place before the new Session? A great song and dance has been made about pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure that it is welcomed in all parts of the House, but we would like a bit of substance from the Government about how much scrutiny will be conducted and which Bills we will see before the late start of the new Session.

When will the pre-Budget review take place? Is the Chancellor eager to come to the House and give us his review of the state of the economy? Perhaps we could get a date for that. Are the Government now going to set about prioritising their business ahead of 26 November to ensure that they have an appropriate amount of business, not least in another place, to honour the date of the Queen's Speech? I should be interested to get a glimpse into how the Government think that they are going to get their business through Parliament, especially through another place, while honouring that date of 26 November.

I wonder whether we could have a debate entitled, "Do Ministers care so little about MPs and Parliament that they neglect their duties in the recess?" I say that because a letter has fallen into my hands from a nice young man called Gerry Sutcliffe MP, who appears to be Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers. On 19 August, he wrote a letter to one of my colleagues that began:

"Thank you for your letter of 14 July".

It may seem unexceptional in this day and age that a Minister should take a month to write to a Member of Parliament—there is nothing unusual about that—but the really interesting bit comes next. This nice young man, Gerry, says:

"During parliamentary recess, Mr Sutcliffe is out of the office and unable to answer your query. Upon his return in September, he will ensure that your query is dealt with as swiftly as possible."

Does that exemplify the attitude of the Blair Government to Members of Parliament and to this House? Do Ministers no longer feel that they have a responsibility to man Departments through the summer recess or to give proper responses to Members of Parliament? If this letter is typical, what is the part-time Leader of the House going to do about it? Does he write to people saying, "I'm not around, so you shouldn't expect a reply"? I hope to be told that this was a regrettable slip and that it will not happen any more.

Has the part-time Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1700, entitled "Portcullis pension scheme and rights of staff"?

[That this House welcomes the introduction of the Portcullis pension plan, particularly for those on the staff of honourable Members who do not have existing pension arrangements, those in new employment, and those who have established that it offers better provision than their existing arrangements; but does not wish the staff of honourable Members to be compelled to join the scheme if they assess that it is likely to be inferior to their existing pension arrangements or is otherwise against their expressed wishes.]

It has already been signed by several Members—unusually, and significantly, of all parties—and it raises a number of important issues about our staff's pension rights. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have received representations on that, because we are getting ourselves into a serious position.

Having given the part-time Leader of the House's office notice that I intended to raise the subject, I want to ask the following questions. On what authority are employer contributions to individual pension schemes to be terminated, as is the intention? When were staff—not Members, but staff—properly consulted and informed about what is going to happen to their pensions? What provision is to be made to enable staff who would suffer financial loss from a change of pension provider to remain with their existing scheme? To give two examples, what will happen to someone who has their mortgage guaranteed by their pension or who has paid their fees up front and therefore cannot benefit from the reduction in fees that is claimed to be one of the benefits of the new regime?

I hope that the part-time Leader of the House will be able to give full and satisfactory answers to those questions. Many Members' staff are very worried and unhappy about the matter. It has been grotesquely mishandled thus far, and I hope that it is not too late to deal with it. At the very least, can implementation be postponed so that the situation can be properly sorted out?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box. As a self-proclaimed technophobe, he boasted that he had never visited a website: when he launched the parliamentary press gallery website, he said that he hoped to get through life without ever doing so. It will be a mercy for the House if we can bring him into the 21st century.

Not a chance.

There we have it. That is what makes him such a delightful opponent across the Floor of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about pre-legislative scrutiny before the next Session. As he knows, the Government have made a virtue of such scrutiny, and more Bills than ever have been subject to it. The practice increases year by year, as it will in the forthcoming Session.

I am not in a position to give an answer on when the pre-Budget review will take place. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would be frustrated in meeting the deadline of the Queen's Speech and whether legislation would complete its passage through the House of Lords by Prorogation. I am sure that the Lords will not wish to frustrate the will of the elected House and that both Houses will hold a genuine dialogue. We shall carefully consider any amendments, arguments and expertise. However, we are confident that we can complete our legislative programme in time for Prorogation before the Queen's Speech.

Given that the right hon. Gentleman is an outstanding parliamentarian, I hope that he gave the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers notice of the matter that he raised. The episode happened in the middle of a difficult time for my hon. Friend, when his mother died. The right hon. Gentleman should not draw conclusions from the individual letter and case about the general pattern of Government.

The right hon. Gentleman properly raised the concerns that have been expressed about Members' pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Staff pensions."] I apologise: I mean staff pensions. [Interruption.]

Order. Some conversations are taking place in the Chamber. Staff pensions are important to me, too, and I want to hear what the Leader of the House has to say on the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman raised important points, which I shall note. I have offered to meet the trade unions and anyone else who has concerns, which I shall happily take up. However, I believe that some mischief has been made about the matter. Nobody will be forced to join the new scheme if they can demonstrate that they will be disadvantaged. People need to fill in a form to obtain proper information from their pension provider. There will be no question of a financial loss— that is not the purpose of the new scheme. Its purpose is to modernise pension arrangements and provide a more secure, better scheme for staff. If there are any concerns, we want to deal with them. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing them to the House's attention.

May I strongly endorse on behalf of my hon. Friends the expression of concern in early-day motion 1700 on the pension scheme and the rights of staff? Whatever the Leader of the House has been briefed to say, I must tell him that staff believe that they have not been properly consulted. Unless there is some delay to enable that consultation—especially with the Secretaries and Assistants Council—to take place and an opportunity for staff to make representations, they will feel railroaded. It is a blot on the reputation of the House as an employer that consultation has not yet taken place.

What contingency plans has the Leader of House to ensure that the House receives an early statement on the outcome of the Hutton inquiry? I hope that he has carefully examined the comments that Dr. Hans Blix made yesterday and on the "Today" programme this morning. Is it not clear that we will need a statement from the Attorney-General on the adequacy of the advice that he gave the Government on the legality of going to war in Iraq? We need to know especially whether the Attorney-General was aware of the fragility of the 45-minute claim and whether he knew that the armaments mentioned were battlefield weapons that posed no threat to the United Kingdom or to British forces stationed in Cyprus. That is crucial.

The evidence that Dr. Hans Blix has presented blows to smithereens both the September and February dossiers. I hope that the Leader of the House acknowledges that it requires a separate statement from the Attorney-General, distinct from one on the Hutton inquiry. When does the Leader of the House expect hon. Members to be properly informed on those matters?

First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, staff pensions are a matter for the Speaker's Advisory Panel. The purpose of the change is to give staff a better pension. If individual members of staff have concerns, I am sure that the authorities will want to resolve them in favour of the staff. As I said earlier, my door is open. I believe, however, that this issue has been brought to the attention of the House in a manner that is out of proportion to the actuality on the ground.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the outcome of the Hutton inquiry. As I have said, I am sure that there will be a statement and, I hope, a debate on that issue. However, his remarks about Hans Blix sounded rather like an old gramophone record, and were full of puffed-up indignation. As he knows, the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that the evidence provided to the Government and to the requisite authorities on the basis of which the dossier was drawn up had been properly dealt with, properly processed and properly interpreted. I prefer to listen to the evidence of the Intelligence and Security Committee than to Hans Blix, who was pronouncing on another matter entirely.

The House will have noted that, in a speech to the Press Gallery earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ruled out any review of the new sittings arrangements for the House for the lifetime of this Parliament. Will he accept, however, that a large number of Members feel that there is considerable scope for adjustment of those hours, including some of the Members who voted for them? Given that there is a powerful case building up for changes to be made, does he not think it unwise to rule out any adjustment whatever?

The House made a decision, rightly or wrongly, in October last year, to change the hours of its sittings. That was a decision taken for the rest of this Parliament, to be subject to review after proper assessment had been made of it. We are only a few months into it, frankly, and an early-day motion condemning it had already appeared within 14 working days of the change being made. We should take this matter stage by stage, and review it, but I am open to considering adjustments. For example, I think that there is a strong case for changing the sitting hours of Standing Committees; they probably sit too early. It is within the power of a Standing Committees to alter its hours, if they are putting pressure on—

Ministers.

Actually, that is not the point. Ministers get up very early, and are on duty very early, as it is. The serious issue that has been brought to my attention by many Members on both sides of the House and by members of the Speaker's Panel is that officials of the House are perhaps having to prepare earlier than we would want them to. So if there is a question of starting Standing Committee sittings later, I am sure that we can make such adjustments. The terms of the motion passed on the fundamental hours changes, however, were that they should remain until the end of this Parliament, and I intend to respect that decision.

Given that the Leader of the House is already developing a reputation for listening carefully to what is said in this place, will he think further about the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and bear in mind the fact that many of us, on both sides of the House, think that to wait through a whole Parliament before reviewing these matters could be a mistake? We are already aware of the unintended consequences of the changes to the hours. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore keep an open mind about the possibility of revisiting the matter before the end of this Parliament?

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East—I am happy to repeat the point to the hon. Gentleman, whose views on this matter I respect—the fundamental principles of the hours change were decided for the rest of this Parliament. However, anomalies might appear as we go along, and adjustments might seem sensible—indeed, I have suggested one myself. I have been listening hard to that point, and I think that there is a lot of sense in it. Standing Committees have the right to vary their hours, and to start later and run later if that is what they wish to do. If there are any other practical changes that we could consider, I would be very happy to do so, but the fundamental principle was decided for the rest of this Parliament.

We now have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which is meeting after a gap of about 25 years. Given the Government's commitment to regionalism, would it not be a good idea to set up a Standing Committee for each of the eight English standard regions? We could meet to discuss regional affairs here at Westminster, but we could also travel to our own regions and discuss them there.

I know that that has been suggested, and we can keep it under review. I should like to see how the newly established Regional Affairs Committee works before we decide whether any such modifications are needed.

The Leader of the House will know that, very courageously, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) recently undertook an undercover tour of Zimbabwe. Her report, which has been widely circulated, shows that the situation there is deteriorating hugely under the dreadful Mugabe regime. The right hon. Gentleman has responded to me sympathetically in the past. Is it not about time we had a statement or a debate on Zimbabwe, preferably before the Commonwealth conference that will take place in Nigeria later this year?

I strongly agree that the Mugabe regime is dreadful beyond words, and is destroying a beautiful country along with, sadly, many of its people. My hon. Friend's report makes salutary reading for those who have found it possible to turn their backs on, or their eyes away from, the appalling way in which Mugabe is destroying his country. I will certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible for African affairs, because there is undoubtedly great concern in the House about what is happening in Zimbabwe.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us how much the House is having to pay for the recall of Parliament at the beginning of September? What has been the total increase in staff costs, and what has been the cost of the interruption of maintenance contracts? Before pushing out of court any assumption that we should look hard at the changed rules on the hours, will my right hon. Friend understand that even after altering the times of their sittings Select Committees are finding it increasingly difficult to operate effectively? If Standing Committees altered their sitting times, Committee members would find it almost impossible to be in the Chamber at question time. There are now too many incursions into MPs' working time, and there is a bogus assumption of improvisation. It will not do.

I very much value my hon. Friend's counsel and her views, and have done so for many years; but her point about Standing Committees having to sit at times that clash with Question Time does not follow, as Standing Committees can vary their hours in order to sit at times when there is no clash, even given a later start.

One of my duties, which I take very seriously, is to uphold the will of the House. Whether people disagree with it or not, the House voted for a change in the hours for the rest of this Parliament, and I do not think we can keep chopping and changing every few months. As I have said, however, I am open to suggestions about modification of the hours and other arrangements.

I will certainly try to find the figures relating to the cost of our return in September. They are not at my fingertips, but I will write to my hon. Friend when I have them.

What is the purpose of our sitting in September if the Government will not answer questions tabled for written answer on a priority basis on a named day during this period? I have tabled a number of such questions, including questions about the costs of policing the Labour party conference in Bournemouth and about the ravages of sudden oak death disease. Although that disease is apparently so important that it has attracted 80 Government inspectors who are going around gardens in England and Wales carrying out inspections, apparently the Government have no time to answer ordinary parliamentary questions about it. There is also the important question of whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will go to Bournemouth university and meet students to discuss top-up fees. Why can we not get answers to such questions during this important period?

That was a good try. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am about to do so.

The hon. Gentleman should note that there was no demand for the House to be recalled over the summer recess. Why? Because everyone knew that we were coming back at the earliest opportunity in September. Year after year, however, there have been almost ritual demands for a recall.

Regular statements have been made to the House by Ministers over these two weeks. Indeed, one will follow business questions. Ministers have been here to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman and any other Members who might wish to table them.

The public do not understand how we can be in recess for 13 weeks, as happened with the old model. This time we have been in recess for seven weeks. I should have thought that would be enough even for the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity to debate the need for Ministers to reply to letters from Members within a reasonable time? Will he, in particular, look into what happened to the letter I wrote on 12 June to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about my constituent Mrs. N. Bromley? I have written twice to the Prime Minister about the case, and have tabled a question which is being tossed around between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency. After more than three months, I have still not received a reply.

I am very conscious that my right hon. Friend would not have raised the matter in such a way had it not been of deep concern to him. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will wish to respond as soon as she can.

May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on intended new housing development in the south-east? Given that, on the back of the Milton Keynes-south midlands study, the Government want another 59,000 houses to be built around Aylesbury Vale between now and 2031, but have not even begun to think about how, when and by whom the necessary accompanying infrastructure can be provided, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that a debate would provide a real opportunity for the airing of concerns about air pollution, traffic congestion, pressure on the health service and the implications for school places—all of which are matters of the most momentous significance to my Buckingham constituents?

The hon. Gentleman has plenty of opportunities to apply for debates enabling him to raise matters affecting his constituents, but I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the health service, pollution, transport and a lot of other matters. The Government are investing more than ever before in all those "quality of life" issues and are dealing with them—by contrast with our predecessors, who cut and cut and cut, and made life intolerable for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, among others.

As my right hon. Friend will know, we are approaching the party conference season. Is he aware that the Electoral Commission is conducting an inquiry into party funding? Will he allow a debate, as soon as possible after its report, on an issue that is important to all members of all parties?

I will certainly wish to do that, because as my hon. Friend says, the issue is important.

It is often wrongly assumed that this is some new development, but public funding for political parties is a well established part of our structure, particularly in the House. For example, funding for the Conservative party has trebled from £1.1 million to £3.3 million: that is the extent of its support in the House. The chairman of the Conservative party attacks the principle of public funding, but last year the Conservatives received £200,000 more from taxation—from public funds—than they were able to raise on their own.

When someone of the standing of Hans Blix says that the Government's belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is akin to the mediaeval belief in witches, is it not time for an early debate on these elusive weapons, and on all the issues involved in the construction of what now appears to be a fantastic fable—that dodgy dossier?

When do we hear from the hon. Gentleman about the heinous crimes that Saddam Hussein committed against his people? Saddam is the only person whom I can think of in history—certainly in modern times—who killed I million Muslims. Indeed, at Halabja we are uncovering almost daily the unmarked graves of the 300,000 of his own citizens whom he killed during the Iran-Iraq war. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting the work of British soldiers in liberating the people of Iraq, instead of continually attacking the Government.

May we have an early statement on the private treatment centres that will spring up in all parts of England? I think that Scotland is excluded because it turned them down. Is my right hon. Friend aware that nurses recruited to those centres will almost undoubtedly be poached from neighbouring national health service hospitals? What guarantees will exist to ensure that that does not happen, and will he also ensure that the unions involved in NHS hospitals are properly consulted before any of these centres are established?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has addressed these issues in the clearest possible terms. There is absolutely no question of poaching or of riding roughshod over local health service organisation provision; indeed, the entire initiative has been developed in consultation with, and by agreement with, local health authorities. I would have thought that my hon. Friend, who is a doughty fighter for the NHS and for people's rights, would welcome the fact that through these projects and initiatives, the Government are massively increasing capacity to enable urgent treatment for our constituents, some of whom desperately need hip operations, for example. NHS patients will receive that additional capacity free at the point of treatment—a vital principle that the Conservatives plan to demolish through charges, privatisation and private health insurance.

Before the recess, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement on the outcome of the common agricultural policy, and I requested then that we be able to debate the impact on many of our constituencies of that important outcome. Will the Leader of the House agree to that debate?

I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the Secretary of State's attention.

I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am the patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales. The civil registration service has hardly changed since the 1830s, but it is just about to undergo a mini revolution as a result of the document published at the beginning of the summer entitled "Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change". I understand that that mini revolution will be launched via a regulatory reform order, which will probably be discussed Upstairs, rather than on the Floor of the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as this matter affects the lives of all of our constituents, such a debate should take place on the Floor of the House?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on behalf of civil registrars; he performs a very important role. As an enthusiastic supporter of this initiative, he will know that the Government are modernising the entire process to make it in tune with people's lives today. I shall certainly bear his request in mind.

May we have a statement from the Home Secretary, or perhaps one of the Law Officers, on the policing and judicial practice applied in the case of Mr. James Dowell, who found 15 youngsters vandalising his pond, and managed to detain three of them and force them to clear up the mess? He was subsequently arrested by no fewer than eight police officers for false imprisonment, received a sentence of 80 hours community service, and has been tagged for the next four months to make sure that he does not do it to them again. Would it not be good to get back to the time when the letters "PC" meant police constable, not political correctness?

I am obviously baffled by that case, but I shall certainly ensure that the Home Secretary knows about it. At least the citizen concerned was not sentenced to attend the proceedings of the Conservative party.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Hunting Bill is significantly changed in the Lords, as it undoubtedly will be, the Parliament Act will definitely be used, so that we can have a ban on fox hunting in the lifetime of this Parliament? Is it not essential that the will of the elected House triumphs over a totally unrepresentative House of Lords, in which 92 hereditaries remain—for the time being?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality made clear on 21 March last year the Government's policy on the Parliament Act, and it has not changed. This House voted overwhelmingly for a ban on cruelty to animals, which the House of Lords will, I am sure, wish to respect. I am sure that matters will proceed and that we can reach a consensual outcome. My right hon. Friend has made the Government's position clear, and we stand by it.

The Leader of the House will be aware of my constituents' great concern about continuing donations to IRA-Sinn Fein from America, a recent example of which was a donation by the Coca-Cola corporation. At the time of that donation, Mr. David Hill—who has been appointed as successor to Mr. Alastair Campbell at No. 10—worked for a public relations company, one of whose clients was the Coca-Cola corporation. May we have a statement to clarify the Government's position, whether the Prime Minister was aware of and approved of the current situation, and whether he agrees that donations to IRA-Sinn Fein by companies here or elsewhere are totally unacceptable, given its ongoing commitment to violence and its refusal to give up the machinery of terrorism in Northern Ireland?

I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will wish to take note of the hon. Gentleman's question.

As my right hon. Friend rightly said, last week's Intelligence and Security Committee report nailed the lie that the Government had in some way doctored intelligence assessments. I refer him to a very important section of the report, which referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee assessment that was made in February, in the run-up to the war. It said that there was no intelligence-assessed link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda and terrorism, and that the collapse of that regime would heighten the terrorist risk to us. Do the Government intend, in the spirit of publishing dossiers, to publish that assessment, and will he give the House an opportunity to discuss it?

Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have dealt with this matter. The Government have never maintained that Iraq was involved with al-Qaeda in respect of the 11 September terrorist attack. However, we have always said that there was always a danger—we are beginning to see this happen—that Saddam Hussein's monstrous regime would link up with terrorists—[Interruption.] Of course, there was bound to be a danger that when the regime collapsed, different forces would seek to interpose themselves, as they have predictably done. But the real issue before the House was whether to leave Saddam in power, with his monstrous tyranny and ability to threaten the rest of the region and the rest of the world. We are proud that we did not duck that choice, and as a result Iraq and the rest of the world will be a better place in the months and years to come.

May we have an early debate on today's report on gangmasters from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee? If time cannot be found for such a debate, could the Leader of the House at least ask the Secretary of State to respond urgently to that report? He will be aware that gangmasters provide crucial casual labour to growers and producers throughout the United Kingdom, but that many of them are ruthless and are guilty of the grossest exploitation. Moreover, much Treasury revenue is lost and people are often put at risk, as I myself know from a tragic railway accident of 7 July. The report is hard-hitting and makes clear recommendations, on which the Government need to act.

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter, of which he has particular knowledge. I am sure that the Ministers concerned will want to act urgently on that report, and I shall certainly ensure that his question is drawn to their urgent attention.

Would the Leader of House consider having a debate on Royal Mail's intention to close down its air freight service at the Liverpool John Lennon airport on the grounds of an assessment based on faulty financial information? Is there a case for a general discussion of how public interest companies interpret their commercial freedom in relation to Government policy?

I think that we had a debate on those matters shortly before the recess, but my hon. Friend raises an important issue, which will no doubt be of concern to her constituents. I will ensure that the appropriate Minister—and, indeed, Royal Mail—is made aware of her question.

In the light of the motion carried in the Scottish Parliament on the detention of children at Dungavel and the deep concern expressed by members of the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland, will the Leader of the House consider providing us with an opportunity to debate the matter as soon as practically possible? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House regard the detention of children as the unacceptable face of Scotland in the 21st century?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, that serious matter of great concern has been raised in Scottish questions. I am sure that the appropriate Ministers will note with great seriousness the hon. Gentleman's question.

I welcome last week's announcement that, as part of the White Paper discussions on the draft constitution, the Special Standing Committee will continue to meet during the intergovernmental conference debates. However, should the draft be accepted as it stands, given that some provisions have significant implications for the workings of Parliament? Will the Leader of the House find time in the coming months for a debate on the Floor of the House on the specific provisions that affect the workings of Parliament?

I am sure that that will be necessary at some point. I am in communication with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and others who are considering these matters. I think that my hon. Friend refers to the important advance for democracy represented by the new draft constitution, according to which national Parliaments, including our own House of Commons, will have the ability to vet any new proposals from the European Commission to assess whether they should be considered at the Brussels level or remain at the nation state level. That is an important step forward for democratic accountability between Europe and its member states. My hon. Friend played an important part in achieving it, but implementation in the House is ultimately a matter for the House.

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention back to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others about pension provisions for our staff' He gave the impression that the concerns have somehow been exaggerated or put up, but I suggest that that is entirely erroneous. Many members of our staff are very worried.

The Leader of the House gave the impression that his door is always open, but he needs to be more proactive than that. We will be away for about three weeks and I suggest that he calls a meeting, perhaps with the director of finance and others, as soon as possible to clear up any of our staffs misunderstandings and to give them some guarantee about their future and their pensions.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I sought merely to dismiss the concerns. On the contrary, those concerns—I have heard about some of them—are legitimate. The Speaker's Advisory Panel discussed the matter last week and is well seized of the importance of ensuring that everything proceeds smoothly and that staff's concerns are listened to. I shall obviously keep a beady eye on that process on behalf of the House, and I shall report back or answer further questions in the future when the opportunity arises. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter again.

I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in welcoming the outcome of the referendum in Sweden a few days ago, and I am sure that he, like myself, would want to ensure that, if the UK has a referendum on the euro, the UK electorate are as well informed as the Swedish people. Could we therefore have a debate not only on the single currency, but specifically on article 107? If it became law, it would become illegal for Parliament, the Assembly or local authorities to influence the decision makers, who are neither elected nor accountable, but merely a group of bankers.

The Swedish referendum on the euro was a matter for Swedes and the British referendum, if and when it comes, is a matter for Britons. We will do things in our own way according to the route map laid out by the Chancellor on 9 June, which will see increasing convergence between the British and eurozone economies. If, at the end of that process, the economic circumstances have fallen into place, we will indeed call a referendum and I am sure that we will win it.

That route map set out by the Chancellor included a roadshow. I cannot believe that the Leader of the House, as one of the Government's leading euro enthusiasts, has not been invited to take part, so can he tell us how many events he has participated in since the roadshow was launched? That would scotch rumours that the roadshow does not exist.

The Treasury has already done 55 presentations around the country on the euro. I myself chaired—[Interruption.] Well, I was asked a question, and I am about to give the answer. I chaired a meeting of the Wales euro preparation committee in July—[Interruption.] Indeed, and I am going to chair another meeting of that committee next week. The truth is that this is a matter of live debate. The Treasury is consulting extensively around the country. In the end, Opposition Members can laugh and jeer, but their policy is to deprive the British people of the opportunity to vote on joining the euro, even if it is in our economic interest or the interest of our jobs and prosperity to do so. They all say "no"—never, ever—dogmatically and on principle. That is not a common-sense position. Ours is the sensible position: to prepare and decide when the economic circumstances are correct.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the New Testament, specifically to Luke, chapter 15, verse 7:

"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."?

As someone who voted in favour of the reforms to the sitting hours of the House, I have had more than enough time to repent and reflect on my mistake. I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the decision of House applying for the rest of this Parliament, but the House has the right to change its mind. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would, given the opportunity, seek to redress the damage. When will I have an opportunity to atone for my sin?

There are sinners and saints on both sides of the argument. I shall repeat a reply that I gave earlier: if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions about adjusting or improving the position, my door is open. That is how to move forward, but I repeat that the House took a decision for the rest of this Parliament. Such decisions should not be lightly swept aside. They should be respected and it is my duty to respect them.

Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall have an adequate opportunity properly to scrutinise regulations as they go through the House? I refer to the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which my right hon. Friends and I prayed against on 9 June this year and was debated in Committee this Monday. The Minister said that the

"40-day period has passed so annulment is not possible."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 September 2003; c. 14.]

I protested to the Chairman at the time that it is not within my gift to determine the date when these matters are debated. This is either an example of incompetence by the Government's business managers, or a cynical method of trying to manipulate the procedures of the House to avoid proper scrutiny. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall have timely and proper scrutiny of regulations as they pass through the House?

It is neither cynical—who would ever accuse business managers of being cynical—nor incompetent. I will look into the matter and I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I reject the suggestion of ulterior motives that he ascribes to the episode.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the third report of the Health Committee, which was published earlier this summer, on the subject of sexual health. The report begins with a significant quotation from Dr. Helen Lacey, who is the consultant in charge of the sexual health clinic at Fairfield hospital in my constituency. She is concerned about the current crisis in sexual health and she tells me that my constituency has seen a 300 per cent. increase in the occurrence of certain sexually transmitted infections in the past four years. The burden of that increase often falls on vulnerable young women and is frequently caused by the reluctance of young people, parents and teachers to discuss those issues, so does my right hon. Friend agree that this House could set an example by holding a debate on the Committee's report at the earliest opportunity?

That is an important issue and I will look into my hon. Friend's request. I know of the fine work that is done in his constituency. We are all concerned about the matter, and I am grateful that he has raised it.

With permission, I wish to repeat a statement made in the other place today by my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton about further reforms to the House of Lords, and on the office of Lord Chancellor.

The Government are today publishing two consultation papers on the next steps on House of Lords reform; and on the functions of the Lord Chancellor. Copies of both papers are available in the Vote Office. The papers form another significant part of the present phase of constitutional reform on which the Government embarked last summer, with the creation of a Department for Constitutional Affairs to take overall responsibility for the issues.

May I begin by apologising to the House because a report of the proposals appeared in a Sunday newspaper? I can assure the House that no one in my Department was authorised to speak to the press on the subject. It has always been the Government's intention to ensure that Parliament should hear first about the proposals.

I shall deal first with our proposals for further reform of the House of Lords. Last February, both Houses voted on the range of options for the composition of the second Chamber proposed by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Their lordships voted three to one in favour of an appointed House. In this House, there was no majority for any of the options. The Joint Committee, in its second report published on 9 May, reflected on the outcome of the parliamentary votes and concluded that

"simply to maintain the status quo"

in respect of composition was undesirable. The Government agree.

In those circumstances, we intend to make progress where we can. The Government therefore propose further reforms to ensure that we have a stable and sustainable House of Lords. It was never our intention that the remaining hereditary peers should remain members of the House of Lords for ever. When the interim arrangement was reached, as well as the immediate benefit of the agreement, we accepted the argument that the presence of the remaining hereditary peers would act as an incentive to further reform. That has not happened: there is no clear consensus in Parliament on the way forward. So the context for reform has clearly and significantly changed. The circumstances that gave rise to the original arrangement over the remaining hereditary peers no longer apply. The solution, which the remaining hereditary peers were there to help seek, is no longer available. The Government must act, and act decisively, to bring about stability and sustainability.

It is for the Government to act, but it is for Parliament to decide. It will be for Parliament as a whole to decide on the removal of the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and to vote. Therefore, the next step of our reform programme will be to introduce legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to remove the right o the remaining 92 hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, thus completing that element of the reform process on which we embarked in 1997.

In moving on from the current arrangement, the Government wish to pay tribute to the contribution that those 92 peers make to the other place. Many of them are among its most active and effective members. The Government hope that Parliament might continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them should they be nominated as life peers in the future.

We shall set up a statutory commission to select and oversee appointments that are made to the House of Lords. It will build on the present non-statutory Appointments Commission, which itself represented a significant voluntary relinquishing by the Prime Minister of his powers of patronage. The statutory commission will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in response to an address from Parliament. The three major parties in this House and the Cross-Bench peers will be directly represented on it, together with a number of members selected in accordance with the principles of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in an open selection process. The Government will discuss with the Opposition parties how they might best be involved in the selection process. The Commission's funding and accountability arrangements will maximise its independence from the Government. The consultation document asks for views on various detailed aspects of those arrangements.

We propose that the functions of the commission will be threefold. First, it will decide on the number and timing of new appointments to the House of Lords. This will be a massive—and voluntary—diminution in the Prime Minister's influence over the membership of the Second Chamber. In making its decisions in relation to political appointments, the commission would be subject to two main guidelines. They are that the Government of the day should not have an overall majority in the Lords; and that appointments for the parties should have regard to the outcome of the previous general election. The commission will also be expected to provide that appointments to the Cross Benches should average 20 per cent. of appointments over the lifetime of a Parliament. The Commission's second function would be to nominate the non-party peers, and thirdly, it would vet the nominations for party peers for propriety.

In the meantime, the existing non-statutory Appointments Commission will continue its work, of which the Prime Minister has already expressed the Government's appreciation. The Prime Minister will invite it to make recommendations for new non-party peers until the new statutory commission is in place.

We also propose to bring the rules for disqualification from membership of the House of Lords, in respect of detention following conviction for an offence, into line with those for the House of Commons. We do not believe that the difference of treatment can any longer be justified. We therefore propose that in the future such peers will forfeit their membership of the House of Lords exactly as they would if they were MPs. In addition, they will be deprived of their peerage. The provision will have retrospective effect. Parliament is a privilege, not a possession. Such peers will, of course, be free to seek renewed membership of the second Chamber, by applying to the Appointments Commission or their party, as relevant, for nomination, just as former MPs can seek re-election.

We propose that life peers, like hereditary peers before them, should in future be able to resign their peerages and membership of the House of Lords. That is a fairer and more reasonable arrangement that will allow those who feel they wish to move on and no longer sit in the second Chamber the opportunity to do so.

Nothing in the proposals relates to the powers of the House of Lords. We are not proposing any extension of the role of the second Chamber. For example, the traditional role of the Lords in relation to Finance Bills is clear and works well, its powers being constrained by the Parliament Act 1911 and Commons financial privilege established by resolutions in the 17th century. I am sure their lordships would not seek to extend their powers, for example in respect of Supply. The House of Commons should and must remain pre-eminent in our constitutional arrangements.

On further reform of the House of Lords, we will continue to look for a way forward. We will discuss any possible next steps with the current Joint Committee and how it can contribute.

Taken together, the changes amount to a substantial set of reforms to the House of Lords. When added to our previously announced decisions to set up a separate supreme court, and to remove the office of Lord Chancellor, thus leading to reform of the office of Speaker, they will create a House that is significantly different from that which currently exists.

The Government are also publishing today a consultation paper on the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor. Work to bring to an end the multiple roles of the Lord Chancellor is already well advanced. The Secretary of State is formally inviting views on the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage, his visitatorial responsibilities and other functions relating to specific charities, schools and other institutions.

The proposals the Government announce today are part of the programme of constitutional reforms that we have been pursuing since 1997. They will contribute to the further strengthening of Parliament. Alongside our earlier reforms of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act 1998 and freedom of information, they will take their place in the shaping of our nation, to make the institutions of the state fit and responsive to the demands of our citizens in the modern world.

I thank the Minister for making that statement, but I regret that it comes a week after its content appeared in The Sunday Times. That blatantly contravenes your continual rulings, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament should be told first. Indeed, I received my advance copy at only 11.45 this morning, and I had to ask for it. That is no way for a so-called Department for Constitutional Affairs to conduct its business. It began its life floundering in a farce and now treats the House with contempt. Anyone would think that the constitution of this country was the personal chattel of the Prime Minister and his cronies.

The statement reeks of dishonesty. It pretends that the Government are still seeking long-term reform and, in the words of the Secretary of State in his foreword, are looking to

"shape a consensus to make the second chamber more legitimate and more representative of our society."

In fact, they are engaged in short-term political gerrymandering and cynical political arithmetic. No one believes what the Government say anymore. The more people see, the less credible the Government become.

The Government are not interested in delivering genuine reform. They have ignored the royal commission and pre-empted the Joint Committee of both Houses. It appears that the Joint Committee was not even consulted. The future of hereditary peers is not the issue. That was dealt with by Act of Parliament in 1999. No one has the right to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage alone. It is absurd for the Secretary of State to call for consensus in his foreword to the consultation paper, when the Minister in his statement just now stated that there was "clearly no consensus" in Parliament.

The fundamental question facing Parliament is indeed the future of the House of Lords, its authority and the authority of the House as a whole. The Government's objective in the Labour party submission was intended to ensure that the House of Lords remains a

"distinctive, representative and independent chamber".

That is not what this consultation paper is about. No legislation can be introduced affecting the other place without opening questions that go further than the framework of that Bill. In this House we will face a choice.

The issue is the accountability of the Government to Parliament, and whether the Prime Minister will gain further control over the constitution, adding to his disgraceful refusal to give the British people a referendum on the European constitution. The Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place have said that Parliament must decide about the measures before it. We need to know from the Minister whether the Government will give the House of Commons a free vote on the Bill that they propose to introduce following this statement, and whether they will come clean on whether their real intention is to remove enough peers who would take the Government to the Parliament Act on an amendment for a referendum on the European constitution. That is the arithmetic.

After all, the Prime Minister has said that, for him, the European constitution is even more important than Iraq. This is a political statement, made by one party for one party. It is not constitutional reform. Principle has been abandoned. The Cook-Maclennan talks have been betrayed. This is not a step towards democracy but a fundamental shift away from it.

The Opposition have made our position clear in favour of more democracy and an elected House of Lords. The proposal for 80:20 was lost in the House by a mere three votes. These proposed reforms treat that vote with contempt.

As regards the other place, its legitimate expectations in 1999—when many of its Members agreed to withdraw, on the basis that 92 hereditary peers would remain under a parliamentary concession and not by hereditary right—have been disgracefully dishonoured.

Opposition Members do not believe that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—who deals in so many ways with how we are governed—should be in the other place. He should be in this House, not merely represented in the House of Commons by a junior bag-carrier who will simply do the bidding of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.

Why has the matter suddenly become so important? Most people in the country probably think that the other place works well. Is that not because the other place has shown its independence and won respect and authority, for example over issues such as trial by jury, media ownership, the snoopers charter and the fair conduct of justice?

Is it perhaps that the Prime Minister wants to remove 20 per cent. of the non-governmental peers? Is the Prime Minister arguing that the proper and legitimate amendments from the other place are regarded as abnormal obstruction of the Government's legislative programme? If so, I challenge the Secretary of State and the Minister to say so.

The Prime Minister is as dangerous as he is arrogant, and his Secretary of State is implementing this dishonest plan in defiance of principle. It is a cynical move by the Prime Minister, when he is in deep trouble, to draw attention away from his difficulties. The Government treat the issue of constitutional reform and their loss of votes in the other place as though Parliament had no right to interfere in their Bills or their plans. I remind the House that in 40 per cent. of the Divisions that they have lost this year in the other place, less than half of the Government's own peers supported them. The Government simply failed to convince the House. Indeed, the Government have lost 51 Divisions this year—the highest number since the 1970s. However, they would have lost only 10 if the hereditary peers were removed. That is the real reason for the policy.

What of the statutory appointments commission? We welcome it in principle, but we have heard about it for six years. When precisely will it be enacted? The Government no longer talk of broad parity with the main Opposition party but now only of

"not having an overall majority in the House".

Does that not mean that the Government will have a majority over the two main Opposition parties combined?

That is the plan.

Indeed, that is the plan. It is the Prime Minister's plan as well.

As to the reform of the office of the Lord Chancellor, we discussed the matter when the previous statement was made, and we will debate it in future. However, one thing is clear. As the consultation paper states,

"the Lord Chancellor is after the Prime Minister the principle source of Ministerial advice to the Queen."

He serves the same function in respect of the Cabinet on all matters of constitutional importance. The removal of the office of the Lord Chancellor removes from the Cabinet historical and constitutional weight and authority when it comes to advice on constitutional affairs and maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The office has a degree of independence that the Prime Minister clearly finds impossible to reconcile with his obsession with his own power and control.

This Government have lost credibility. The Prime Minister does not want a democratic House of Lords but an appointed House of Lords that he can ignore. He dare not say so, but that is what these proposals mean. Constitutional reform should be in the long-term national interest, not what these proposals represent—a short-term fix. We shall oppose them for the shoddy manoeuvre that they represent.

It is now clear that the Opposition support keeping hereditary peers in the second Chamber. That is disgraceful, and does no credit to the House of Lords. It is about time that we took steps to remove the remaining 92 peers who are there by virtue of their birth, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Clearly, we have to respond to the situation caused by the votes in February, when no consensus emerged from Parliament. The Conservative majority in the other place voted by three to one in favour of an appointed second Chamber. No consensus emerged in the House of Commons. We need to move forward, where we can, to put the other place on a stable and sustainable footing. We can do that by removing the hereditaries, because the status quo is not desirable.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific matters, and I shall investigate the amount of notice that he was given of the statement. It is entirely laudable that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should seek to relinquish many of the powers of patronage that his office traditionally has held, in terms of the timing and numbers of appointments to the House of Lords, and in terms of the establishment of a statutory appointments commission. I am glad that the Opposition welcomed that element of the statement, but the hon. Gentleman then said that they will oppose the legislation that we intend to bring forward when parliamentary time allows.

The hon. Gentleman took all of three minutes to turn the issue into a European conspiracy; he feels that it is all to do with some European constitutional referendum, which reflects interestingly on the current state of the Conservative party. Abolishing the hereditary peerage is the right thing to do. Ensuring that the House of Commons has pre-eminence is the right thing to do. In the face of the lack of consensus, we need to make progress, and that is exactly what the Government will do.

The statement and the consultation paper are economical with the truth. The Minister has just said that there was clearly no consensus in Parliament on the way forward. That is only partly true; there is a consensus in this House, although there may not be consensus between the two Houses.

The Minister has just said that this House must remain pre-eminent. There is a majority in the Chamber for a reformed second Chamber to be elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, there isn't."] There is.

The announcement is a double betrayal. First, it breaks the manifesto promises on which Labour Members were elected on two occasions and, secondly, it tears up the agreement that the hereditary peers would be removed only when the full reform package was in place. Liberal Democrats will thus support the removal of the remaining hereditary peers only when the full package is put before this House, and when it is accompanied by the promised introduction of elected Members to make the second Chamber "more democratic and representative"—words that every Labour Member signed up to.

The Prime Minister clearly regards the votes of Members of this House as unimportant. On 4 February, the majority of Members of the House—332, or more than half—voted for a majority of Members of the other place to be elected. They did not all go into the same Lobby at once, but that was their view.

The Minister is not listening to me as his colleagues are whispering to him, but he is an honourable man and he will remember that he supported the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor in voting for an all-appointed House. That option was substantially rejected—by 78 votes—so does he still think that the votes of the House of Commons should be pre-eminent? If so, the option that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are currently proposing directly negates what the House voted for.

Every Labour Member, at two elections, supported a manifesto commitment to create a more democratic and representative second Chamber. If they vote for the Bill that is being suggested for the next Session, they will both be reneging on that promise to the electorate and deliberately ignoring the votes of this House on 4 February.

The Minister has just said that he wants stability and sustainability. Pull the other one! There is nothing sustainable about his proposition.

We now refer to the Department for Constitutional Affairs as "DECAF". It is living up to its name. The real radical reform originally intended by Labour Members and their Government has been sucked out of it and neither House will accept this unpalatable mess.

What interesting mathematics the hon. Gentleman proposes. He says that, supposedly, there is consensus in this Chamber for an elected second Chamber. I do not know which version of Hansard he has been reading, but my tally of the votes suggests that only 272 hon. Members were in favour while 289 were against, which means that the House rejected the option of an elected second Chamber. It is clear that there was no consensus in this House on the way forward.

In the face of Parliament's decisions, what should the Government do? We need to make progress where we can. For the Liberal Democrats, of all parties, to find themselves in the ridiculous situation of supporting the retention of hereditary peers in the second Chamber is an outrage. I do not understand how they can call themselves Liberal Democrats. We need to abolish the remaining hereditary peers. That is what most ordinary people would demand.

It is important to underline the fact that the Government are taking steps to fulfil our manifesto commitments. We want a more legitimate and representative second Chamber. We need to move forward where we can. We are also proposing a statutory appointments commission. Those are steps forward. Of course, the door remains open for further reform, but we need to take opportunities, while we can, to remove undesirable elements of the status quo.

My hon. Friend is a fair-minded man, so he will confirm that all the Government's previous proposals for reform of the Lords involved the abolition of hereditary peers. He will also admit that what distinguishes the package that he has just announced is that it is the first time that the Government have presented proposals for reform that do not include provision for any Member of the second Chamber to be elected by the British public.

May I warn my hon. Friend against the delusion that an independent commission will make appointments popular? During the two years when I was Leader of the House, we begged the Appointments Commission not to come up with any more names because when it did there was a public relations disaster. Does he understand that the reason for that unpopularity is that the British people find it offensive that they have no say on who sits in a Chamber that is passing laws on them?

On my hon. Friend's arithmetic, as he is a fair-minded man, will he also accept that the proposal for an all-appointed House got 235 votes and was rejected by 323 votes? That was a somewhat larger majority than I heard him mention a minute ago. Is not it the case that the all-appointed option received the fewest votes in the House and had the biggest majority against it? I confess that I am rather confused, so can my hon. Friend remind me why we consulted the House of Commons if we intended to go ahead with the measure that was least popular among Members of Parliament?

My right hon. Friend was intimately involved in the decisions leading up to the votes last February. Although, as he is aware, no consensus emerged for an all-appointed second Chamber, an all-elected second Chamber or, indeed, any element of election in the second Chamber, it is clear that we must have regard to where we are now and what we can do next. We could leave the hereditaries in the second Chamber in perpetuity or we can take steps to remove that anomaly—that anachronism—and I believe that that is the right thing to do.

My right hon. Friend is correct to suggest that, at present, we do not propose to make changes in composition. The Government are not saying that this is the final stage of reform, but we must be conscious of the fact that progress has to be made and that is what we want to do. Appointments will need to be a feature for the time being, so the statutory appointments commission is a step towards greater legitimacy for those who sit in the second Chamber. That proposal was in our manifesto and my right hon. Friend was involved in its authorship.

I accept that there was no consensus on Lords reform in this Chamber in February, but was that not largely due to the decision of the Prime Minister and some members of the Cabinet to abrogate all their previous commitments for a more democratic upper House? Has not that long-standing Labour commitment formally come to an end today? That commitment had lived on—there was even a commitment to the Wakeham report in the last Labour manifesto—but has not it come to a formal end with the words of the Leader of the House a few days ago that there would be a democratic method of appointment? Will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend that we have a word in the English language for "democratic method of appointment"? It is "elections". In the absence of elections to the upper House, will not we be left with a weaker upper Chamber in a weaker Parliament? In those circumstances, is not it ludicrous to speak of an overall reduction in the influence of the Prime Minister of the day?

The right hon. Gentleman seeks to imply that the result of the vote in February was all the Prime Minister's doing. However, as he knows, there was a free vote. He suggests that we should have an all-elected or partially elected second Chamber. In that case, why did the Conservatives in the other House vote by an overwhelming majority for a fully appointed second Chamber? How does he propose to reach a consensus, to find a result, when members of his party in the other House are voting for appointment? We must have regard to the outcome of those votes and ensure that we can take steps forward. For the Conservatives to suggest that they want an elected element when their colleagues in the other place would prevent that very thing is to look in both directions.

Is what my hon. Friend now proposes intended as an interim proposal? If so, how long will the interim period be? If it is only an interim proposal, what steps is he taking to put in hand the further reforms that he refers to and what machinery does he intend to invent for that purpose? May I ask him about a specific point? Almost everyone who has commented on Lords reform, from the royal commission onwards, has said that, even if we are just doing some tidying up, one thing that we need to do is to break the link between service in a second legislative chamber and the honours system. Will the proposals that he now offers us break that link?

On the last point that my hon. Friend makes, the consultation document raises the issue of the link between the peerage and membership of the second Chamber, and we feel that that issue would perhaps merit investigation, but not until we find a consensus about composition. Indeed, that is precisely the point of his first question. We feel that it will eventually be possible to find some way through on the question of composition. We cannot say how long that will take, not least because of the muddled results that we had when Parliament voted on this issue. We want to create a stable second Chamber for the time being and to discuss with the Joint Committee the next steps that might lie ahead, and I look forward to those discussions.

Can the Minister confirm whether a direct consequence of the Bill that he has proposed today is that the Government will find it easier to get contentious legislation through the second Chamber? If that is the case, how could he tell the House in his statement that the proposals will contribute to the further strengthening of Parliament?

The right hon. Gentleman was a Secretary of State in an Administration who had an overall majority in both Houses of Parliament for 18 years, so for the consultation document to say that we no longer feel that it is right for any Government to have an overall majority in the second Chamber is the right way forward. We feel that that is the best way to progress, to ensure that we have balance and a fair system in the second Chamber. This is certainly nothing about ensuring that we have our business pushed through in any different way. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that, if that were the case, we would copy the previous Conservative Administration, but we reject the approach that they enjoyed for such a long time.

As someone who served on the royal commission for a year, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on a statement that fulfils the Labour party manifesto commitment on the Wakeham report? What my hon. Friend has announced is fulfilment of the spirit and a large part of the letter of the report—namely, the establishment of a statutory appointments commission that is required to take account of the votes cast at the previous general election and the removal of patronage from the Prime Minister, plus the abolition of the 92 hereditaries. It is an extremely sensible statement; the Government deserve credit for it; and it is not in the least surprising that, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was rejected at the last election, the Government's commitment in beating him is now being carried out.

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and, indeed, Opposition Members for their role on the royal commission? He is right to say that we are taking steps to implement our manifesto commitments. Of course, it is a shame that we could not reach consensus in the House of Commons on the question of composition, but it is right to remove the hereditaries from the second Chamber and to establish a statutory appointments commission. How interesting it is to hear the disappointing response from Opposition Members, who will apparently oppose removing the hereditary principle from the second Chamber.

Why does not the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs understand that constitutions—even our unwritten one—have checks and balances, and that, when they are changed, the checks and balances have to be either maintained or replaced? He has already ignored the views of the judges that his proposals provide no means at Cabinet level to assert judicial independence. He now proposes to ignore the views of all the people in the country who have seen the Lords act as a check on an over-powerful Government and do not want the House of Lords to be changed, unless it is changed in a way that maintains that authority and that ability to challenge the Government.

I do not quite know which document the right hon. Gentleman has been reading. The Government wish to see not only a second Chamber with no overall Government majority, but an appointments commission that will determine the timing and number of those appointed in that manner. The document also spells out the fact that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should have a role in protecting judicial independence. It is not true that the Government somehow want to blur the lines between the different branches of the constitution. Quite the contrary— we seek the proper separation of powers between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature.

May I direct the House's attention to the constitutional reform document in relation to the office of the Lord Chancellor, and say, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, that the Church welcomes the consultation document in relation to ecclesiastical appointments, parochial appointments, the Royal Peculiars and other ecclesiastical functions? The Church welcomes the proposals in relation to a disengagement of the Church from the state, rather than disestablishment, but may I ask the Minister to confirm that what we seek in relation to Church appointments is to give back to the Church what rightly belongs to it and to maintain for the state that which it is appropriate for the state to maintain?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the consultation document on the office of the Lord Chancellor contains no proposals on disestablishment, but there are interesting tracts on ecclesiastical patronage, visitatorial rights, the Royal Peculiars and the chapels royal, which I know all hon. Members will want to look at in much more detail. There are questions about whether Ministers or perhaps the Church of England would be best placed to undertake some of those functions, and we will not allow some of those details to go without proper scrutiny and proper attention.

May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to what he said at the outset of his answers, there is not a Conservative majority in the other place? Will he tell us what he proposes to do beyond reciting the apology that he gave at the beginning of his statement? Does he intend to look into how that statement came to be published in the newspapers some days ago? Has he considered whether the element of retrospection is complicit with the European Convention? How will the proposals improve Parliament's ability to hold the Executive to account?

I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman's arithmetic comes from. If he looks back at the numbers in the different parties, he will see that the Conservative party is by far the most overwhelming party in the second Chamber.

As for the question about the reports in Sunday newspapers, as I said in my statement, they were certainly not authorised and we are investigating that matter. However, as with many issues, particularly those that are as large as this, it is not surprising that things leak out, but I deplore such leaks and I certainly hope that we can continue to make statements to Parliament first.

It is right that we have the proper separation of powers and proper scrutiny of legislation, and I believe that the proposed measures will aid that in many different ways.

May I urge my hon. Friend to open wider the door to further reform, given not only that an all-appointed House was the least popular option in this House, but that the results of the earlier consultation showed strong public support for a greater elected element? May I also ask my hon. Friend, given the divisions on this issue that undoubtedly exist across the House, whether there will be a free vote?

We do not intend to introduce legislation that includes matters on composition precisely because we had the free votes that took place last February, when no consensus emerged. We had two choices to make: to do nothing and continue with the status quo, or to take steps to continue to make progress on reform, to remove the hereditaries and to introduce a statutory appointments commission. That is indeed what the legislation will propose.

Does the Minister accept that documents that suggest that the Anglican Church existed before the Reformation hardly fill one with confidence about the accuracy of their contents? Can he name any second Chamber anywhere in the world that has more accumulated expertise, experience or ability to hold the Government to account than the House of Lords? As he said that the new House of Lords will be significantly different, how can it be significantly better?

It can be significantly better if 92 of its Members are not there by virtue of their birthright. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that if we remove those people who were there by virtue of that automatic ticket of inheritance, we somehow reduce the expertise or independence of mind of the second Chamber. He is mistaken in that. I believe that we can have a contemporary chamber that is legitimate and that can be more representative. If he scrutinises the proposals in the document with more care, perhaps he will find himself agreeing with it.

My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government intend to create a stable and sustainable upper House. By that, I take it that they intend to make stable and sustainable an all-appointed House, which, as has already been observed, was the least popular option. I stood on a manifesto that called for the upper House not only to be more representative but more democratic. I for one do not approach manifestos on a pick-and-mix basis. Will he therefore tell me what opportunity I will have, as a Labour Member of Parliament, to vote for a more democratic upper House if I am to be denied the chance this time to vote for any form of election?

My hon. Friend must realise that the votes that took place last February changed the landscape significantly in a number of different ways. I believe that it is still possible, however, to move towards greater legitimacy for the second Chamber. The abolition of the hereditaries, an independent statutory appointments commission and making sure that those appointments reflect the shares of the votes cast of the previous general election, are a step towards a more democratic second Chamber. We do not close the door to future considerations on composition. It is just the next stage, not the final stage, but we must make progress while we can. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we live in the real world and that we must be pragmatic about the progress that we can make, particularly given the lack of consensus that emerged in those February votes.

Does the Minister accept that this document does nothing to make the House of Lords more democratic?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I believe that there are a number of ways in which greater legitimacy can be achieved for the second Chamber if we evolve from a hereditary to a more contemporary chamber. That is a step towards a more democratic House of Lords. If we remove hereditaries, we create a more legitimate Chamber. If the statutory appointments commission can reflect the shares of the votes cast or seats won at the previous general election, that, too, is a step towards a more democratic second Chamber. I accept, however, that hon. Members will have different views about it. It is precisely because there was no resolution in the votes in the House of Commons on this matter that we are where we are. I therefore believe that we must make those steps forward where we can.

Can my hon. Friend explain why he thinks that he can make progress with the proposals put to us today for the reform of the House of Lords when his proposal is the one that was most heavily defeated in this House?

I hope that I have been clear in expressing the Government's views on future considerations on composition. We do not close the door to future decisions on how the Second Chamber should be composed. Indeed, we will discuss with the Joint Committee whether we can find a consensus and perhaps move forward. However, it was evident back in February, as all hon. Members will recall, that there was no consensus, and we hear arguments on both sides. Are we to do nothing, or are we to remove the hereditary peers and create a statutory appointments commission while we can, and try to reach a final stage at a later date?

Everybody knows that things did not pan out in February quite as had been intended, including those who may have opposed or supported an all-elected Chamber. That was partly because there were so many votes on offer, and a good number of people for whom this is not the most important issue in the world got somewhat confused between all the options. What the Government now propose is a take-it-or-leave-it single option. Why do the Government not offer three or four options—such as an all-elected, largely elected or all-appointed Chamber—and put it to the vote? The Minister and the Government will thereby see that there is overwhelming support in this Chamber for a largely elected House. If the Government do not do that, will not the public be able to see that that side of the Chamber, or at least the Government seeking to lead that side of the Chamber, has now concluded that it does not want any kind of democracy in the second Chamber, and that this side of the Chamber offers the only way in which the public, who want it, can get it?

I do not wish to give a history lesson to the hon. Gentleman, but back in February, the Joint Committee proposed seven options. Indeed, there was also an option on a unicameral second Chamber, which was defeated. An all-appointed second Chamber was defeated, an all-elected chamber was defeated, 20 per cent. elected was defeated, 80 per cent. elected was defeated, 40 per cent. elected was defeated, 60 per cent. elected was defeated and 50 per cent. elected was defeated. There was therefore no consensus at that time. Those options were chosen by the Joint Committee, members of which come both from this House and the second Chamber. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Government to respond in some way to that situation, bringing forward those reforms that are necessary and that can be achieved.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] May I congratulate him on coming up with a solution that maintains the primacy of this elected House of Commons and gets rid of the last vestiges of power of the descendants of robber barons? Will he give me two assurances? First, will the statutory appointments commission be required to take account of geographical representation, particularly Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Secondly—[Interruption.] I am happy to stay here. Notwithstanding the great improvement in the composition of the second Chamber, will he assure me that we will not give it any more powers to scrutinise Finance Bills?

My hon. Friend is clearly very popular in the Chamber, and I am glad that he provoked such a welcome to his question. I agree, as do both sides of the House—at least there is some consensus on this point—that the House of Commons should be supreme and that the elected Chamber should have primacy. When it comes to composition, however, we still have no consensus. On the statutory appointments commission and whether it would have regard to the make-up of society, the consultation paper proposes that one option could be for it to consider not just issues such as the balance of men and women, ethnicity and so forth but the geographic representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. On his second point, I reaffirm the important principle that the House of Commons should have supremacy on financial matters. The privileges that we have had are well and long established, and I know that the other place will not wish to interfere with those important principles.

Is the Minister aware that for a great many of us who are genuinely and fully committed to reform of the other place, this proposal is a fudge that is the worst of all worlds? The core question is the legitimacy of the other place. As long as we can say that it is unelected and therefore illegitimate, it will simply not work. Will he not understand that there is only one valid appointments commission, and that is the people, through the ballot box?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is in the unique position of having served in both Houses, so he knows a certain amount but not, clearly, everything that needs to be known about these questions. He expresses his view, and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber express different views. Some prefer the composition to be more elected and some prefer it to be more appointed. His view did not prevail, however, in the votes that we had in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yours didn't."] Nor did my personal view prevail, and I am quite prepared to accept that. What should we do? Should we move forward or continue to have hereditary peers in the second Chamber? I do not believe that that is acceptable and I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will agree.