LGBT History Month
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree with the hon. and learned Lady about the work that the Government should be doing abroad. To be fair to the Government, they do use and are using diplomatic channels, particularly to try to further decriminalisation in those countries that still criminalise LGBT relationships. While I have to give the Minister 10 out of 10 for his tie at the Qatar world cup, I can give only five out of 10 for his Government as a whole for their work across the world, simply because there are such contradictions between doing good, progressive things in some areas and then contemplating really not very progressive things at all in others. I hope that he will be able to reassure us that sending asylum seekers to Ghana is not on his Government’s to-do list.
No fewer than 300 anti-LGBT+ laws have been introduced by the Republicans in the USA, attempting to create a new era of repression that includes, significantly, the rolling back of women’s abortion rights and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As I have said, in the fight for equality, we advance together or not at all. If we start losing LGBT+ rights, women’s rights will not be far behind.
After all those warnings, I wish to end on a positive note. There has been an increase in nations decriminalising LGBT+ relationships, and equal marriage legislation has progressed across the world, which means 33 countries have such laws, covering 1.3 billion people. I am already taken, Madam Deputy Speaker, but 1.3 billion people is quite a big pool to fish in.
Dame Angela Eagle
No, I certainly am not—I am making a general observation, as my hon. Friend knows.
There is progress in the world, but there is also regression. It is up to us all to put our collective shoulder to the wheel in this House and push our country and the world towards progress and liberation.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the honourable, cheeky wee monkey—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). I should point out for the record that I am not on Grindr, but I note that he basically admits that he is, because otherwise how would he be able to look at anybody else’s Grindr account?
I will focus primarily on history, for a very important reason that I think will become clear. On 25 September 1810, six men who had been convicted of what was called an unnatural crime were put in a cart at the Old Bailey and taken to the Haymarket, where they were to be put in the pillory. Some 30,000 to 40,000 people turned up to line the streets to watch them being pilloried. When they got there, they were assailed with mud, dead cats, rotten eggs, potatoes and buckets filled with blood, offal and dung. On the way back, they were chained in the caravan in such a manner that they could not lie down in the cart and could only hide and shelter their heads from the storm by stooping. One of them was whipped repeatedly.
This is what happened on 25 February 1823—200 years ago:
“Yesterday morning, at an early hour, considerable numbers of spectators assembled before the Debtors’ door at Newgate, to witness the execution of William North, convicted in September Sessions of an unnatural crime. The wretched culprit was 54 years of age, and had a wife living. On his trial, he appeared a fine, stout, robust man, and strongly denied his guilt. On his being brought before the Sheriffs yesterday morning, he appeared to have grown at least ten years older… His body had wasted to the mere anatomy of a man, his cheeks had sunk, his eyes had become hollow, and such was his weakness, that he could scarcely stand without support… At five minutes past eight yesterday morning he was pinioned by the executioner in the press room, in the presence of the sheriffs and officers of the gaol. As St. Sepulchre’s church clock struck eight, the culprit, carrying the rope, attended by the executioner, and clergyman, moved in procession with the sheriffs…on to the scaffold. On arriving at the third station, the prison bell tolled, and Dr. Cotton”—
the priest—
“commenced at the same moment reading the funeral service, ‘I am the resurrection and the life,’ of which the wretched man seemed to be totally regardless. On his being assisted up the steps of the scaffold, reason returned; he became aware of the dreadful death to which he was about to be consigned; his looks of terror were frightful; his expression of horror, when the rope was being placed round his neck, made every spectator shudder. It was one of the most trying scenes to the clergymen they ever witnessed—never appeared a man so unprepared, so unresigned to his fate. The signal being given the drop fell and the criminal expired in less than a minute. He never struggled after he fell. The body hung an hour, and was then cut down for internment.”
We have had horrible laws in this country. Sometimes, when we tell children in school this, they find it completely incomprehensible. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the 1533 Buggery Act of Henry VIII, which classified sodomy as an illegal act between man and woman, man and man, or man and beast.
Formal court indictments in this country for many centuries used the same formula:
“The detestable and abominable crime, among Christians not to be named, called buggery”.
Often the court records did not even use the full word “buggery”; they just put “bgry” or “sdmy”, because it was not to be named. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the Offences Against the Person Bill in the Commons in 1828, which included a clause aimed at making it easier to obtain sodomy convictions, he did not even say the phrase
“the crime, amongst Christians not to be named”.
He said it in Latin instead, such was the degree of shame.
We were still executing people for sodomy up until 1835—James Pratt and John Smith were the last two—and the death sentence was still pronounced on men, right up until 1861. Then it was penal servitude for life. When it was said in the House of Lords at one point that that meant being sent off to Tasmania or Botany Bay, somebody pointed out that it was perhaps a bit counterproductive to send lots of homosexual men to a single sex colony on the other side of the world.
Once we got rid of the death penalty, we added other laws on importuning under the Vagrancy Acts, which were introduced after the Napoleonic wars. Anybody caught was called a rogue or a vagabond. Repeat offenders were known as incorrigible rogues—which is how I often think of myself. The 1898 Act added another clause, which was importuning for immoral purposes, under which hundreds and hundreds of men were sentenced right up until 2003. Two men were sentenced to nine months of hard labour and 15 strokes—corporal punishment was a part of it too—in May 1912. The appeal court at that time pronounced
“if ever there was a case for corporal punishment it is for that particular class of offence of which these applicants have been guilty—soliciting men for immoral purposes”.
All they had done was hold hands.
And of course gross indecency was introduced by Henry Labouchère at the very last minute in an amendment in a late-night debate in 1885, under a catch-all clause that applied to events not only in public but in private. It was later interpreted as meaning as an attempt to commit any of those things as well, which meant, for instance, that during the second world war Sir Paul Latham, a Member of Parliament, tried to take his own life when letters of his were found that suggested he wanted to have an affair with another man.
In 1926, a 61-year-old vicar—I am 61 and I used to be a vicar—was sentenced to six months on eight cases of gross indecency, even though the judge recognised that the time might come when such cases would be treated medically. Of course, that is what happened next: it was a sin and then it became a medical condition. If there is one thing I feel more strongly about than any other in the trans debate we are having at the moment, it is that I do not think we should be treating it as a medical condition. I do not think that the allocation of a certificate should be done by a medical practitioner, because that makes people leap through a medical hoop and implies that what is intrinsic to them is somehow a physical disorder. We can, of course, count many instances of versions of so-called therapy that were inflicted on people —medical castration, actual castration and all sorts of different therapies—of whom Alan Turing is the perhaps most renowned instance.
Homosexuality remains a criminal offence in 34 out of 54 countries in the Commonwealth—a pretty bad record for British exports—in large measure because we exported our strict laws around our empire. Homosexual acts still carry the death penalty in Iran, Brunei, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar—several of us have been to Qatar and told them this; I think it came as a bit of a shock to those running the World cup when it turned out that more than half the British delegation was gay—Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan. Two men were hanged in a prison in the north-western city of Maragheh in Iran in February 2022 after spending six years on death row. Even in the United States of America, the land of the free, Pastor Dillon Orrs of Stedfast Baptist church in Texas believes that homosexuals
“should be sentenced with death. They should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head”.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that all the advances we have made today are not something we should take for granted. I have said before in this House that, in the 20th century, the most liberal place in the world for gay men was Berlin from 1928 to 1931. By 1936, gay men were being carted off to concentration camps, and we do not even know how many lost their lives under the Nazis. It is one of the reasons I have always felt a very strong alliance with Jewish people, who suffered that same appalling holocaust.
The new French penal code of 1791—in the 18th century, not the 19th—did not even mention sodomy, and nor did Napoleon’s version in 1804, which rapidly spread around the globe. Yet we did not achieve that in this country for nearly two centuries. Most other nations never executed people for homosexuality at all, and those that did abolished the practice long before the 19th century—Germany’s last case was in 1537, Spain’s in 1647, Switzerland’s in 1662, Italy’s in 1668 and France’s in 1750. Only the Netherlands kept going until the 19th century and their last execution was of Jillis Bruggeman in 1803. Yet between 1806 and 1835, 440 men were sentenced to death for sodomy in England and 56 of them were hanged. Peru and Paraguay legalised homosexuality fully in 1924, Uruguay in 1934, Iceland in 1940, Switzerland in 1942, Greece in 1951, Thailand in 1956 and even Hungary in 1961. We only did it partially in 1967. It did not really come until the Labour Government in 1997 that we fully legalised homosexuality and introduced an equal age of consent.
The gays have phenomenal powers, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been blamed for all sorts of things. In 1978, the drought in California was blamed on that state’s liberal attitudes towards LGBT people. After 11 September 2001, Jerry Falwell said:
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle…all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”
Hurricane Sandy, which hit the east coast of America in 2012, was described by a US rabbi as a divine justice for the state of New York legalising gay marriage a year earlier.
At the same time, a press release from Pastor Steven Andrew of the USA Christian Church stated:
“God’s love shows it is urgent to repent, because the Bible teaches homosexuals lose their souls and God destroys LGBT societies”.
In the UK, in 2014, the UK Independence party councillor David Silvester said that floods had happened after David Cameron had acted “arrogantly against the Gospel” by legislating for same-sex marriage. And, of course, most recently Patriarch Kirill blamed gay pride marches for the war in Ukraine.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry this is slightly different from what others may talk about, but I want to talk about the Bible arguments about homosexuality because this is still a very live debate in many communities up and down the country and it worries me. Some people point to Leviticus:
“You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.”
It is true that that is in Leviticus. But other things thought of as abominations are eating shellfish, touching the skin of a dead pig, which would make lots of sports quite difficult, combining fabrics—I’m looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and sowing crops side by side. I do not know if any of us have done that. Many of those things we see very differently today, but there is a bigger point.
First of all, the Bible is a bundle of books that were written by different people at a variety of different times. There have been lots of rows about which books should be in and which books should not be in. Different versions of Christianity have rowed about that. A man told me once that the Bible was written by King James in 1605 and we should all get used to it. Ignorance is a blessing sometimes, I suppose, but the truth is that the Bible is a translation. Often, it is a translation of a translation, and it may be a translation of a translation of a translation. It has to be read very closely. If I were to ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how many commandments there are, you would probably say 10. But if I asked you to delineate which the 10 are, you would find it difficult because different versions of Christianity lay them out in different ways. That is one of the reasons why we have a different view about what craven images constitute and why Orthodox churches do not have three-dimensional imagery. For that matter, if I asked you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I know this is not a quiz for you—who were the 12 disciples, you would find it difficult because there are different versions of the names of the 12 and you would have thought that that was an important thing to get right.
My point here is that the Bible has to be read carefully. We cannot just pick little bits because they fit what we like. We have to read it in its context and then hold that up against the context of today. I do not think the story of Sodom is about homosexuality at all. It is about rape. It is probably also about how you should behave towards foreigners and strangers coming into your community—even if they were angels, so it is obviously a slightly different story.
We obviously do not today sanction selling daughters into slavery, which is a good thing, but Leviticus does. Likewise, we do not sanction slavery at all, yet most of the Bible thinks that slavery is a perfectly acceptable system. Jesus actually said that there are two commandments:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”,
And:
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”
Some might think, “Oh, neighbour just means my next-door neighbour,” but of course that is not what it means, because Jesus tells whole parables, including that of the good Samaritan, about how your neighbour is all sorts of people you might not think of as your neighbour. Incidentally, the point about the good Samaritan is not that he is rich, but that he is a good neighbour to someone who is not actually his neighbour.
All of that is to say that I just hope every Christian person who cares about their faith will look again at this question of same-sex love, because if they read the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the form of solemnisation of matrimony, they will see that three reasons are given for matrimony, namely
“the procreation of children…a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication…the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”
Is that not what every single marriage and relationship of love between two people is all about? You cannot do either of the other two things unless you have the third, too. I just hope that every Christian person in the land will think long and hard about where the Church goes in the near future.
We look around the world and we see so many people still living under the conditions of 200 years ago that I referred to at the beginning of my contribution. I hope that one of the things we can give back to the world, having been one of the nations that gave the toughest laws on homosexuality to many other countries, is to be the country that gives hope, liberation and a sense of joy.
If I may, I will just end with RuPaul, because it is always best to end with RuPaul. RuPaul says:
“If you can’t love yourself, how you gonna love somebody else?”,
and it is true. I think one of the things that has become possible for so many gay men, lesbians, trans and non-binary people over the past 30 or 40 years is that they have felt able to love themselves, even though they were brought up to hate themselves. When I was a child, all the teaching at school was, “It’s moral delinquency, a perversion, a medical condition—it’s something to be erased.” “Out, damned spot” was the feeling. So many people tried to overcome it by marrying, because they wanted to inflict it on somebody else, or they crammed themselves into a straitjacket of their own life, which meant that they never managed to have any joy or give joy to other people.
I knew so many priests in the Church of England when I was training who had devoted their lives to the Church. If they went on holiday to Sitges or somewhere like that, they would probably have a fumble somewhere. They might have an occasional lover. They could never bring them into the vicarage or rectory. Then, when they got to 60, they would become terribly, terribly bitter, because they felt they were not able to share their life with somebody else. They were not able to be honest and open. They were not able to know the love and the fullness of life that the Christian faith is meant to be all about. Then, they became quite nasty people sometimes. I just hope that the future will be very different from what we were brought up with. Frankly, there are almost too many of us in this House these days—and yes, it is great.
Sir Chris Bryant
There are not enough of you lot! [Laughter.] It is a great joy that things have changed dramatically, but there is still so much more to change.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
Is not the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny that all too often it means we can iron out some of the unintended consequences? A classic one that I think we are likely to come across, in relation to part 1, is that when the Government or Parliament face a big issue many small charities decide to form a joint committee and employ someone specifically to act on their behalf and represent them. They would be caught by this Bill, whereas the bodies that they would probably be fighting against, the big commercial interests, would not. That is the unfairness.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is of course right. Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill came as a complete surprise to all those in civil society who will be affected, be they charities, campaigners or trade unions. The Government designed the changes in secret and sprung them on everyone in a baleful attempt to bounce them quickly on to the statute book. They have not even bothered to consult those affected. Discussions I have had during meetings with stakeholders on all three parts of the Bill suggest that time after time e-mails, letters and calls requesting conversations with Ministers were left unanswered. The Government did not even tell the Electoral Commission until the end of June that they were going to alter the rules that it is required by law to police, so they have kept their own regulator in the dark. The Electoral Commission has said:
“We share the concerns that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee expressed… about the timing of the Bill and the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny.”
I cannot believe that the Leader of the House is content with this shameful and shambolic process. He has provided an abject lesson in how not to develop and propose legislation. This is a Bill that he should be embarrassed to be associated with.
Business of the House
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s proposals for MPs’ pay and pensions in the 2015 Parliament have just been published. Does the Leader of the House agree that any decisions that IPSA makes after the public consultation on this package of measures should reflect wider economic circumstances and what is happening in the public and private sectors?
Last week I asked the Leader of the House to protect the extra time to scrutinise the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. In response the Leader of the House said he would
“take steps to ensure that the time that is available for that debate is protected”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1061.]
On Monday and Tuesday we had more than four hours of statements, wiping out all the extra time that the right hon. Gentleman had so generously granted. Will he now tell us why his assurances to this House appear to carry such weight in the Government? And will he tell me exactly what was the point of appearing to grant extra time in the first place?
The Conservative party has a blind spot when it comes to women. First, the Mayor of London said that women only go to university to find husbands. Then the Prime Minister completely forgot about British Wimbledon champions Ann Jones and Virginia Wade when complimenting Andy Murray on his fantastic achievement last Sunday. Finally we had the Foreign Secretary exercising his well-known diplomatic skills by using a phrase about my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) that I cannot repeat in the House. This Tory party is so modern that its members either ignore women completely or casually insult them. It looks like the unconscious bias training that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is meant to be organising for them really is not working.
Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister was seen out for dinner last week with Mick Jagger.
Ms Eagle
Indeed. I hear they were discussing Lib Dem theme songs for the next election. How about “You can’t always get what you want”, or “Under my thumb”? Personally, I think that “It’s all over now” might be much more appropriate.
We have all been enjoying the glorious weather. It was lovely to see Tory MPs skipping gleefully around this place last Friday. The barbecues were sizzling, the birds were singing, and the Tory party was banging on about Europe. But even before their prime ministerial burgers were properly digested, they were back to their old ways. After the Home Secretary’s U-turn on the European arrest warrant, another Euro mutiny is brewing. She has been promising the Chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and European Scrutiny Committees time to scrutinise the Government’s opt-out plan for the last nine months. Why, then, did the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box on Monday with an emergency business statement to force a vote, bypassing any kind of Select Committee scrutiny at all?
Not only have the Government shown no respect to those Committees or the House, but they have done so for no reason. The EU treaties, the Commission and even the Government’s own legislation say that they do not need a vote before beginning negotiations, so why is the Leader of the House forcing a vote on Monday? Will he recognise his mistake and put off the vote until the Committees have had time to scrutinise the Government’s plans, as the Home Secretary promised?
While the Leader of the Opposition is taking bold steps to remake our politics, the Prime Minister is failing to answer questions about his dodgy donors. Is not the truth, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) told the BBC yesterday, that in the Conservative party money buys influence. Adrian Beecroft donated half a million pounds and was then allowed to write a report calling for the destruction of workers’ rights. JCB chairman Anthony Bamford donated £2.5 million and was then allowed to write a report on manufacturing. At the recent Tory fundraising ball, the Prime Minister had the temerity to tell his millionaire guests that their donations enabled him to give a tax cut to all their millionaire pals and hedge fund friends. I have calculated that 18 hedge fund bosses donated over £24 million before attending their cosy dinners at No. 10.
The Prime Minister was forced by the scandal to ask Lord Gold to investigate, but it has been more than a year and we have not heard a word. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he expects this important report to be published, and does he know why it has taken so long? A quarter of those on The Sunday Times rich list are donors to the Conservative party. They said that we were all in this together, but is not the truth that this is a Government run by the rich and for the rich?
Business of the House
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s possibly full business timetable.
Yesterday we marked the end of an era with the funeral of Margaret Thatcher and our thoughts are with those who knew and loved her. I rarely agreed with her, but she did break the existing political and economic consensus and I think it is time that we did so again.
We are now entering the final hectic days of this parliamentary Session—if necessary. Next Wednesday it will be five weeks since the Prime Minister was last held to account in this House. Given the likely timing of Prorogation and the state opening on 8 May, it is possible that he will have to be answerable here again only twice before June. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs? What will he do to ensure that this House stops conveniently going into recess on Tuesdays, thereby letting the Prime Minister off the PMQ hook?
On Tuesday the Communities and Local Government Secretary got himself into a right old pickle with his chaotic plans for a free market free-for-all in conservatory construction. With Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tories uniting against him, he was forced to hint at an unspecified concession, but in the damning words of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), his colleague around the Cabinet table for two years,
“we will not believe what”
the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government says
“until we see the proposals in black and white.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 196.]
Will the Leader of the House clarify what this mysterious concession might be, or cannot this incompetent Government even organise a concession in a conservatory?
Ms Eagle
I suspect that the Patronage Secretary has got a few conservatories of his own.
For 60 years, the Agricultural Wages Board has protected vulnerable rural workers from exploitation at the hands of rich landowners, but on Tuesday, without so much as a hint of debate or a vote on the Floor of the House, the Government abolished it. This transfers £240 million from workers in some of the toughest and lowest-paid jobs in rural England directly into the back pockets of their employers. It is a disgrace that such a crucial protection can be removed without so much as a vote or even debate in the democratically elected House. It will take our Opposition day debate for the arguments to be heard, but rural workers protections have already been destroyed. It is clear from the parliamentary timetable that the Government could have made time for the issue to be debated properly. Anyone would think that the Prime Minister was trying to avoid business running on until Wednesdays.
In 28 of the 31 weeks that the Health Secretary has been in the job, England’s major accident and emergency units have missed the target for treating patients within four hours, but at the same time he has handed £2.2 billion of NHS funds back to the Treasury. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on how Ministers will bring all accident and emergency departments in England back up to the national standards they set? Despite being forced to backtrack once already, the Health Secretary persists with his damaging section 75 regulations, which will effectively privatise the NHS by the back door. The Lords will debate them next Wednesday, so will the Leader of the House tell us when we will debate them in the Commons?
Following the Budget, the International Monetary Fund this week again slashed the UK growth forecast and agreed with us that the Chancellor needs to change course. A year ago, it predicted growth of 2%, but that has now dropped to just 0.7%. Unemployment is rising, real wages are falling and borrowing is shooting through the roof, but the Chancellor’s only growth strategy seems to be to destroy rights at work. When will he get real and admit that his plan is just not working? Our downgraded Chancellor has been busy trying to be a man of the people, attempting to distract attention from his huge tax cut for millionaires by dropping his aitches in a speech at Morrisons—and he was not even very good at that. With a failing economic strategy, a faltering legislative programme and a Government adrift, will the Leader of the House tell the Chancellor that we need a change of course, not a change of accent?
House of Lords Reform Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
But one practice that has existed for hundreds of years is the one whereby, when a Bill receives its Second Reading, it is committed by virtue of a resolution of the House either to a Bill Committee—since 2006, a Public Bill Committee—or to a Committee of the whole House. It looks as though if the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight, it will be in complete limbo, which the Pope abolished several years ago. So is it not essential that we have some clarity on where the Bill is going to go, preferably before it gets its Second Reading?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why I attempted to obtain some clarity from the Leader of the House when he made his bombshell announcement at the beginning of this debate. We would appreciate some certainty from Government Front Benchers on how we can deal with the issue.
The Leader of the House and I have something important in common: we were both Members prior to the introduction of the routine programming of business, and we both know that it is possible to scrutinise effectively a Bill that does not have a programme motion attached, because we used to do so all the time. The Government, following their climbdown today, will have to come forward with new proposals, and the Opposition look forward to seeing what they are, but let me confirm for the record that, after adequate scrutiny, we want the Bill to go to the other place.
Labour has a proud record of reforming the Lords. We have been responsible for all the major changes to the other place over the past 100 years: the removal of hereditary peers, the introduction of an elected Speaker and the creation of the Supreme Court. We wanted to go further and tried in the previous Parliament to pass legislation in favour of an elected Chamber, spending extra time trying to forge a cross-party consensus.
This Government seem to spend so much time on inter-coalition diplomacy, however, that they keep forgetting to work with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and on issues of constitutional change, that is an insult and a mistake. We will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but the Government’s proposals give us cause for concern in a number of areas that we will need to explore further, so I thought that it would be helpful to the House if I set some of them out.
I was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum on House of Lords reform. That is why the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s argument—that a referendum is not needed because reform featured in all three party election manifestos—is so disingenuous. Our manifesto offered people a choice. It is the Government who are seeking to deny the electorate a say once the new arrangements have been forged and decided here.