| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: Recent opinion poll soundings suggest that more than 60 per cent. of people polled think that it is highly undesirable that the Government should embark on reform of the House of Lords without identifying stage two. How does that square with the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is an overwhelming desire for the upper House to be reformed along the lines that the Government have proposed?
Mr. Maclennan: Two parties, which not only recommended reform of the upper House but precisely the way in which it should be reformed--as reflected in the Queen's Speech--commanded the support of 64 per cent. of the electorate at the election. I do not believe that the minds of the British public have been changed dramatically on that or, indeed, any other matter in the interim. The Government are entirely entitled to proceed on the assumption that they have the electors' support for this measure.
Mr. Tyrie: What are the Liberal Democrats really getting for selling their souls in the Lobby on this issue? Do not they realise that Labour's manifesto commitment on Lords reform is clearly self-contained and not dependent on any further reform? The Liberal Democrats are committed to a democratic upper House, but the likelihood of their getting it is entirely dependent on whether Labour ever delivers stage two--and the likelihood of that is very slim.
Mr. Maclennan: The likelihood of our delivering constitutional reform which modernises Britain's system of government is enhanced by the extent of the agreement that was reached prior to the election between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, which has been sustained since the Government took office. That has resulted, as I have said, in an unprecedented programme, which is being implemented with deliberation and, indeed, rapidly by comparison with any previous episode in our history.
Although we share the Government's views on the appropriateness of their proposed programme, there is not an identity of view about the end point. That stems from a somewhat different approach to constitutional reform generally, and to what is desirable. Although the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, in his
thoughtful speech, rightly recognised the step-by-step approach, it is time we acknowledged that we should be seeking to establish new fundamental principles in our constitutional settlement--principally the notion that constitutionalism is a safeguard for the rights of citizens. The constitution should rest on the sovereignty not of this House, but of the British people.
That is not a purely theoretical matter, for this House is capable of acting with authority in a majoritarian fashion in disregard of the rights of minorities. The rights of minorities can best be protected by a fundamental constitutional law to which the courts can pay proper attention when Parliament, for whatever reason, is unwilling or unable to do so. I know that such an argument appeals not at all to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, as his remarks about the position of asylum seekers showed. He is prepared to trade their interests for some column inches of headlines in theDaily Mail. We should be more sensitive to the rights and needs of minorities than Parliament is often able to be.
It may be said that, in enacting the Human Rights Act in the previous Session, we have moved a long way towards blunting the sharp edge of the old doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. However, hon. Members will remember that the Government were at pains to state in introducing the Bill and, indeed, in designing it, that it was not intended to limit parliamentary sovereignty; and that, where a clash occurred between the interests of minorities and the will of Parliament, the latter would prevail. That is why I unashamedly advocate a fundamental written law of the constitution. We shall not arrive at that point in one big step. The process, however, has been given a great fillip by the scope of reforms embraced by the Government and well begun.
One of the disadvantages of the piecemeal approach to reform is that it is capable of producing some incoherences. I fear that that has indeed been the consequence of proceeding with the decentralisation of government by route of devolution rather than by the introduction of a federal solution, to which my party is firmly attached. I predict that problems will become substantially greater unless the Government proceed, as they have said they may in due course, towards establishing a regional dimension in England, with powers for regional assemblies not merely to supervise the regional development agencies, which they are in the process of establishing, but over all the functions of government that were grouped together by the late Conservative Government in regional Government offices; these should be brought under the supervision and control of regional assemblies.
Such balanced home rule all round has long been an objective of my party, and clearly distinguishes it from the Labour party--in government and before--which has tended to yield decentralisation only under pressure from a particular part of the country.
The coherence of the settlement must be objective, notwithstanding the fact that different parts of the reform are proceeding at different speeds. I particularly draw attention, not only in the light of the significant judicial events in the House of Lords last week, to which several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, have referred, to the fact that the political importance of the judiciary has never been more evident. It is important that, in the ultimate constitutional settlement towards which we strive, the independence of
that judiciary should not depend, as it does today, on the independent-mindedness of the judiciary in which we have certainly been able to trust, but on the independence of its appointment and on constitutional safeguards.
That is not a matter of theory either, as is demonstrated by the provision of the Scotland Act 1998, which, until tackled, would have allowed the Scottish Parliament to remove judges on a motion without cause given. That is not only against the traditions of the Bill of Rights but a dangerous step. I believe that it was an attempt to subordinate the judiciary to the Executive--an attempt which it is right to resist. If we are to have in our constitution the checks and balances to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe paid lip service, they demand more than the conventions on which these things have rested hitherto, because it is clear how frail those conventions are when they come into conflict with the interests of parties seeking power.
There have been conventions in respect of the use of power by the upper House. There has been a convention--known as the Salisbury convention--that the upper House will not overturn, or prevent the passage of, legislation that has been foreshadowed in the manifestos of incoming Governments. That convention has been rudely shaken by the actions of Lord Salisbury's grandson and his colleagues in the other place, in respect of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. We cannot place any weight on such conventions in the face of such casuistry as has been shown in the discussion of that measure.
The Bill, as was its intention, would have clearly imported into our law the principles that had been foreshadowed in the manifestos of the Government and, incidentally, of the Liberal Democrat party.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan:
Let me finish the point.
The Bill clearly set out that there would be a move to a proportional system for elections to the European Parliament. The precise detail of the system was not a matter on which the Labour party or we had given a firm or final view, but the fact that a specific system was not favoured has been used by the upper House to defeat the clear and, I believe, authorised view of the Government that they have a mandate to introduce that legislation--and soon.
Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to intervene?
Mr. Lansley:
I am afraid that further explanation did not remove my question. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government, in pursuing their mandate for a proportional system, did not say what type of proportional system it would be; and that, in that respect, the House of Lords, far from departing from the Salisbury convention, was within it? It was, in fact, exercising precisely the role discussed in this debate--that of causing the House of Commons to be checked and to consider again, and to consider in favour of a system of elections for the European Parliament that was manifestly preferred in debate, as opposed to what was insisted on by the Government Whips.
Mr. Maclennan:
The House of Commons and the House of Lords have considered this matter several times.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |