| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wilkinson: If it is such a monstrous outrage to unleash these savage, slavering, old Etonian, ermine-clad, hereditary dogs of war in the other place, why do the public at large not appear to be incensed? I do not know whether I am unique, but I have had no letters of protest at what the hereditary and appointed peers have done in the House of Lords in postponing the passage of the Bill to this Session of Parliament--in fact, to the contrary. I have had letters to the effect that it is very good that we have had a chance to think again about the matter.
Mr. Maclennan: I believe that the hon. Gentleman, like many of his hon. Friends, lives in somewhat cloistered circumstances. Normally, the spectacle of their ermined Lordships opposing the will of the elected House of Commons may be regarded as simply ridiculous, but if it is sustained, it will be regarded as wholly unacceptable, and reason enough for the Commons to insist upon its will being done.
Mr. Grieve: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House the extent to which he has received representations from his constituents criticising the decision taken by the Lords to reject the legislation on closed lists?
Mr. Maclennan: Well, I have certainly had representations about it, but my view is well known, and it is evidently shared by many people, in my constituency and elsewhere.
I have to tell the Home Secretary, although he is well aware of my view, that I believe that the Bill would have had an easier passage in the upper House if he had accepted the system of election to the European Parliament that my right hon. and hon. Friends suggested, which would have provided for a mixed system, a semi-open-list system, allowing members of the public to vote for the party or, if they so chose, to alter the order in which the names were given in the published list--the Belgian system of election. The Home Secretary would have been wise to take that route, but the fact that he has not will offer me no comfort if, ultimately, the House of Lords seeks to overrule the clear and repeated wish of the House in this matter.
Perhaps more notable than the matters that have been considered regarding especially the future of the upper House are the omissions from the Queen's Speech in the
field of constitutional reform--or at least the shy way in which intentions have been expressed, with hints that we may see more later, although not just yet. The Home Secretary spoke of the freedom of information legislation. That is a vital piece of the constitutional package, and it is disappointing, in view of what was said by the outgoing Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as to its state of preparedness, that we are promised no more than a draft Bill.
I know that the Government have it in mind to introduce several Bills in this Session and carry them over into the next. We have heard that they may do that for the financial services Bill and the electronic commerce Bill. Will the Home Secretary give thought to the possibility of introducing that freedom of information Bill in this Session, with a view to carrying it over into the next, to make certain that it is enacted as soon as possible? The delay was defended in the Gracious Speech in the name of open government, and of giving the House an adequate opportunity to discuss the measure. We view that with little sympathy, and wish to express our concern that the timetable is slipping.
A case for similar treatment could be made for the enactment of the proposal of the Neill committee on setting up an election commission. That would be a suitable matter for introduction in this Session of Parliament, although time might prove a little tight to allow it to be enacted before the next Session is complete. In a programme of constitutional reform as substantial as that which the Government have embarked upon, momentum must not be lost. There will always be reasons for delay. To be candid, it seems that in respect of the election commission the Opposition have a fair point in saying that they must have some assurance from independent, outside sources that the conduct of referendums is fair. I hope that the Government may feel able when replying to the debate to give an indication of their thinking on that point.
The Opposition have chosen to confine their discussion, in terms of their amendment on the wide constitutional issues, to three matters. The programme that the Government have embarked upon goes very much further than that.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart):
First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on a thoughtful speech about the constitution. I agreed with a great deal of it. I agreed particularly when he said that the present Administration is one of the most radical reforming Governments of the 20th century in terms of the constitution. Indeed, it might well be said that it is
I chaired a short part of the Scotland Bill Committee, which meant that I was not able to take part in any of the proceedings on that Bill at any stage. Therefore, this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I know cannot be in the Chamber this evening because he happens to be in Scotland with Her Majesty the Queen opening the new museum for Scotland. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skilful way in which he steered the Scotland Bill through this place and on the way in which, first, he steered through the House the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. That was followed by the overwhelming yes, yes vote in Scotland for my right hon. Friend's proposals.
I am a longstanding supporter of devolution for Scotland. I believe that it is right. It ends an anomaly that has been present for far too long. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) mentioned the West Lothian question, but the poll tax question in Scotland was much more important than that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the poll tax in terms of the English Bill. The Scottish Bill, however, was driven through the House against the wishes of Members representing Scottish constituencies and against the wishes of the people of Scotland. It was clear that the poll tax was to be imposed on Scotland alone. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench, was a Scottish Office Minister at that time. He lost his seat as a result of the poll tax measure that he drove through the House.
That was the real anomaly in our constitution. It was the anomaly that allowed the House to impose on Scotland legislation that was not the wish of the Scottish people. I do not intend to take the route of making a speech about devolution at any great length. I merely say that I have always supported devolution as a democrat, as a means of improving democratic structures. It is part of the changes that the Government are introducing. I have never supported, and never will support, devolution on the basis of nationalism. I do not believe that devolution is about nationalism. Instead, it is about improving democracy in this country.
I shall give a mild warning to some of my hon. Friends. I wish that they would stop talking about the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years and start talking about it as a new democratic Parliament for the 21st century. That is what it is about. It is about democracy, not nationalism. Nationalism is backward looking and we are forward looking. We want to look forward to our new democracy.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the next step that they are taking, which is to abolish hereditary peerages. It is long overdue. I have heard some dubious defences advanced in the House, but I have heard nothing like the ones put so far on behalf of hereditary peers from Opposition Members. They are saying that however rotten something is, we should not cut out the rotten piece before we manage to build an entire new house around it. What nonsense. If someone has dry rot in his house, he gets rid of it. It may then be necessary to embark on some
restructuring of the house but no one would leave the dry rot to damage the rest of the house while restructuring takes place.
Mr. Grieve:
Would the hon. Gentleman like to identify exactly what it is about the present structure of the House of Lords which makes the hereditary element rotten--as opposed to the life peers element? What practical effect is it that he identifies as being rotten which requires removal at the initial stage?
Mr. Maxton:
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly referred to what was the English poll tax Bill. I would say that the Scottish poll tax Bill was even worse. The Government of the day pushed through the Scottish Bill even though the Conservative party had not referred to it in its manifesto. However, it was pushed through the House against the wishes of the Scottish people and Members representing Scottish constituencies. Equally, the House of Lords bowed it through almost without debate. That is an example of a rotten majority of hereditary peers being used to drive an unwanted measure through Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |