| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's analogy about rotten wood in a house. Those of us who find that we have rotten timbers in our house do indeed take out those rotten timbers, but it is generally a sensible precaution to have standing nearby the new timbers to put in place. Our argument is that the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman have no new timbers to put in place to replace those that they wish to cut out.
Mr. Maxton: The new timbers are there.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that he would always vote for the abolition of hereditary peers. He essentially said that any royal commission established would get rid of hereditary peers. So what is wrong with getting rid of them now and then considering the future structure at a later date? That seems an eminently sensible thing to do. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, there would still be a Tory majority because the Tories had 18 years in which to appoint their life peers.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their intent to abolish hereditary peers. I look forward to voting for the Bill that will have that effect when it comes before the House: it has been a long time coming. I am an historian and I remember reading Roy Jenkins's book entitled "Mr. Balfour's Poodle" about the 1911 crisis. I recommend it to anybody who intends to take part in later debates. There are some wonderful quotations from Winston Churchill, if from no one else, about the position of the House of Lords and hereditary peers.
There is a need to move on from the debate, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said. I hope that I am giving him the correct title--it is right honourable, is it not?
Mr. Maclennan
indicated assent.
Mr. Maxton:
Yes. There are two reasons for changing the constitution. The first is to get rid of anomalies that have been present for a long time, as with the abolition of the voting and speaking rights of the hereditary peers
The internet introduces a totally new element into the way in which our people obtain information. All past Governments have relied on keeping information to themselves for the purposes of power, because retaining information gives them power over people who do not have that information. Suddenly, the internet has released such controls: people can watch me on the internet as I speak; they can read what I and other hon. Members have said in the debate on the internet tomorrow morning; and they can read all the White Papers that the Government produce on the internet. People now have access to information as never before. The other day, there was a short piece on the "Today" programme about how dissidents in China use the internet to get information to each other and to change the way in which China operates.
Technology is advancing rapidly, yet what are we doing? I suggest that the next general election should use electronic voting: people should be able to go into a booth and put their vote into a machine which records that vote immediately. People might ask what that has to do with democracy, but I believe that it will encourage more people to vote. In my constituency, many people do not vote because they would have to travel a mile and a half, often walking past other polling stations, to get to their polling station and vote. Electronic voting would allow people to use any polling booth in the constituency and, eventually, any polling booth in the country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. I know of the hon. Gentleman's fondness for electronic matters, but his remarks are rather wide of the amendment we are debating.
Mr. Maxton:
I thought that we were talking about the Gracious Speech and that, therefore, we could go a little wider and refer to other constitutional changes thatmight be introduced. However, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have a Government who are introducing radical change. This place will increasingly become an anachronism if it does not change itself. That does not mean minor tinkering around the edges of procedures, but radical change to the way in which we look--getting rid of costumes and many other things--and to the way in which we operate. However, as you will again rule me out of order if I go too far down that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me say only that I am disappointed by the decision not to introduce electronic voting to Parliament. I think that that was a mistake; I hope that the Government have not completely abandoned the idea and that we shall return to it at some stage.
The time has come to hold a Speaker's Conference or to set up a royal commission--however much people might criticise them--to consider whether this place is viable in a modern technological democracy. Is it not time to consider whether we should move from these premises to a new Parliament building, purpose built for the
21st century, instead of continuing to work in a building that is no longer usable in terms of modern technology? I hope that the Government will consider my remarks and institute some sort of mechanism whereby we can put our ideas and proposals to a commission or a Speaker's Conference.
The right hon. Member for Devizes sits with a smirk on his face. With the poll tax in Scotland, he did more damage than any other man. He is now supposed to be in charge of devolution matters--
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)
indicated dissent.
Mr. Maxton:
Well, he was when the Scotland Act 1998 went through. His job now is to sit and smirk and try to put people off their speech--he is not going to put me off. It is time for radical change, and that means more than reform of the House of Lords and devolution. The next step is to change this place--the House of Commons. We need to leave and go to a modern Parliament building somewhere else.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It might be of help to the House if I read out the following statement. The scope of the debate is determined by the amendment before the House, which relates to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the House of Lords and the Neill committee report. Reference to other constitutional matters should be made only as background to those main subjects.
Sir Peter Lloyd (Fareham):
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). If I can find my way through my notes, I shall refer to some of the points he raised--albeit, you will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not those relating to electronic communications or the other matters that so move him, but about which I know little.
Before I forget, I should like to refer back to a point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). I agree with his exhortations to the House to have more confidence in its own ability to conduct its own inquiries, rather than farm them out to judges and other dignitaries beyond our bounds. That makes sense only if the House equips itself with those outside experts to use in the Committee that would look into such matters. I hope that the Government and the House authorities will carefully consider that.
I start on a conciliatory note--at least, one that is conciliatory to the Government, if not to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends--by welcoming the undertaking to introduce an age of consent Bill. Before you intervene to rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that this leads directly to the subjects for debate. I welcome the undertaking because the current age of consent, 18, is unrealistically high. It is certainly cruel to those young men who are permanently homosexual and it offers absolutely no help or real protection to those who are passing through a phase on their way to heterosexual orientation.
It is extremely satisfactory that the new Bill will strengthen the protection of teenage boys and girls from those who take advantage of special positions of trust. I hope that the improvement will ensure that the Bill will
now pass in another place. However, we have their lordships to thank for the chance to present them with a better Bill. That would have been less likely had the other place been filled only with placemen and party political loyalists, as the Government are--whatever they say--likely to go some way further in contriving, at least for the foreseeable future.
6.56 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |