| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, I am not sure whether he was here when I mentioned the fact that hon. Members have to speak to the Opposition amendment. Therefore, we cannot talk about the records of previous Prime Ministers and Governments.
Mr. Howarth: I accept entirely your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I was trying to make a point by asking why the Prime Minister wishes to create--in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition--an "enormous quango". I think that, as we are examining a major constitutional change, that question is fair and should be asked. What is driving the Government to implement the change?
I contend--I hope that you will allow me to express my contention, Mr. Deputy Speaker--that the Prime Minister has invented the need for constitutional change, including abolition of hereditary peers' voting rights, because he wishes to make his mark in history and go
down as one of this century's great Prime Ministers. I do not think that he is likely to fulfil the ambition. However, he will certainly go down in history as a significant Prime Minister--as the man who destroyed the unity of a kingdom that, for three centuries, has advanced the cause of liberty, free trade and the rule of law. He will be remembered as the man who stumbled round like a mad axeman, scything away at institutions that have evolved over centuries and served the nation well.
Ms Oona King:
Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to go down in history as the first Tory to support ending the hereditary principle?
Mr. Howarth:
I am not alone in supporting the hereditary principle, and I shall certainly be voting for it. I shall deal in a moment with that matter. This is a very serious debate. It should not be trivialised as, I submit, the hon. Lady trivialised it. Although she is a very charming lady, and I should be happy to work with her on other issues, this issue is not trivial.
We are already beginning to see the results of the whirlwind sown by the Government. Labour was pushed into third place in a European by-election in Scotland, demonstrating that the policy of trying to buy off Scottish separatism has failed dismally. I believe that, as a whole, the collection of measures introduced by the Government will cause discord throughout the Kingdom.
Another feature--it is singularly unattractive--of the Government is the ruthless manner in which they promote their policy and in which the Prime Minister attempts to impose his authority on Labour Members. Such practices are quite unlike those that were used by my right hon. Friends who previously commanded the House.
What about closed lists? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, only one Labour Member has spoken in favour of closed lists, whereas 21 have spoken against them. They have been afraid to vote against them. The experience of Mr. Ken Coates may be instructive. In the European Parliament, the Labour whip was removed from him because, as he wrote in the Daily Mail of 23 October last year:
The Government's plans for the other place are an extremely important issue. I do not oppose the Government's plans simply because the Prime Minister wishes to stuff the other place with his cronies, but support the other place for other reasons. The first--which I have not said before this debate--is that, as a Conservative, I believe in tradition. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to prove that the system that has served the United Kingdom so well for so many centuries is now uniquely broke and needs fixing. I do not believe that that is true.
I believe that the British people value tradition, pageantry and the rich tapestry of tradition that is embodied by the other place and was shown so emphatically last week, during the State Opening of Parliament. I tell the hon. Member for Salford that I suspect that far fewer people will switch on their tellies for this debate than turned them on last week to watch the pomp and circumstance of the State Opening.
Maria Eagle:
The hon. Gentleman seems to respect the tradition of the other place, but does he not really respect the fact that it has an in-built Conservative majority?
Mr. Howarth:
That was a cheap remark; I do not believe that at all. I am arguing passionately in favour of tradition because I believe in tradition.
I believe also that the other place provides our nation with continuity. Our system of government is admired around the world precisely because it gives us a sense of continuity. If the other place is to be composed only of Tony's cronies, stuffed full of the Prime Minister's appointees, they will all--apart from a few token young people--be middle aged, The great advantage of the lottery of accident of birth--which is far better than the lottery of being the Prime Minister's friend--is that it often provides the other place with very young, very able, blood.
Ms Blears:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth:
No; I do not have much time.
Some of the best speeches that I have heard in the other place have been made by--
Helen Jones (Warrington, North):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth:
No, I shall not; time is running out.
Some of the best speeches in the other place have come from young hereditary peers. It may not be fashionable to support the hereditary principle, but I support it because I believe that there is some value to this nation in continuing with that tradition. It is one of those intangible benefits to the nation that we throw away at our peril.
A further reason for supporting the other place is that, in that House, people are beholden to no one. They are independent. If they take the Conservative Whip, fair enough, but many times they vote against. In 1985-86, their lordships voted against my Government 22 times. In 1989-90 they did so 20 times. In the past Session, the upper House voted against the Government on 31 occasions. If we take out the five times that they dealt with the closed list-open list argument, that leaves 27. Averaging that out over 12 months rather than the unusually long 18-month Session that we have just had, we reach a figure of less than 20. Their lordships have not exceeded the voting pattern that they showed when the Conservatives were in power.
The final reason is that, as I said to the Home Secretary, removing the hereditary principle from the upper House unquestionably puts the sovereign at risk. The Labour party will have to explain that.
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes):
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will probably be surprised to hear that I like the tradition of piers, but the only one that I like is the one in Cleethorpes, which gives fine views over the River Humber and has a nice night club. That pier has about as much right to rule over this country as those next door.
On a sadder note, I want to break some bad news about a tradition that has bitten the dust. Poor old Lord Snooty--does anyone remember him?--is no more. He has been banished from the pages of the Beano because he is not relevant to kids today. Kids today? I did not identify with Lord Snooty 30 years ago. I was more of a Bash Street Kids girl or Minnie the Minx--I had the red hair, the boots, the bonnet.
The Tories in the House of Lords should have seen the writing on the wall, but they did not. They signed their own death warrant by voting down the European Parliamentary Elections Bill five times. I have heard some spurious and fallacious mutterings from the Tory hereditary peers--repeated in the Opposition amendment--about that Bill. All the drivel--and it is drivel--about people in this country voting for a person rather than a party is outrageous. We have to get real. Few people in this country voted for a person in the general election. They voted for the party banners that we stood under. I am under no illusions about that.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Shona McIsaac:
No, I have only a short time.
"I had refused to sign a gagging order and agree to keep quiet about my opposition to Tony Blair's plan to introduce a closed regional list system of proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament.
Mr. Coates's experience is instructive for two reasons. First, it shows that their lordships are seeking in another place to fight the Government on an important issue. They have the support of at least one Labour MEP who is prepared to stand up. Secondly, it shows the Government's Stalinist approach to anyone who stands in their way.
It may seem an obscure issue on which to stand and fight, but its anti-democratic implications are so enormous that they must be resisted, come what may . . . I will not be gagged."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |