| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.25 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I found some of the parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) rather obscure, but one of her points went to the heart of our discussion. She said that the purpose of the constitution was to deliver what people wanted. From that, I inferred that she wished to see the constitution altered, so that she--and, by implication, her party--could deliver the policies that they thought were correct. I have to say that that is never how I have viewed the purpose of a constitution.
Miss Melanie Johnson: That is not what I meant in the slightest. I meant that the constitution needs to relate to the things that mean something to people in their ordinary lives--education and health, for example. The policies do not matter particularly, but the constitution must be capable of delivering the things that the electorate as a whole want.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to hear that from the hon. Lady, but she still misses a central point. One of the values of a constitution is to provide a framework within which decisions are taken which command as much approval within the community as possible, so that those decisions which are often inimical to certain groups within the community nevertheless command respect and are accepted. That applies as much to decisions taken by Conservative Governments as to those taken by Labour Governments.
That is why I believe so strongly in a constitutional monarchy, which I believe provides the framework within which people can relate and have a common focus of loyalty, which is so important where there are other areas in which we may have disagreements.
It is with that in mind that I approach the whole question of constitutional reform. In the past year, I have spent many hours in this House debating the Scotland Act--I think we clocked up 190 hours. We have debated also the Human Rights Act--which, unlike some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, although they had good reasons, I supported and broadly approved of--the Government of Wales Act and a number of other constitutional measures.
It is perfectly proper for the House to consider constitutional reform, but we would do well to have in mind when we do so the purpose of what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve. In that context, there was a great deal of open scrutiny of the Human Rights Act. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) for the dialogue and debate which undoubtedly improved the Scotland Act. In contrast, the Government of Wales Act was one of the worst-drafted pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and its hallmark was precisely the reluctance of the Government's ministerial team to engage in any debate on it.
We are now facing a new raft of legislation. The question of the reform of the House of Lords will clearly attract a lot of emotion; we have heard quite a bit in this debate. I start from the premise that we need a second chamber--that seems to command a considerable measure of agreement in this House--that a revising chamber is important and that a chamber which can keep the lower House, the House of Commons, in check and make it think again, even if it will not ultimately stop legislation, is also important.
Unlike some Labour Members, I do not believe that unbridled democracy, which, of course, neither the United Kingdom nor any other country has, is an unbridled good. Ultimately, there must be checks and balances in any working constitution. Interestingly, it was from the Labour Benches that we heard that point, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) for pointing out that the powers of the Commons to obstruct--not prevent--legislation, and to make the Government think again have been consistently eroded over the past 30 years. The result is bad legislation, which, ironically, places a greater burden on the upper House. It must do our job for us, and that creates more frequent confrontation than should be necessary.
The upper House is undoubtedly an eccentric institution. It has one great merit--historical continuity. However, I accept that that could be preserved even within the reforms that the Government have suggested. At the same time, the great virtue of the other place is undoubtedly its independence. That independence arises not only from the eccentric fact that it contains people who have not been placed there, who depend on no one and who are selected from a substantial and random pool, but because its members bring to bear a range of independent ideas, backgrounds, professions and jobs. The diversity is considerable. One need only consider the
contributions made by several hereditary peers to note that they often turn out to be of considerable value. We ought to pause and think about that before we embark on any programme of reform.
We should also consider independence of party. Party allegiance will count for something, but the peers are not ultimately dependent on party. The hereditary peerage is beholden to no one. We should take that into account in considering how, if we are to get rid of the hereditary element, we can improve on it.
Let me offer briefly two possibilities. First, if we are to have an elected second chamber, which has much to commend it, the powers of the second chamber will be circumscribed in relation to the powers of the first. The likelihood is that the second chamber will therefore attract politicians for whom, I hesitate to say, it will not be the first choice of where to go. Far from the elected element representing diversity, we may end up with an elected element composed of placemen who want to go there because it is rather a soft touch. It may well attract those who fail to get into this House. Some creative thinking is required on that point if we are to embark on reform towards an elected second chamber.
If we are to stick with an appointed second chamber, we shall face considerable problems. It is no good the Prime Minister promising that some nebulous commission will make the appointments. We need to get down to the nitty gritty of what will happen in practice if we are to understand how appointments will take place in a way that will enable independence of thought to flourish. If we do not, we shall end up with a chamber of placemen. That is undesirable, but surmountable. Surely we must debate that issue.
I freely acknowledged during our debates on the Scotland Act 1998 that I had learnt a lot from the process of debating. However, we seem to have reached the stage at which debates on Bills involve a statement from the Government Front Bench, endorsed by clone-like comments from the Back Benches and ritually opposed from the Conservative side before they go through. It is no wonder that Bills return with hundreds of amendments from the upper House when it has considered the detail. We must consider how we can improve legislation, rather than simply ritualistically deciding that one part of the upper House offends some susceptibilities and should be got rid of. In fact, if our correspondence bundles reflect the position, the vast majority of the electorate find the House of Lords a wholly innocuous institution that generates many benefits.
Shona McIsaac:
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his postbag. I have had a number of letters about the upper House and fox hunting. People who wanted hunting abolished believed that the Tory hereditary peers in the House of Lords would thwart any legislation. People in the country certainly understand that point.
Mr. Grieve:
The Bill in question never went to the upper House, having failed to get through the House of Commons in the time allotted to it. Even if the upper House had rejected a Bill, there is no doubt that, if it had been re-presented, it would have got through. The checks and balances should not disappear. I fail to follow the rationale of the hon. Lady's argument.
I would be perfectly well prepared to engage in vigorous and interesting debate on how to create a reformed second chamber, but I will be blowed--and my
constituents will be blowed, too, if I read their letters and the opinion polls correctly--if I am to sign away an element of the upper House's independence that has made some interesting and amusing contributions, and some of great benefit to our national life, when no one on the Government Benches is prepared to suggest how the replacement will improve on the current position.
Far from encouraging us to engage in debate, and to look at the big picture, the Government are asking us again and again to consider narrower and narrower issues. When the public--and, sometimes, even hon. Members on the Government Back Benches--point out that the Government are going off the rails, as with the closed list for proportional representation for next year's European elections, they are ridden over roughshod. We are told that it is all the fault of the upper House, but it is, in fact, clearly articulating the disquiet that the electorate are registering.
I hope, for the sake of my country, that the Government will go down as a successful reforming Government. They have come in with a lot of ideas, but after 18 months, evidence has emerged with startling and hideous clarity that they are blinkered against any reasonable debate. Above all, they are blinkered by their own spin doctors against articulating their fears or the drawbacks that they see in their own policies. There are one or two notable exceptions to that, which is why I singled out a few Ministers earlier.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |