| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Maria Eagle: No, I am short of time.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for introducing to the debate important and interesting facts about the many facets of independence, which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) greatly exaggerated. I had visions of Conservative hereditary peers independently getting into their cars and into their planes in Tasmania to come here for the debate on European elections, when we know that
their independence took the form of responding to a telephone call from the Conservative Whips in the other place, who whip peers every time they need them to vote.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) made a frank admission about the role of personal votes. During the general election, my father went around saying, "Vote for my son. He needs a job." I suggested to him that that was not the ideal campaign slogan, but I know that I got a personal vote.
I agreed with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) was saying. On election turnout, my experience in Sheffield is that when political parties are fighting a close battle they do bother to make themselves relevant to the electorate. That is not the effect of the electoral system on its own--the fact that there is a contest is important. Sadly, under the current system, in many areas there is no real contest, so politicians do not bother to make themselves relevant. The hon. Lady's experience may differ, of course.
Two key issues were raised about the European elections. We are all grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for another chance to debate that important issue and the reform of the House of Lords. A common thread runs through those arguments: can the Government exercise their will and make their own mistakes, or should we have a new doctrine that the other place exists to save the Government from themselves?
If Conservative Members believe that the Government's proposals are wrong, they should stand in the next election on a platform of returning to first past the post for European elections and to the existence of hereditary peers. If they had any confidence in themselves, they would believe that they could win an election in 2001 on that platform. The European Parliamentary Elections Bill has undergone a revising process, and the Conservatives should not block the legislation altogether because that is outside the domain of proper scrutiny.
Dr. Fox:
There is a mechanism by which the Government and this House ultimately get their way--the Parliament Acts. That is the proper constitutional procedure to use.
Mr. Allan:
We are all aware that the Parliament Acts are being invoked for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, but the Conservatives gain no credit by delaying the legislation for so long and causing disruption.
The other common thread that runs through the two issues is that they both involve members of the Conservative establishment trying to protect themselves against what they see as threats in the form of fair voting systems and the end of their in-built majority in the House of Lords.
Liberal Democrat Members are prepared to associate ourselves with those important reforms. We agree that they are not perfect in every respect, and we have voiced criticisms on many occasions and will continue to do so. However, on balance the reforms are worth while.
On the European elections, most of the problems that have been revealed in our debates have related to internal Labour party selection processes rather than the voting system itself. We are interested to note that Conservative Members have linked that to the Neill committee
recommendations, and I hope that they will be playing an active part in reforming party funding, as we certainly will be. The Home Secretary has already brought in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. We are now moving into a constitutional phase in which legislation deals with the internal affairs of political parties. That is necessary as we end the fiction of parties being secondary to individuals.
We are no longer in a world in which the country squire is elected and casually joins the Whig or Tory factions, and in which the party is secondary to the main interest of politics. In my experience, the party is one of people's principal concerns and is certainly all-pervasive in the House and another place, to a greater degree than has been admitted in the debate.
Conservative Members have no credibility on the issue of European elections. They allowed the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill to be passed with closed-list systems. In Committee, they did not support a Liberal Democrat amendment, on the Belgian open-list system, to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The Conservative spokesman, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that he accepted that the Bill was likely to be passed and that the most important point was to have a review afterwards. The Conservatives were offered precisely that in this House and, at that very late stage, seemed to turned down the amendment for which they had argued in Committee. Our only conclusion is that their real motive was to see the Bill fall, as indeed it did in the previous Session. Their real motive is to block a system in which all votes in June will count under a fair electoral system.
I was interested to note that young peers were called in evidence by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The other day, I told a young peer, my noble Friend Lord Addington, that on the day of the Queen's Speech, I felt that some hon. Members were keen to dive straight into the House of Lords and say, "Come on, outside now." Lord Addington discouraged me from doing so. He is as wide as the Mace and a very keen rugby player, which suggests that his promise that peers can defend themselves perfectly well is adequate to scare us off and will force us to reform the House of Lords by constitutional means.
I certainly worry about the prevalence of gun cases in some of the Range Rovers in which peers travel up to London. That, too, suggests that the Government's constitutional method is the one to take us forward--even though I recognise that the atmosphere in this House is sometimes a little more heated.
Tory arguments on the issue of the House of Lords have become very confused. They appointed life peers while in government and did not criticise their role, yet now trot out the argument that such peers are no more than automata who have no independence and are not able to make any decision. We heard again about Tony's cronies. Although we are still appointing Paddy's cronies and Willie's cronies, there are still far more of Maggie's and John's cronies than anyone else's. Indeed, a few of Lloyd George's cronies are probably still lurking in the corner.
The fact that such peers are life peers does not devalue them completely. The fact that the Government are appointing them to redress the balance causes some concern, however, and we would certainly favour an independent commission creating a balance of peers
according to the split of votes at the election. We believe that is the fairest way forward in the interim. To simply say that all life peers have a problem and all hereditary peers are great, which certainly seems to be the tone of Conservative arguments, devalues the debate.
We would like the second stage of reform to begin as quickly as possible. Conservative Members who have spoken in favour of some reform seem to be latching on to the single Conservative policy of wait and see. Famously, the Conservatives have a wait-and-see policy on other issues, too. They think that, until they have seen the total shape of reform, they should not make a decision or take any steps forward.
The role of the House of Lords is crucial. The Conservatives seem confused on that, too. On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, they have argued all arguments, from the House of Lords being a revising Chamber to the matter being one of fundamental principle. The hon. Member for Garston has done us a great service in pointing out the way in which Conservative peers have defeated non-Conservative Governments, which suggests that the revision varies very much according to the political predilections of the Government of the day. Revision can mean many things according to who is in government. What seems clear is that revision takes the form of blocking far more frequently when centre and left parties are in government.
We believe that all this points to the need for a written constitution. We need clearer authority than any single Government or Parliament eventually to resolve such issues of major change. Parliament needs to cede some of its authority to an independent authority. We welcome the Human Rights Act 1998 as a key stage in that process. The lack of clarity in our constitution causes the fear on which the Conservatives are so keen to play. The fact that nothing is written down and that there is no other limiting factor creates a climate of fear, which the Conservatives are using to try to hold us back.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |