| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.4 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): This debate has left me with the definite impression that many Conservative Members have been asleep for the past 40 years--some for even longer. For 40 years, the House of Lords has been a mixture of hereditary and life peers. I do not recall the Conservatives making any substantial
criticism of that arrangement until now, when it is proposed that it should change. Indeed, the Conservative party fought the general election on the basis that our constitution had reached such perfection that any one change would be for the worse. There was no question then of the House of Lords being in any way affected. Now that it is proposed to remove hereditary peers, we are told that we would be removing the respectable part of the House of Lords and that what is left--life peers--is no longer respectable and, indeed, quite intolerable. That reflects a state of mind, but I am not sure whether my mind can cope with it.
Conservative Members have also totally ignored the point that has been made in response to the broad slurs of "Tony's cronies" and placepersons. The Government have already said that a commission will be set up to appoint life peers to the House of Lords in the interim before a royal commission has considered the matter and defined a longer-term solution. Those aspects were not mentioned of course; they were inconvenient to the Conservatives' argument.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was like a breath of fresh air. His contribution was elevated more by the flatness of the surrounding countryside, but at least he appears to be a paid-up member of the 20th century, unlike the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who seems barely to have entered the 17th century, given the views that he expressed about the hereditary principle.
However, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe did not tell us why--if he abhors the hereditary peerage as much as he said--the hereditary peerage should have any say on the House that follows it. Why should it be there to define its successor, and why should that privilege linger for generations to come, in the form of the House of Lords that it has defined?
Conservative Members have made much of their argument that what is really at issue is the need to abolish the hereditary peerage at the same time as deciding what will follow it. That is sophistry, because Conservative Members know that, if so complex a measure were introduced, it would be balked at every turn in the House of Lords. There would be an exact repeat of what happened when Harold Wilson introduced a similar Bill. Why should the hereditary peerage be in a position to balk a Government's business? And not only this issue would be balked. There would be a road block of all the Government's measures for the next 12 months at least. For 12 months, there would be frustration of a Government who received an immense endorsement from the people only 18 months ago.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest):
The issues that we are discussing tonight are fundamental, because they concern the working of our democracy. I shall keep my
The reason I am so concerned about these aspects of our democratic system is that, when one looks at the whole picture, it becomes clear that the Government are undermining the balance of our parliamentary democracy. Their plans for dealing with the issue of the second Chamber--how it should be constituted and who should sit in it--are part of that undermining process.
We should have debate first, then action. It is illogical and dishonest to do things the other way round, as the Government are intent on doing. We should debate first what the second Chamber is about and what it is to do. We should then debate how it should be constituted.
Personally, I do not defend the hereditary principle. Had there been anything to inherit in my family, I would have been rather annoyed if my brother had inherited it all and I had been ignored. It is an academic matter as there was nothing to inherit. My brother and I are therefore good friends. I would have been angry had it not been so.
I have been amused to hear the arguments of Labour Members about the so-called Conservative majority among hereditary peers. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), whose logic I usually admire--although I might not always agree with her. However, that is not my position this evening. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have overlooked an important point. They may challenge the legitimacy of hereditary peers but they cannot challenge their independence. The fact is that one does not inherit political views. They are not in the blood. It just happens--
Maria Eagle:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing:
I shall give way in a moment.
It just happens that many of those who sit through an hereditary right in another place are Conservatives. Surely Labour Members must appreciate that tomorrow's hereditary peers could become members of the Labour party. They could do so if they wanted to because they are independent.
Maria Eagle:
My points were made on the basis of figures that show how many of the hereditary peerage take the Conservative Whip. Of course that may change over generations.
Mrs. Laing:
I agree. The hon. Lady's facts and figures are indisputable. However, she cannot dispute that if 100 hereditary Members of another place decided tomorrow to join the Labour party, they could do so. They would be able to do that because they are independent. Therefore, to challenge the independence of hereditary peers is wrong. This point has been entirely overlooked through prejudice.
Much of the debate has been about what people who sit in another place do in their leisure time. That is irrelevant. It does not matter whether someone goes hunting on a horse, plays badminton or whatever. That is irrelevant. What matters is what they do when they are in Parliament. I repeat that one does not inherit political
views. Such views come not through the blood but through decisions which independent people reach on their own, and in the 1990s we are all individuals.
I am sure that my uncle, who was once chairman of the Labour party in Scotland, is most amused that I am sitting on the Conservative Benches.
Mrs. Laing:
I wonder--we Conservative Members will be that when we are sitting again on the Government Benches.
I shall turn briefly to my second point. Once again, the Home Secretary did not make clear this evening his attitude to the need to regulate the conduct of referendums. If referendums are to be part of our constitutional democracy, we must have regulations. If a referendum is not properly conducted, the result is undermined and the referendum has no legitimacy. I introduced a Bill a few weeks ago that would have had the effect of regulating referendums in accordance with the recommendations of the Neill committee. The Government did not oppose my Bill but neither have they supported it. We are asking only for a fair and level playing field.
I ask Ministers to tell us what the Government are afraid of. What are they afraid of when they refuse to legislate on the conduct of referendums? Are they afraid that on the next referendum that is called on a major constitutional issue, as is likely within the next year or so, the Neill committee's recommendations will mean that the Government will not be able to use their machine and taxpayers' money to fight their side of the argument?
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
They are afraid of the people.
Mrs. Laing:
Indeed, they must be afraid of the people. If they are not afraid of the people, why are they afraid to consult the people under fair rules? Why are town council elections, parish council elections and even some student elections at universities better conducted than referendums on major constitutional issues? It is illogical and unfair; unless and until the Government agree to establish rules for the proper regulation of referendums, we shall continue to ask: of what are they afraid? If the Government want to conduct opinion polls, they can continue to do so; but if they want a referendum to be legitimate, it must be conducted under rules.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |