| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman would have heard if he had been listening, I referred throughout my remarks to those who are entitled to sit in the House of Lords.
Dr. Fox: The clear impression given in black and white by the White Paper--from which I quoted a moment ago--and given by other Ministers is that the Conservatives have an overall majority in the House of Lords. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has just confirmed that that is untrue.
The Government's case is a masterpiece of rewritten history and distorted logic. First, we were told by the Leader of the House of Lords--the right hon. Lady repeated it today--that we cannot have one-stage reform, because hereditary peers have blocked previous attempts at it. [Hon. Members: "True."] I hear "true" from the Government Front Bench. It is worth pointing out, however, that the last reform, in 1967-68, was accepted by the upper House, but blocked in the House of Commons. It was not hereditary, life or any other peers who blocked that reform; it was blocked by this House.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady says that there must be speedy reform. Anyone can see, however, that a two-stage reform could take longer than a one-stage reform: any interim House's establishment could be held up by the Parliament Acts, and the process for the second stage might have to start all over again. The only reasonable reading is that the Government want to scrap the hereditary peers, and then kick the whole process into the long grass.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
So far, the hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government for having a royal commission and for being forced into having a royal commission when they did not want one, for excessive speed and for embarking on a process that he thinks will take too long. What is his position? Does he accept that a change of this magnitude requires public consultation before the final form of the House of Lords is settled, or would he prefer the Government to produce a final proposal and force it through?
Dr. Fox:
Our position has always been clear. We want a single-stage reform if there is to be reform, and we believe that it should be preceded by public consultation. That is why we set up a commission under the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay--nearly a year ahead of the Government's proposals for a royal commission, which they were pushed into precisely because of our wider proposals.
Let me take up the right hon. Lady's point about general elections. She was trite but predictable when she said that we never know what Parliament will look like before we go into a general election; but we do know what the structure of Parliament will look like when we go into a general election. Because it is clear that the Government have no intention of pushing through a reform before the next general election, the public will be asked to vote without knowing what the structure of their
Parliament will be by the end of its Session, and that is something that we have not experienced before. It means asking the people to accept that the form of their government is to change, without knowing what it will be. That is the point that I was making; the right hon. Lady was being purposely obtuse.
Mr. Bercow:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Phil Hope (Corby):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I call Mr. Hope.
Dr. Fox:
I will give way to my hon. Friend first, and then to the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope).
Mr. Bercow:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend--
Dr. Fox:
I said that I would give way first to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That was not very clear, if I may say so. I had already called the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope).
Mr. Hope:
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for about 10 minutes and I am still confused. I should be grateful if he would clarify the position: do the Opposition support, or not support, the hereditary principle--yes or no?
Dr. Fox:
We have made it perfectly clear that the hereditary principle in itself is not something that we challenge. Nor is it something that is challenged by the Government in their position towards the monarchy, but we accept that the Government made their policy clear in their manifesto and that change will happen. Therefore, the debate is not about whether we will defend the rights of hereditary peers; we have accepted that those rights in the House of Lords are to end. The argument is about how we wish the House of Lords to be constituted.
Mr. Bercow:
Does my hon. Friend agree that any worthwhile reform of the House of Lords should not be power neutral, but strengthen the power of the legislature in relation to the Executive in general, and in relation to the position and powers of the Prime Minister in particular?
Dr. Fox:
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I wait some time before I come to that matter. I wish to deal with it in some detail.
We have to ask what sort of model for Parliament the Government seek in the Bill. Do the Government want an effective revising Chamber? It seems not because they seem to want, effectively, one-Chamber government, where the Executive are in control. They seem to want a Commons that is merely a rubber stamp for the Executive, in the same way as the Cabinet, with its half-hour sessions, is merely a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's inner circle.
That is why the second Chamber is to be reduced to a quango. Of course, there will be a new appointments commission. Of course, the Prime Minister will give up his right to appoint Cross Benchers--big deal; we know who will appoint the appointments commission. Knowing that it lacks either legitimacy or longevity, the interim Chamber--the halfway house--will be a pliant, supplicant body.
That reflects perfectly the Prime Minister's instincts. He is not democrat man; he is Executive man. That is perhaps nowhere better exemplified than in the amendments that the Government say that they are willing to accept--the so-called Weatherill proposals. That reflects the Prime Minister's preference for expediency over principle.
The Leader of the House reiterated what was clearly in the Labour party manifesto, yet we now hear that 91 hereditary peers will survive in the interim Chamber, and she said that the previous one lasted for 80 years; that is, they will survive if they are good girls and boys and if they have the intellectual rigour, independence of mind and parliamentary tenacity of the so-called Blair babes.
Mrs. Beckett:
If the hon. Gentleman does not wish those peers to remain, the remedy is simple: he can vote for the Bill.
Dr. Fox:
I understand the procedural excuse that has been given by the right hon. Lady, but the Government have signalled in advance that they will accept something that is utterly out of step with their manifesto--they will accept hereditary peers remaining and voting in the House of Lords. However, that proposal will be introduced only in the House of Lords, so a major constitutional change will not be debated in this Chamber and, if it is, it will be rejected by the Government in this Chamber--the Chamber that the Government claim has democratic legitimacy. It will be put forward in the House of Lords and fully debated in the Chamber that the Government claim has no democratic legitimacy. That is a perverse position for a Bill that supposedly strengthens our constitutional relationships. It says everything about the Government's relationship and respect for our democratic traditions.
Several questions remain unanswered. Perhaps the Minister can answer them tonight. If reform is such a priority, why was the royal commission not set up 20 months ago--a question that the hon. Member for Corby might like to ask? When was Lord Wakeham invited to chair the royal commission? I understand that, although it was such an important and fundamental appointment, he was asked to do so only 48 hours before the announcement. Will the Labour party give advice and evidence to the royal commission? Will it be in public? Will all the hearings be in public?
When will the new appointments system be set up? Why cannot it be set up now? We know the answer--so that the Prime Minister can pack the Chamber in advance. Have the Government ruled out a fully elected second Chamber? How do we know that we will get from stage one to stage two? How long will the Joint Committee last?
Those are all legitimate questions that should have been answered by the Leader of the House. They are not simply procedural things to be kicked into the long grass, as the Government want. Parliament should have answers to those questions as we start on the process of considering the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |