| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Green: Precisely. Consensus has to be on the Government's terms: there is no possibility of any consensus on any other terms. I do not think that that is a sensible way to claim that a national consensus is being sought.
It is right that a Government should try to seek a national consensus on a constitutional reform such as this. One assumes that they want to set in train a process that will be permanent. They know as well as anyone else, that if they proceed on this partisan basis they will not achieve a permanent settlement. As a result, this country will be going through constitutional change for decades to come. Experience suggests that countries that have constant constitutional upheaval are not better governed in the long term.
There is no guarantee in the Bill that the safeguards mentioned in the White Paper will be maintained. Perhaps a Minister could give us such a guarantee that
the aspirations of the White Paper are in fact firm commitments. Similarly, the Bill contains no guarantee of a timetable. This matter should not drift on from Parliament to Parliament, and I seek some assurances from Ministers about the timetable.
The possible reduction of the powers of the House of Lords is another problem with the White Paper, which states on page 40 that there should be
That paragraph alone gives the lie to any suggestion that the reform is about democracy. It is about increasing the power of the Executive vis-a-vis Parliament. As such, it could be extremely dangerous.
Other clear weaknesses are not touched on by the White Paper. We cannot consider the composition of the House of Lords without considering its role. The Bill tends to increase the power of the Executive. The transitional house will, as the Bill stands, be worse than the existing House of Lords.
Much has been made of evolution, but the Bill is not evolution. Evolution is an inevitable process, but the Government's direction is not clear, meaning that the reform cannot be an inevitable process. They are not taking a sensible evolutionary approach to constitutional change.
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington):
I welcome the Bill, which deals swiftly and effectively with important unfinished business. One of the most amazing things about the reform is that it has not been done before. Attempts to deal with the hereditary peerage litter the century--in 1910 and 1911, in the 1920s, in the 1940s, and in the 1960s. One reason why those attempts failed is that many of them were one-shot attempts, a fact from which we have rightly learned.
The hereditaries have survived because of a combination of inertia, disagreement over alternative arrangements and the indifference of the Conservative party. I am proud that the Labour Government are beginning the process that will finish the job and give us a modernised Parliament appropriate to the 21st century.
The issue before us may not top the public's agenda, but it remains important. People want, and deserve, a more representative Parliament. The hereditary principle is clearly an anachronism that diminishes the credibility
of the whole of Parliament. The current set-up also clearly frustrates the democratic will. The hereditary principle enshrined in our Parliament is clearly an absurdity.
Mr. Grieve:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Plaskitt:
Not at this stage.
One key test that we can apply to the House of Lords is whether, if we were starting out from scratch, anyone would suggest that the hereditary principle should be enshrined in Parliament. It is inconceivable that anyone would suggest that. Would anyone come up with the idea of having an upper House of Parliament of about 1300 members, many of whom rarely turn up? A majority of the House of Lords have inherited their seats, and they lack any discernable merit or right to a voice in legislation. Would anyone come up with such a chronically unrepresentative Chamber as the current House of Lords, which contains 759 hereditary peers, of whom one is black, one is Asian and 14 are women. Half the 759 went to Eton.
The House of Lords remains basically an aristocracy. Long after the aristocracy lost its social influence and its economic power, it still holds political power. The Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George was right:
There has, of course, always been one very unsound reason for continuation. The House of Lords serves, and always has served, the political interests of the Conservative party. The House of Lords is a Conservative House--with a very big C. Throughout the 20th century, the House of Lords has frustrated the will of non-Conservative Governments.
Mr. Grieve:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Plaskitt:
Not at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) mentioned Arthur Balfour. Balfour was quite blatant about the role of the Lords, saying in 1906:
On average, the House of Lords defeats Tory Governments 13 times a Session. It defeats Labour Governments 63 times a Session. The current Government, with their massive popular mandate, had 33 defeats in their first Session, almost all of them attributable to the votes of hereditary peers, the Members of Parliament that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, described last year in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies as: "the independent element".
Just in case the first-born of our nobility should ever stray from their innate conservatism, Tory Governments have kept the other place topped up by appointing twice as many Conservative life peers as Opposition peers. There has always been a smile on the face of the ghost of Arthur Balfour. No wonder the Tory 1997 election guide said:
Mr. Plaskitt:
That is true, and it is an interesting historical addition to the debate.
Mr. Green:
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the Labour life peers created by the Government have contributed to Labour party coffers?
Mr. Plaskitt:
That is irrelevant to our debate.
The Government are unquestionably right to finish the business in a series of quick steps. The process is set out in perfectly logical sequence: first, remove the hereditary element; then establish an interim House; then set up a fast-track royal commission. That sequence gives the prospect of a settled new structure, based on consensus and possibly in place before the next general election. It is the best way to finish the job with the minimum of disruption to the Government's important programme. Once all that is done, it will be easier for us to deliver effectively the agenda on which we were elected.
The Government have set down the right basic principles for the next important stage. The proposed reform will secure the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. There will be no permanent majority for any party in the second Chamber, a reduction in prime ministerial patronage, and a broad mix of interests. A more representative second Chamber will result. If we place partisan interests to one side, we can see that a logical, straightforward reform is being proposed. It seems that it is widely accepted by many peers. They are presumably privately amazed that they have got away with it for so long and are now, for the most part, placidly resigned to their fate.
It tells us much about the Conservative party in this place that this sensible, logical reform has caused such consternation in it. I suspect that most Conservatives are still in tune with the spirit of Arthur Balfour. His outrageous assertion of the right of the Tories to govern in perpetuity, regardless of the democratically expressed will of the electorate, still has its supporters here. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has not come to this debate because in a pamphlet last year for the Conservative Policy Forum he gave the game away by saying:
"arrangements to give government Bills introduced first into the second chamber the same protection as those introduced first into the House of Commons, so removing an artificial constraint on the management of Parliamentary business".
The words "artificial restraint" are wonderful Whitehall weasel words: in other words, the Bill removes something that makes it slightly more difficult for the Government to put through their Bills.
"Aristocracy is like cheese--the older it is, the higher it becomes."
The House of Lords fails the "would you start from here?" test. It also fails the test on whether there is any reason for continuing with its uniqueness. No other Parliament in the world has a system like ours. No other country with an hereditary monarchy extends the principle into its legislature. No sound reason can be found for the institutionalisation of aristocracy.
"Whether in power or whether in Opposition, the great Unionist party should still control the destinies of this great empire."
That was almost 100 years ago, but the facts have continued to speak for themselves.
"It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea):
Does my hon. Friend accept that when Arthur Balfour said that the House of Lords was essential to the Conservative party, he meant, not only that it was essential to the party's dominance of Parliament, but, as he demonstrated in his 1905 resignation honours list, to the party's finances?
"For Conservatives the constitution works."
For the people, it does not. It should, and when the Bill is enacted, it will.
7.51 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |