| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): I am grateful to the Minister for the excellent history lesson that he is giving us on the previous proposals. Does he agree that the failure in all those systems was that nobody agreed on how we would end up with a better House of Lords, a better second Chamber or, indeed, no second Chamber? It is wholly wrong for the Government to try to achieve reform in two bites, instead of introducing proposals that had been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and achieving reform in one go. Why are the Government carrying on with this illogical proposal?
Mr. Hoon: The proposal is not illogical, and, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few minutes, I will deal with his point in my brief description of the history of it.
The 1968 White Paper stated unequivocally that
It is clear that, in each of those efforts at reform, it was assumed that the inheritance of a peerage would no longer automatically give the right to attend and vote on legislation in the House of Lords. Each time, the complexity of those comprehensive packages led to difficulty and to eventual defeat. Although the key elements of the reform proposals--the need for a revising second Chamber, the extent of their lordships powers and the overriding need to remove the rights of hereditary peers--received widespread support, the minority opponents of each element combined to defeat the whole. That is why this Government's step-by-step approach is such a sensible and pragmatic way of achieving reform.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne):
To add to what my hon. Friend was saying about the situation in 1968 and 1969, the objection was that we would create a massive amount of patronage. It was obvious that the
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. I have started to read one of his speeches from those debates, but he will forgive me for not having yet completed it. The Government have clearly sought to address those observations in the package of proposals in the White Paper.
The pragmatic approach that I have described was deployed by a Conservative Government, who proposed and passed the Life Peerages Act 1958. The purpose of that Bill, as described by Lord Home in the other place, was to
Lord Home further explained that the 1958 Act dealt only with the life peers, and not the other matters which were being pressed on the Government, because
The then Lord Chancellor said:
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
On that manifesto pledge, my hon. Friend will recall that the manifesto specifically said that there would be a Joint Committee of both Houses in relation to the second stage, and used the words "to bring forward proposals". I know that there will be a royal commission, and I am told that a Joint Committee will sit after the royal commission. Will my hon. Friend put some beef on what, exactly, will be the procedure for the Joint Committee? Will it be able to reject the proposals of the royal commission and will it have a time scale? What are the rubrics for that Joint Committee coming forward with what our manifesto described as proposals for the second stage?
Mr. Hoon:
For technical reasons, the Joint Committee cannot meet until the Bill has passed through Parliament.
Mr. Mackinlay:
What about the time scale?
Mr. Hoon:
I shall deal with that in due course, when I have looked at the proposals for the transitional House.
I want to emphasise one point. If the Conservatives' main argument--perhaps their only argument--
Mr. John Major (Huntingdon):
I thank the Minister for giving way. It is most courteous of him.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has made an important point. After the royal commission has reported, its report will go to a Committee of both Houses. I consider that entirely proper, as Parliament itself is sovereign. Can the Minister assure me that the Committee will have an opportunity, if it wishes, to object to, reject or change the commission's proposals, and that, if that is the case, the Government will not automatically cast aside the Committee's views, but will recognise that Parliament will wish to have its say in what the reform is? Can I be assured that Parliament will not necessarily rubber-stamp the work of a royal commission whose members have been appointed by the Government?
Mr. Hoon:
The right hon. Gentleman has, in a sense, answered his own question. It is clear that, ultimately, Parliament must decide on the recommendations of either the royal commission or the Joint Committee. It will be for Parliament to legislate, if legislation proves necessary--as it is likely to, given the likelihood of a fundamental change in the way in which legislation is passed.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
I hope that the Minister will be as helpful to me as he was to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). At what point might the Government wish to indicate their view--before the Joint Committee sits, or during its hearings? Certainly, we shall not learn about the Government's position during the consideration of the royal commission.
Mr. Hoon:
It may not be entirely appropriate for me to say at this stage what the Government's position might be, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Labour and other political parties are very likely to want to make their views known. That may give him some idea of Labour's thinking.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
The Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was a little disingenuous. Did he mean that the Government would not have their own
Mr. Hoon:
Parliament always truly makes a decision on any matter. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such an observation, given his long experience of the ways in which this place works.
Mr. Major:
I am sorry to pursue my point, but it is a genuine point, and I think the Minister may not have understood precisely what I was saying.
"succession to a hereditary peerage would no longer confer membership of the House of Lords".
It was proposed that existing hereditary peers could keep their seats, but not their voting rights. Their heirs would have no rights at all. What sank those proposals was their complexity, together with the decision by the Conservative Opposition to withdraw their support. The proposals were so complex that there were an almost infinite number of issues on which it was possible to delay progress.
"propose reforms which would lead to the greater efficiency of this House and therefore for the better working of Parliament, and which would bring this House more nearly abreast of the times".
That was an entirely pragmatic proposal, taken forward by a Conservative Government. It was a single-step reform, which was required to improve the legislative process.
"we are convinced, after the lesson of fifty years, that if we try to get more we shall end up getting nothing at all."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 610-13.]
Quintin Hogg, then Lord President of the Council, added that
"it ill becomes those who have deliberately decided to do nothing to taunt those who have decided to do something on the grounds that what they have decided to do is too little."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 845.]
That certainly seems to be an entirely accurate summary of the present Conservative criticism of this Bill.
"on no fewer than ten occasions during that period of one hundred years have unsuccessful attempts been made to alter the law . . . all unsuccessful because someone had forgotten that the best can so often be the enemy of the good."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 936.]
If a Conservative Government were right in 1958 to deal with the creation of life peerages in a pragmatic, single-step reform, why should it be wrong today for a Labour Government, implementing a specific manifesto pledge, to seek to remove in a first stage the rights of hereditary peers to vote?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |