| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me too far down a road leading to something that is still in the future. Although we have clearly indicated the importance of the royal commission reporting quickly--I will deal with that later if I have time--we have also indicated that we would encourage the Joint Committee to resolve its responsibilities in terms of the parliamentary implications of any royal commission suggestions. Obviously, it is important ultimately that Parliament does decide, and it will be a matter for Parliament.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Does my hon. Friend understand the difficulty that faces the Government? The Bill is a simple one and no Labour Member would dispute it, but the new House coming out of the deliberations of the royal commission and the Joint Committee will be immensely complex. The fear of many people--I am one of them--is that the transitional deal that will preserve hereditary peers will become the permanent solution. With the Bill itself, we do not know what the Government view is, but we do know that the process will involve the most complex legislation. It could be so complicated that we end up with hereditary peers electing each other--and we have not even fulfilled the manifesto commitment.
Mr. Hoon: I have already made it clear that the Government take the view that the royal commission should report as soon as possible--by the end of this year if it can do so. That is a tight timetable for a royal commission, but it follows from that that the Government are determined that there should be a second stage. We have set that out clearly in the White Paper, but may I add this? My right hon. Friend and I were both elected on a specific manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers--
Mr. Benn: All hereditary peers.
Mr. Hoon: --of all hereditary peers--to vote. Of course, what we propose, which is contained in the Bill, is designed to achieve precisely that, so the Government have an interest in delivering the manifesto commitment
on which Labour Members were elected. Therefore, there is no reason why we should want a transitional House to last any longer than it absolutely has to.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoon: No. I must make progress. I have given way on a considerable number of occasions. I was hoping to demonstrate how important it is to analyse what precisely the objection of Conservative Members is to the Bill. We had a good deal of debate yesterday and I regret to say that their objections did not become particularly clear.
I hope that Conservative Members will not object too strongly if I suggest that there are some suspicions about their real motives in arguing for the reasoned amendment. Are they genuinely in favour of profound constitutional change, or are they simply using the amendment as a fig leaf to hide the embarrassing fact that they have little idea whether they are for or against the hereditary principle?
The suspicion must be that the Conservatives are using the reasoned amendment to frustrate not simply the particular change in the Bill, but any change in the composition of the House of Lords. It is they who want to kick reform into the long grass.
In contrast, the present Government set out clearly in their manifesto not only their principled position, but the means for achieving their goal. The Government are fulfilling their manifesto commitment. A Joint Committee of both Houses will be appointed to take forward the proposals of the royal commission, which has been established to ensure the widest possible public debate. In analysing the options, the royal commission has been given clear terms of reference.
The royal commission is to report by 31 December 1999. The tight timetable will provide for its recommendations to be completed in sufficient time for the Government to respond to them in advance of the next general election. It demonstrates the Government's seriousness and sense of purpose in moving forward towards a full reform of the second Chamber. Once the royal commission has reported, the Government will establish the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to examine the parliamentary implications of the commission's report. It, too, will be asked to work to a tight timetable.
The time limit is much shorter than for most royal commissions, notwithstanding the need for the widest possible public debate and the need to find consensus.
Mr. Nicholls:
The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way, but, equally, he will appreciate that it is a most important matter. Everything that he has said so far concerns the composition of the upper House. Have the Government any idea at all what they want the function of the upper House to be because, if they change one House, they are bound to change the other?
Mr. Hoon:
For reasons of brevity, I skipped over the terms of reference for the royal commission. The hon. Gentleman can find them in the White Paper, but they briefly are:
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
The idea of a royal commission was first announced in July, by Baroness Jay, in another place. We have now had an announcement on the royal commission's chairmanship. When will the Government be able to tell us the size of the commission and who the other commissioners will be?
Mr. Hoon:
We shall announce those details in due course. I anticipate that it will not be a large royal commission. We want to ensure not only that the widest possible view is reflected in the commission's membership, but that the commissioners are few enough to be able to get on with doing their important work in a short time scale.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I should like to clarify one point with my hon. Friend. He keeps saying that the Joint Committee will consider the "parliamentary implications". However, our manifesto did not say that--it said that the Committee would make proposals. Will my hon. Friend flesh out both the implications of our manifesto commitment and his definition of a "tight time scale" for the Committee?
Mr. Hoon:
The Committee will make proposals based on the parliamentary implications of the royal commission's recommendations. I cannot do any better than that in answering my hon. Friend's question. That will be the role of the Joint Committee, which will follow the findings of the royal commission and make recommendations to the House, on which my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members will have an opportunity to comment.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
The Minister said that the names of those to serve on the royal commission will be announced shortly. Will the Government be consulting the Conservative party on a Conservative nominee to serve on the commission?
Mr. Hoon:
The Conservative party is already well represented on the royal commission, and I am sure that Conservative Members will be delighted by the names of those who fill the other places.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House briefly mentioned the package of measures for the transitional House of Lords which have not been included in the Bill, because they are temporary administrative matters. However, they are an important and integral part of our proposals, and it is right that I should deal with them in more detail.
The Conservative party continues to maintain that our intention must be to create a "House of Patronage". Undoubtedly, from experience, they are aware of the potential for partiality in the exercise of the current powers of the Prime Minister to control access to honours. From 1979 to 1997, the Conservatives created 173 Conservative peerages to only 96 Labour ones. Excluding
resignation and dissolution honours, the figures were126 to 59. That imbalance added to the already dominant Conservative representation in the House of Lords.
The new Government's position is radically different. We have consistently made it clear that we do not intend the transitional House of Lords to be one that is under the Government's control. Our manifesto was explicit on that point: we said that no one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. Are the Conservatives able to commit themselves unequivocally to supporting a second Chamber in which no single party should have a majority? If they are, what action are they willing to take to achieve such a Chamber?
"to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber; and
2 Feb 1999 : Column 748
to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute a second chamber fit for that role and those functions."
Very clear guidance has been given to the royal commission on the matters on which we should like it to achieve consensus. Equally, we have to realise that the commissioners must be free to make proposals that can achieve consensus and command the support of the country at large. We hope that they will be able to do precisely that by the end of the year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |