| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that the upper House as currently constituted works better for his party than for any radical party, whether Liberal or Labour? It is much less likely to interfere with his party's legislation because of the in-built majority and its inherent sympathy with his party.
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady goes on at length with her point, but there were 240 defeats of a Conservative Government. The democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords when there is a Conservative Government is much greater. If Members of the House of Lords take the Conservative Whip and behave as Conservatives most of the time, they feel happy to challenge the will of a Conservative Government, whereas if they challenge the will of a Labour Government, they would be working against the democratic mandate given to that Government. That has happened time and again.
Mr. Hayes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will acknowledge, in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), that the essential difference between the two Houses is that the House of Lords is less partisan. The people who take the whip in the House of Lords take a far less severe whip than Members of this Chamber. They need to prove nothing, do not need to impress their party leaders and, very often, are going nowhere. Therefore the atmosphere in the House of Lords is quite different. The issue is to do with the style, as well as the content, of that Chamber.
Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend had made a point that I would have made. I leave it in his hands, and it was made much more eloquently than if I had made it.
I am not defending leaving the House of Lords as it is, but we must have a plan to go forward and achieve something better. I am also keen that people who enter the House of Lords through the hereditary principle and decide to work--effectively for nothing, other than expenses--should be acknowledged for what they have done. People with enormous knowledge, who have worked for 10 or 20 years in the House of Lords, could be stripped away from us.
I am a vice-chairman of the European Informatics Market Group, and two hereditary peers--Lord Renwick and Lord Chelmsford--are the mainstays and do all the work. I am keen that, whatever we get in place of the House of Lords, we have similar people who are willing to put that sort of dedication into doing a job of work that helps Parliament. For example, the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology has been acknowledged.
We also need that extra attribute, which no one has mentioned. A second Chamber slows down legislation, which is very important.
Mr. Wareing:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce:
I do not have a lot of time and I will make progress, if I may.
A second Chamber slows down legislation and allows the public to realise that something is going on. Many people realise that there will be change--for example, in their industry--only when a Bill is debated in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. The newspapers alert the public to it by reporting the opening debates. People have time to table amendments in the second Chamber, which is often where a Government realise that there is something wrong with legislation. They then table Government amendments in the second Chamber, whether the Commons or the Lords--
Mr. Wareing:
We do not need a second Chamber to do that.
Mr. Bruce:
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but Ministers are suggesting that we should have a second Chamber. He should fight for what he believes in.
I have reached the point where Labour Members may like to think about whether they will get the deal that they were promised by Ministers--the abolition of the hereditary principle and a reformed House of Lords. The Labour party manifesto may not have said that we will achieve a reformed and more democratic House of Lords, but I know that Labour Members are keen for that to happen.
If Labour Members are willing to let the Government off the hook in respect of the first phase by saying, "We have now fulfilled our manifesto commitment," there could be many Parliaments before any further reform takes place. If the prize, and the incentive to reform the House of Lords, is to get rid of the hereditary principle, Labour Members who want that to happen should not allow the Government to get rid of the hereditary principle one minute and say the next, "We have done the urgent thing, so things can go on and on."
I hope that I am not giving away confidences by saying that I was in a meeting with the leader of my party the other day. He went round the 10 of us in the room, and there were about 15 different opinions about what we should have in place of the House of Lords. That does not happen only in the Conservative party; it happens in the Liberal party and the Labour party. Those who have listened to the debate know why reform of the House of Lords has not yet happened: we have not agreed what we will put in its place. Taking the pressure off the Government, by allowing them to get rid of most of the hereditary peers, will stop them having to make those difficult decisions.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet):
I have been trying to catch your eye since the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I have been listening throughout to the speeches of Conservative Members. Some were interesting. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) at least gave an unequivocal
Although I strongly support the Prime Minister and the work that he is doing, it is clear to me that a future Prime Minister could turn out to be Caligula, and, under our current system, could make his horse a proconsul. Unfortunately, little could be done to prevent him or her from doing so.
The reform of Parliament is plainly necessary, but the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills should note that at least the Labour party has embarked on the process. There may be dangers in what we are beginning to do, but at least we are trying. We cannot cross oceans until we are prepared to lose sight of the shore, and that is what the Labour party is trying to do.
Other interesting speeches have been made by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made what I considered to be a particularly good speech. I never thought that I would hear myself say this in the House, but I suggest that hon. Members read it. I am equally horrified to say that I was strangely drawn to some of the ideas advanced by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); and there was a delightful moment when the right hon. andlearned Member for North-East Bedfordshire(Sir N. Lyell) seemed to be trying to convince us that Members of the other House should be neither appointed nor elected, but should somehow be caught with rod and line.
With those exceptions, however, Opposition speeches have been uniformly depressing. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to tell us that he or she supports the idea of abandoning the hereditary principle, but will not support the Bill. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to claim that we need reform of the House of Lords, but not yet. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to claim that there is a need for a free-thinking and independent House of Lords, yet Conservative Members are prepared to continue with a system that allows the dim and the devious to keep their place in that House as long as they are shackled to the Conservative party.
Let me spell out what I believe to be obvious: a vote against the Bill is a vote in favour of the hereditary principle. We are discussing what is essentially a simple Bill. The Leader of the House described it as exquisite in its simplicity, and she was right. Clause 1 is the only substantive clause, and it is absolutely explicit in its meaning. All the other measures in the Bill provide for adjustments and new arrangements following from that clause.
It is clear to me that, as clause 1 is entirely concerned with the abandoning of the hereditary principle, anyone who votes against the Bill will vote for that principle. No spinning can change that; no dressing up by the Opposition can change it. Either the Opposition are for the hereditary principle, or they are against it. By their deeds we shall know them: if they vote against the Bill, they will be voting for the hereditary principle.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |