| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 pm
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I congratulate all hon. Members who, like me, have been here for 13 hours over yesterday and today, waiting for a chance to speak in the debate. The debate has been interesting, and I have listened carefully. I have not intervened, and I was rather hurt that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) did not respond when I tried to intervene earlier this evening. I am glad to have the chance to speak now.
It has been interesting to see the Conservative party in denial about the link that dare not speak its name--the link between the Conservative party in this House and the Conservatives in the other place. I must say to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that you got your statistics the wrong way around. Quoting from the document that you raised in your speech--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. I am getting rather tired of having to repeat this night after night, but I must be consistent with hon. Members. The form of address that we use in this House must be applied consistently.
Caroline Flint:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we enter the graveyard shift, I apologise for any tiredness that has led me to forget parliamentary etiquette.
The document to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred states that, from 1970-71 to 1997-98, the average number of Government defeats per Session under a Labour Government was 63, compared with eight under a Conservative Government. That makes the point.
It is interesting that we are having this debate in a year when we celebrate two anniversaries--although "celebrate" may be the wrong word. Last weekend saw the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I. This year, we see the 400th anniversary of the birth of Oliver Cromwell. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, those two were the protagonists in a situation that led to the abolition of the House of Lords--the only abolition that has occurred in parliamentary history.
When I show schoolchildren from Don Valley around the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the story that they like best--and write to me afterwards about--is that of Charles II coming back after the restoration, digging up the body of Oliver Cromwell, cutting off his head and putting it on a spike in Westminster hall. However, Charles II contributed to something else--perhaps more than many monarchs, he contributed to the providing of hereditary titles for services rendered in the bedroom.
Mr. Evans:
When the hon. Lady is talking to schoolchildren, does she talk to them about parliamentary democracy, checking the power of the Executive, the powers of the Whips, how she is dictated to by the pager from Walworth road and the spin doctors--and about how that adds to democracy in this country?
Caroline Flint:
I speak to my constituents and schoolchildren about the struggle within Parliament for
It is a sad reflection that, after 18 years of government--and despite all the rhetoric that we have heard yesterday and today from all the born-again Tory reformers--the Tory party's election manifesto for 1997 said:
We will not expect any executions during the passage of the Bill, or through the debate that we have started and to which the Government have given oxygen and life--something that would never have happened under a Conservative Government. We will discuss, inquire and explore the modern ways in which Parliament can work as we move into the next millennium.
This first step is part of that process. It is a modest proposal to undo the rights of 760-odd families who believe that they have the right to be represented for time eternal in our legislative Chambers. Such job security has been afforded to no one in my constituency: not only a job for life but a job for successors for hundreds of years through an accident of birth.
I say no one, but in fact the 12th Earl of Scarborough is my near neighbour. He is a very nice man whom I have met on several occasions. He owns considerable land in my constituency and elsewhere. I have nothing against him personally--he seemed amiable and is generally well regarded--but I note that he has not taken the oath since the general election and that the Library records show that he has not spoken in the Chamber at any time in the past 11 years.
I have no objection to such self-restraint: in one respect, it is commendable, and I am pleased that my local lord has not taken part in the wrecking of Government legislation in the other place since the 1997 general election. I do not believe that hereditary peers should be entitled to participation in the formation of legislation.
Like my noble earl, many Members of the House of Lords do not attend. We have had a discussion about scrutiny, and that prompts the question: who is doing the scrutiny and asking the questions in the other place? Thanks again to the Library, we find that only 508 peers out of the 1,294 have attended more than a third--76--of the sitting days. Of the 508 who do the bulk of the work--they should be respected for that--222 are hereditary peers. They represent only a third of the hereditaries, but in such numbers they have considerable sway.
As we approach the millennium, it should not be morally acceptable for our democratic process to be influenced by the self-selection of 766 people who gained their title by an accident of birth. It is an historical legacy that the Bill will rectify.
The Opposition have asked whether we have a right to proceed in this way. I will not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about our manifesto, but I believe that, even if the manifesto did not have all the answers, it certainly set in train a series of events by which we will gain a more representative second Chamber. The starting point for that is getting rid of the hereditary principle.
We are not creating an elected dictatorship. Our manifesto commitment is clear: to make the House of Lords more democratic and more representative. We have the first Prime Minister ever who is willing to relinquish the patronage that many other Prime Ministers have used. We are not interested in fixing the reform of the second Chamber. Some Opposition Members say that we are going too slowly and others that we are going too fast. It is clear that we have started a debate that would never have taken place under the Conservatives, had they won at the general election. They did not win, and our manifesto commitment was pretty clear to the members of the British public who voted.
I hope that, after the Bill is enacted, we can put some of the vested interests to one side and consider how we can reach political consensus on the second Chamber. I believe that the bicameral arrangement works in most major advanced democracies. Only a few Members have suggested that a single Chamber should be the answer.
I think that we would agree that we want a body that is free to scrutinise legislation and Government. The second Chamber, even in its present form, has sometimes excelled at scrutiny, and many refinements to legislation have been made by successive Governments following representations from the Lords. That role should be protected and maintained. Would we all not agree that such a Chamber has the potential to play an effective role and be independent of the Commons if no party has a majority in it? The Prime Minister said that that would be considered.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
I am very appreciative of the hon. Lady's comments about my ancestor, Oliver Cromwell.
Is not the role of the House of Lords far more important than its constitution? It is as if we were interviewing for a job without writing the job specification. Does the hon. Lady agree that a large amount of the attention of the House has been concentrated on who should be there rather than on what they should do, but that the latter is the far more important issue? I am glad that she is coming to that subject.
Caroline Flint:
It is very important that we consider the role of the second Chamber. It may not be a first priority for the public; certainly in Don Valley people are concerned about jobs, health and education. However, underpinning the development of policies in those areas is the creation of opportunities for our constituents to have a say in how the country is run. That is true whether we are considering the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh
It has been suggested that the second Chamber should be more representative, and I agree. No one denies the wealth of political, religious, diplomatic and business experience that is represented in the upper House, but I suggest that it overwhelmingly comes from the life peers. The hereditaries can claim to represent but few. If we look at the statistics, we see that they are mainly men, they mainly went to one public school, they are mainly from the landed gentry, they mainly went to Oxford or Cambridge and they represent the gentlemen's clubs and country life of the old establishment.
"We have demonstrated we are not against change where it is practicable and beneficial. But fundamental changes which have not been fully thought through--such as opposition proposals on the House of Lords--would be extremely damaging. We will oppose change for change's sake."
That was all the Tories had to say. They did not say that, as a point of principle, they supported the abolition of the hereditary principle. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) did himself no service by pontificating this evening on all the ways in which we could modernise and change this House, given that he had a fair opportunity to do something when he held the reins of power.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |