| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) cannot behave himself, I shall ask him to leave.
Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Reform Act of 1832 was passed by the Lords at the third attempt, after riots nationwide provoked by the refusal to accept the reforms, and only then because the Lords feared a revolution. That Act did not even introduce universal suffrage--far from it--but it enfranchised one in five of the male population and brought about a redistribution of power that proved irreversible. The landed gentry conceded power to save their skins. What a noble principle.
The same happened with the Parliament Act 1911. Having defeated the Asquith Government's Budgets, the Lords finally conceded the limitation of their powers to block legislation for two years only after a general election and the threat of the creation of 500 new life peers to dilute their reactionary power. Again, reform was accepted only to salvage the bulk of their power and position. Such is the influence of those 760 families that only in 1949, under a Labour Government, were their delaying powers finally limited to one year.
The battle to defend the entrenched power of the hereditary peerage, with its inbuilt Conservative majority, is not an honourable one. As we mark its passing, history should record its finer moments. The poll tax would not
have been introduced in its final form, but for the peers' votes. Nor would rail privatisation. Those are hardly great victories of the people, nor are they the conscience of the nation holding Governments of all persuasions in check. Tory Administrations were defeated in the House of Lords just over 13 times on average per Parliament, but the Wilson-Callaghan Labour Government were defeated more than 68 times a Session. Nor do the Lords respect election mandates. This Government have a huge mandate and a manifesto of considerable detail, but that has not stopped the House of Lords defeating the Blair Government 33 times in the first Session, including halting the passage of one Bill altogether.
It is little wonder that we believe that it would be wrong in principle and reactionary in practice to allow those 760 families unduly to influence the shape of the second Chamber. However, there is a further dimension. A composite Bill that included abolition of the hereditary principle plus consideration of the new structure would risk one element overshadowing the other or neither being given the time or detailed consideration that they both deserve. Done systematically and carefully, the two-stage approach will ensure a full and detailed debate on the merits of reform.
The reality is today's decisive step. The boldest measure of British constitutional reform for centuries, it will free up thinking and move the debate forward. The Tories will no longer be able to call on their slumbering squirearchy to attempt to thwart an elected Labour Government. That is what they tried to do over handgun reform and the national minimum wage. They called on the same people to defend privilege as were exemplified in the assisted places scheme. There will be a more positive, forward-looking debate after the royal commission reports. Over the coming weeks, we can focus on the issue that is at the heart of this long-overdue reform.
We sat through the debate yesterday, waiting for Conservatives to defend the rights of hereditary peers. What we witnessed was Conservatism in confusion: one after another, Conservative Members proclaimed support for clause 1, which provides for the exclusion of the hereditary peers. Nowadays, it must be compulsory for Conservatives to carry in their pockets two versions of every policy. The Tories used to be defenders of an age-old constitution which--supposedly--served the country well for centuries. Suddenly, they are ditching their allies among the landed gentry.
What a disappointment. Where is that Conservative backbone, the stiff upper lip? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) talked about the Alamo; I suggest that we are witnessing Hague's last stand. The Conservatives are adrift, rudderless and leaderless. Not so long ago, they condemned the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly: suddenly, over the weekend, they began saying, "We're going to make it work, we're going to make it happen." The reason is that they are having to follow this Government's lead in supporting modern reform of our institutions.
How many more about-turns will we see when the Government prove the Conservatives wrong and show that there will be a sincere and full debate on reform of the House of Lords? As sure as eggs is eggs, what is happening here today is what happened with the debates about the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. There is nothing like the prospect of another defeat and
the certainty of reform to make the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) break cover, ditch all principle and leave his troops to take the flak.
On this issue, the Leader of the Opposition has already had to sack people and accept resignations. No leader has ever faced such a crisis so early in his career. It might induce pity, if the Conservative position were not so ridiculous at the outset.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester):
I shall take up only one point from the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). That is the suggestion that Conservatives are in deep disarray over House of Lords reform, in contrast to the complete unity displayed by other parties. In fact, today we have heard differences of opinion from all around the House. There have been both convinced unicameralist and convinced bicameralist speeches from Labour Members, and something of the same has been evident among Conservative Members as well. It is important that we, as a Parliament, grasp that the issue is not and should not be entirely party political. If possible, we must think through the matter in a somewhat bipartisan manner.
In that respect, the White Paper is a very depressing document for all who believe in checks and balances in the constitution. It does not seek to improve the House of Lords, and pays no more than lip service to bicameralism. If we are to have a bicameral system, we must have two things.
First, the composition of the system must be legitimate enough for it to feel able to exercise its powers. At present, we live in an age of virtual unicameralism, because the House of Lords does not feel capable of exercising the powers that it has. Secondly, a second Chamber must have sufficient powers to enable it to make the House of Commons think again on major legislation.
The White Paper drags its feet on both. Throughout, the subtext is that stage 1 will do. Stage 1 is described as "self-contained" and not dependent on "further reform"--an echo of the wording in the Government's election manifesto.
The White Paper goes further. On page 27, it describes the reform as a "stand-alone" change. There is little commitment to enhancing democratic legitimacy. The underlying theme is one of keeping the Lords a long way from the voters. The White Paper seems to prefer retaining the biggest possible appointed element, implying that, if there must be a democratic element, it should be elected as indirectly as possible.
I believe that such a House of Lords would not have the confidence to take on the House of Commons. Maybe, just maybe, it would, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested. To protect itself against the unlikely event of the House of Lords acquiring some legitimacy--by the removal of the hereditary peers and by more quango appointments--the Government have guarded their flank. The White Paper clearly sets out, mostly on pages 40 and 41, their determination to trim the powers of the Lords further in major ways.
First, there is a clear statement of the Government's intention to put into a more legal form some conventions by which the peers have traditionally operated self-limitation of their powers. The most important of those is the Salisbury doctrine, but no reference is made to the fact that that doctrine was devised as a response to the inbuilt Tory majority that Labour is committed to removing. Once rough parity is achieved between the parties, logic says that the Salisbury doctrine should fall away. To set it in legal form, therefore, would be not to continue as we are, and greatly to circumscribe what the Lords may do. That would gravely weaken the Lords, whatever that House's composition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |