| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thought that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) had a rather bad cold, but of course everyone should pay proper tribute to selfless public work--and those who selflessly do it.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to clarify my snorting. It was in response to the disingenuousness of Conservative Members, who defend the hereditary principle on the ground of public service, when in fact they are defending their vested party political interests.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman could not get it more wrong. I have never defended the automatic right of every hereditary peer to sit in the House of Lords or the built-in majority. In 1984, long before the hon. Gentleman came to this place, I sought leave to introduce
a private Member's Bill to that effect, under the ten-minute rule. It was opposed by the Leader of the House, among others, and was not allowed to go further. Many Conservative Members have felt for a long time that there is nothing incompatible in saying that we do not defend the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords or an in-built majority for any party, while recognising the very real work that many hereditary peers do. They are not in the House of Lords through their own fault, but they are there: many accept the challenge and opportunity for public service that the House of Lords provides and respond in a truly public-spirited manner.
I was about to offer two examples, and now I shall do so; both involve Cross-Bench peers. Last week, some parliamentary awards were given out: at least one distinguished winner is in the Chamber this afternoon, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although the Peer of the Year award went to Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who is a life peer, the short list included the Countess of Mar. She is a Cross-Bench hereditary peer and has done as much as anyone in either House to draw attention to certain dangers, including the sheep dip problem, which she has made very much her own. People all over the country have great cause to be thankful to her.
My second example is very different, although it involves another hereditary peer. Lord Freyburg is, at 28, still a very young man, and he was 22 when he took his seat. When he entered the House of Lords, he made it his mission to do something about pensions for war widows. He succeeded in persuading my right hon. and hon. Friends in the then Conservative Government to go along with him--a very notable achievement for a young man.
I could cite many other hereditary peers whose service has been, and is, exemplary.
Angela Smith (Basildon):
I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point of the debate. No Labour Member would criticise the contribution of any individual hereditary peer: we are critical of the fact that hereditary peers make that contribution with no legitimacy.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I could ask the hon. Lady to define legitimacy, and whether it exists only in this Chamber. However, I shall not be led astray as you would probably rule me out of order Sir Alan. I want merely to develop an argument and to explain why we have tabled the amendment.
An extremely important aspect of the work of the House of Lords is the work done in Select Committees. There are some extremely important Committees in the House of Lords, and perhaps pre-eminent among them are the Select Committee on Science and Technology and the Select Committee on European Communities. Both Committees have done work of incalculable value. On the Science and Technology Committee, there are currently five hereditary peers, and on the European Communities Committee, there are 10, out of 20 members. There are, incidentally, only five Tories between the two Committees.
4.30 pm
During the past Session, the European Communities Committee produced 50 reports, and the Science and Technology Committee produced 16. Those reports ranged over a variety of subjects of real importance. If hon. Members are not familiar with the range of reports, they should try to make themselves so. In a single Session, there were reports of seminal significance on the European ombudsman, the European Union gas directive, EU water policy, Europol, sustainable landfill, aid to shipbuilding, student mobility and airline competition. I could go on and on.
The Science and Technology Committee produced reports that attracted worldwide attention in some cases, including reports on the management of nuclear waste, the scientific and medical evidence on cannabis, digital images as evidence and clinical academic careers.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West):
Is it the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument that those Committees would be unable to do that work if their members were life peers only? In particular, is he suggesting that of the Science and Technology Committee, which relies largely on those of its members who have direct scientific experience?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Some of them, including the chairman, are, of course, hereditary peers. The point is very simple, and I hope that the hon. Lady can grasp it. If we withdraw hereditary peers quickly from those Committees, the Committees will suffer. The burden of work is considerable: the European Communities Committee will meet seven times in 17 days during February. The Committee is carrying a heavy burden, and it would be extremely difficult for the life peers alone to sustain the whole extra burden.
In the amendments, we merely suggest that those who have given distinguished service should be allowed to continue to do so.
Mr. Stephen Twigg (Enfield, Southgate):
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, after a general election in which someone with expertise has lost his or her seat, he or she should be entitled to retain a seat in the House of Commons, without voting rights, on the basis that we should not want to suffer the loss of expertise?
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
An excellent point!
Sir Patrick Cormack:
It is a superficially attractive point, but, when my former colleague, Michael Portillo, lost his seat, he was replaced by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). We are talking about an interim House in which those who will be obliged to leave the House of Lords will not be replaced. There is no suggestion that there should be an immediate and massive creation of life peers. The Government have not thought through the consequences of their actions.
The amendment relates only to the interim House. We want stage 2 to follow the interim House, and we want that stage to be arrived at by consensus if possible. Until stage 2 occurs, however, there is work to be done and a great burden to be sustained. Those who will be left to sustain that burden will find it extremely difficult to do so.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
If, heaven forbid, the hon. Gentleman's amendment were carried,
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The House of Lords regulates its own business in, some people would say, a rather more satisfactory way than we do, in that those who wish to speak in a debate put down their names and know that they will be called. Those with a particular knowledge, specialty or expertise put down their names, and the quality of debates in the other place is thus extremely high. Looking through Lords Hansard, I found a particularly good example of that last week in a debate on the arts. Whether the debates are on the armed forces, in which former field marshals can take part; on the arts, in which former performers, great musicians, artists and others can take part; or on commerce, in which many captains of industry can take part, the quality tends to be extremely high. What I am saying to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is that we are concerned to maintain that quality.
As I said a moment ago, we are talking not about stage 2, but stage 1, or the interim stage. We are fearful that, if many people who have much to contribute, and who have contributed much over the years, are suddenly obliged to withdraw, the quality of work at the other end of the Corridor will not be what it has been hitherto. I cannot emphasise too often or too strongly that we are concerned with phase 1. We are not seeking to anticipate the debates that this Chamber and the other place will rightly have about stage 2.
We have to await the report of the royal commission. Conservative Members are also waiting for the Mackay commission. Lord Hurd is a member of the Mackay commission and is now a member of the royal commission, and will be a useful link between the two. However, we do not know what either body will say.
In the debate a fortnight ago, we heard 37 or 38 Back-Bench speeches, and it was clear that there were 37 or 38--probably 47 or 48--different views about what should emerge in phase 2. That applies equally to both sides of the Chamber. There was not a common thread. There were unicameralists, those who favoured a direct or indirect election, those who favoured a mixture, and those who favoured a nomination system. We shall have the opportunity to debate those alternatives, but we are currently debating what I hope is going to be an orderly transition, and the aim of the amendment is to make it more orderly than it would otherwise be.
We have to have regard to the quality of work done by the other place. Let me turn again to its European Communities Committee. This Chamber does not scrutinise European legislation as effectively as it might. That is no criticism of the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who puts in a tremendous amount of time and effort to chair our European Scrutiny Committee. He and I have had discussions about it on the Floor of the House and privately, and there is not much difference between us. The massive amount of legislation coming from Europe means that it is difficult for hon. Members adequately to scrutinise it because of the many other pressures on them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |