| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): The hon. Gentleman referred to the Mackay commission. When Lord Mackay was at the Scottish Bar, he had a reputation for being a phenomenally fast worker. Out of curiosity, when are his pearls of wisdom expected?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Soon, and I think that that will prove a more accurate "soon" than those that we often get in answers from the Government. I think that the hon. Gentleman will not have to contain his impatience beyond Easter, and that Lord Mackay's report will demand the most careful consideration. I do not know what his commission will recommend. I have no idea whether it will recommend one solution, or give us two or three alternatives to discuss. It would be discourteous, to put it no higher, to come to a definitive conclusion about the shape of the other place in phase 2 until we have seen what that hard-working commission will recommend.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): If an amendment along the same lines as that for which Lord Cranborne got the sack from the Leader of the Opposition is carried in another place, and duly supported by the Government, in allowing 91 hereditary peers to remain, it would surely meet all the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I suspect that he is really saying that he does not want any change.
Sir Patrick Cormack: No. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that, given my track record on such matters. An amendment similar to that to which he referred is on the amendment paper, has been selected and will be debated later. I must not anticipate that debate. My proposal is in many ways a better alternative. The so-called Cranborne amendment--the Weatherill amendment as we call it--was the product of no deal to which we were party. It was a suggestion that would make a bad Bill better. We will deploy those arguments tomorrow.
I am discussing something that would at a stroke make the Bill very much better and enable us to proceed very speedily if the Government were minded to accept it. If they are not minded to accept it, they stand convincingly charged with constitutional vandalism of a high order. The Leader of the House can smile and scoff, but to destroy something of proven worth without saying what will be put in its place is indeed constitutional vandalism.
Our constitution is a finely balanced mechanism like a wonderful clock. If one part of the mechanism is removed, the whole thing stops and is thrown into disarray. We are playing dangerously with a constitution that has evolved over many centuries. It is permissible for Labour Members to say that they wish to get rid of the hereditary peers' voting rights. This amendment does not challenge that; we are saying that there must be an orderly period of transition which recognises what has gone before and the public service, in the best sense of that term.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase):
I do not normally associate the hon. Gentleman with exaggerated rhetoric, but I am at a loss to understand him. The Government say that they are minded to accept an amendment from another place allowing the continuation of a number of hereditary peers during an interim period, and they have set up a royal commission chaired by a Conservative peer. That may be described as constitutional generosity of a high order, but certainly not as constitutional vandalism.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The whole approach of the Government is constitutional vandalism. The Leader of the House made an extraordinary statement on Second Reading. She said that if the so-called Weatherill amendment came before this Chamber, as it will more or less, she would be minded to ask her right hon. and hon Friends to vote against it. If it were tabled in the other place, it would possibly be voted for. When it returned to this place, the right hon. Lady's right hon. and hon. Friends would, presumably, be asked to stand on their heads. That would be an interesting constitutional spectacle. She is using this proposal, which is being held out as a sort of prize, to try to--I choose my words with extreme care--bamboozle, if not blackmail, people into accepting the Bill without adequate and proper scrutiny.
4.45 pm
The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but, against his better judgment, he has been led into territory covered by a later amendment that I have selected. I suggest respectfully that he returns to the main core of his argument on this group of amendments.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I stand well rebuked, Sir Alan. I was being led astray, and we shall deal with the amendment to which you referred later.
In the other place, we have a group of men and women who represent 40 per cent. of those who regularly attend on House of Lords affairs, and who make a significant contribution to the legislative process by their attendance. During the transitional period, they should be allowed to continue to attend and to give of their expertise, time and talents, but not to vote. The proposal is very modest.
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford):
Is not another feature of hereditary peers that they have not been selected by the political party to which they belong? Indeed, they may not belong to any political party. Therefore, they give a view that is not whipped, corralled or bullied, and what they say in Committees, such as the
Sir Patrick Cormack:
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One of the reasons why I find the elected solution less than entirely persuasive is that it is difficult to envisage the election of Cross Benchers. My fear is that party considerations would become much more dominant in an elected upper Chamber. I must not be led astray, although my hon. Friend's point is good, and certainly supports my arguments.
Amendment No. 23 would allow hereditary peers to speak and vote in the House of Lords whenever it debated a Bill to extend the maximum life of a Parliament beyond five years. That is very important constitutionally. Both the Parliament Act 1911 and the successor Parliament Act 1949 contain a provision which expressly reserves total powers for the House of Lords when dealing with such a Bill. There is no time limit or veto to make such a power temporary. We think that it is entirely proper and expedient that there should be such a provision in this Bill, given the Government's huge majority. If amendment No. 23 is drafted defectively, it is for the President of the Council and her colleagues to point that out. We hope that there can be no serious disagreement on the need for such a safeguard.
I commend both amendments to the Committee and I hope that the Committee will be minded to accept them. I am inclined to divide the Committee on both amendments if the Government are minded not to accept them.
Mr. Hancock:
We have heard an interesting attempt to defend the indefensible, or to pull something out of the can at the eleventh hour to save a few friends in another place. I share the view of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that some Members of the House of Lords do first-class work. As a Member of this House representing this Parliament in the Council of Europe, I work regularly with Members of the House of Lords who work long and hard in the service of that organisation. The likes of Lord Judd, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Grenfell, the Earl of Dundee and Lord Russell-Johnston have all done excellent service, and some of them continue to do so.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke of service, credibility, loyalty and knowledge of the task. The Earl of Dundee is a classic case of the Tories preaching one thing and delivering another. Members of the Council of Europe from the 40-odd nations represented there get to know one other, and few of them would deny that the Earl of Dundee was an active member who was well informed, widely respected and did a great deal of work. One can imagine the surprise of colleagues not only in this House but elsewhere when the Conservative party removed him from the Council of Europe, with no explanation to his colleagues and very little to him.
That was a classic example of a Tory peer who was totally committed to a cause, with a great deal of working knowledge--the very expertise that we are told is invaluable and that we would be foolish to lose--whom
his own party was prepared to crucify, probably on the pretext of giving someone a little European experience before that person was proposed as a Commissioner. That is what I would say if I were cynical, because it was rather strange to see the person who succeeded him.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire argued the need for such peers to be in the House of Lords, but he gives no credit to the people who will in fact be there--life peers and those hereditary peers who will gain access to that House again by being created life peers for the duration of the first stage of the reform. The hon. Gentleman underplayed their role in the future governance of this country and in the reform process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |