| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hancock: Half a dozen, which, strangely, was the number of Conservative Members who were in the Chamber last week when we were discussing trade union reform. The Conservatives deemed that major Bill, which will give opportunities for representation to millions of people, to be important enough to require only six Conservative Members to attend the debate. Indeed, the Conservatives ran out of participants well before 8 o'clock that night.
The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to the amendment before the Committee.
Mr. Hancock: Of course I will, but that is difficult when I am being given easy leads by Conservative Members.
I return to the amendment and the protection of the nation from a large majority. That is an extremely good point for a Tory party to make nearly two years into a large Labour majority. The Tory party uses the fear factor by saying that these constitutional changes will allow the Government of the day to lengthen a Parliament. I was here in 1984 when Margaret Thatcher had a huge Tory majority. The then Prime Minister made things happen and stopped Conservative Members doing what they knew was right--an example was given earlier of when she prevented the hon. Member for South Staffordshire from moving a private Member's Bill. However, in those three years, I never heard a single Opposition Member suggest that she might embark on a course of action that would prolong the life of a Parliament.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Had Lady Thatcher done so, the Parliament Acts would have allowed the House of Lords to stop it happening. All that we are saying is that that constitutional safeguard should remain on the statute book.
Mr. Hancock:
My understanding is that it will not be changed. The group of people representing this nation in the
I am disappointed that we cannot move swiftly through the Bill. We need to get it on the statute book: get those hereditary peers who will continue in place and make use of their expertise, say goodbye and thank you to those who will go, but for goodness sake get on with it. I shall be bitterly disappointed if we drag out that process by accepting a measure as cynical as the amendment before us.
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea):
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that his aim was not to challenge the Bill by preserving the right of hereditary peers to speak, on the ground that they do a good job. I join him in paying tribute to the selfless work that many hereditary peers do. However, the amendment would create an entirely anomalous situation. He conceded that hereditary peers should not have the vote, yet argued that they should retain a seat and the right to speak in House of Lords debates--rather like honorary membership of a gentlemen's club. Apart from anything else, that would send confused signals about the Opposition's attitude to the hereditary principle in Parliament. We have already had confused signals about that.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Linton:
I must finish making the argument first.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that he did not oppose the hereditary principle, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that he did not oppose clause 1, and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said that he was against the hereditary principle. We are entitled to clarification. Precisely what do Conservative Members mean? They propose an apparently small change by suggesting that hereditary peers should be allowed to continue in the interim, but miss the crux of the Bill, which is to change the basis of membership of the House of Lords.
It is essential that the Bill ends the hereditary principle in Parliament as soon as possible, not just because it is absurd that people should sit in Parliament on account of what their grandfathers or great-grandfathers may have done, but because many of their great-grandfathers should never have been there in the first place. The blunt truth is that, over the centuries, many hereditary peerages were sold by Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers--indeed, by monarchs--for cash.
During the last Parliament, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said that this country had an international reputation for the integrity and honour of its public institutions. It must be the only democracy in the world to have sold places in its own legislature.
Mr. Forth:
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us his views on the role of the hereditary principle in Parliament--to which he has just referred--with specific regard to the monarchy? He must clarify his position. He is attacking
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) did not elaborate. Moreover, his own speech is in danger of becoming a Second Reading speech. Will he please confine his remarks to the amendment?
Mr. Linton:
I will gladly take your advice, Mr. Lord. I shall not stray, but will stick to the point of the amendment. The amendment, however, raises the issue of whether its aim is to undermine the principle of the Bill, which is that membership of Parliament should be legitimate, accountable and democratic.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Linton:
Yes, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not tempt me away from the point at issue.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I shall not do so. I merely ask the hon. Gentleman to tell me why Lady Jay's position in the House of Lords is more legitimate than that of, say, Lord Cranborne. Lady Jay owes her place to appointment, and, some would say, to the hereditary principle. I should also emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that what we are discussing is an effective transition period.
Mr. Linton:
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such a slight point. The difference between Baroness Jay and Viscount Cranborne is clear. Baroness Jay is in the House of Lords not on account of her father's achievements, but on account of her own: she is there in her own right. I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make such an imputation.
Viscount Cranborne may have achieved things of which he should be proud, and it is possible that, were he not an hereditary peer, he would have been made a life peer. It could be said that his writ of acceleration was, in a sense, a recognition of that. But, to the extent that he owes his position in the House of Lords to the hereditary principle--which is the essence of the hon. Gentleman's question--he is there because his great-great-great- great-great-great-great-grandfather was Robert Cecil, who was an adviser not to Elizabeth II, but to Elizabeth I. To my mind, such a distant connection with Parliament is no claim that we can accept in this day and age.
There may have been a time when the House of Lords had some legitimacy, but to find it we should have to go back to the 14th century, when it consisted of the country's chief landowners, who had to raise armies for the King and therefore had some right to be in Parliament. For at least the past 200 years the House of Lords has been an anachronism, and, indeed, a source of corruption, poisoning our whole constitution.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester):
The hon. Gentleman speaks of the poisoning of the constitution by peers purchasing their peerages for cash. He cited the Liberal
Mr. Linton:
I will not be tempted to stray from the issue, which is hereditary peerages. To my knowledge, Labour Governments have awarded four or five hereditary peerages in the entire history of the country, most of which were awarded to law officers by the 1930 and 1945 Governments. None of them was in any sense sold. However, the same cannot be said of many current hereditary peerages in the House of Lords.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
The hon. Gentleman obviously detests the hereditary principle. If Ministers decide to do a deal in another place whereby 91 hereditary peers are allowed to remain, and that proposal returns to this House, what will he do? Given his declaration of profound principle to the Committee, presumably, he will vote against the amendment proposed by Ministers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |