| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I remind him and other Members that that is the subject of the next group of amendments? We should not deal with it at the moment.
Mr. Linton: I am more than happy not to take up that point, but I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will take it up during the debate on the next group of amendments. I seek simply to establish the point that is crucial to our understanding of this amendment, as of the others: the present composition of the House of Lords stems, not overwhelmingly but significantly, from the accumulation of corrupt sales of peerages over the centuries. Such a Parliament is no basis on which to go into the next century and, indeed, next millennium.
Just in case the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who is just leaving, thinks that I am making wild accusations, let me say that I am more than happy to spell out the sales of peerages that have led to the current membership of the House of Lords. Indeed, the ancestors of a raft of them bought their peerages from Liberal Prime Ministers.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
One.
Mr. Linton:
I quote as an example Viscount Devonport. He was a retailer by the name of Hudson Kearton who promised the Liberals £25,000 if he became
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
With the best will in the world, let me point out that the amendments do not do what the hon. Gentleman says they do. They will ensure, if they are passed, only that a hereditary peer may attend, not vote, except safeguardingly in the circumstances of extending the life of Parliament. That is what the amendments are about. The exegesis by the hon. Gentleman is a waste of the Committee's time. Some of us want to discuss the amendments and would be grateful if he could focus his intellect on them.
Mr. Linton:
I will take my instructions from Mr. Lord on that point, but I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the basis on which people are currently Members of the House of Lords is fundamental to the Bill. The Bill tries to change that basis. The amendment tries to continue the present membership for as long as possible.
With one breath, Conservative Members say that the transitional House might last a long time; indeed, it was part of a forceful speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on Second Reading. With the next breath, they say that, just for the transitional phase, we should allow hereditary peers to sit and to speak in debates. They cannot have it both ways. They believe that the transitional phase is likely to last a long time, but the amendment's effect is to perpetuate the hereditary peerage.
The point that I make by those examples is that it is essential to understand the basis of the present House of Lords. We cannot possibly go into the next millennium with a Parliament in which so many seats have been bought--not so much by the achievements of ancestors, but as outright purchases.
Mr. Shepherd:
I shall now say something that will be more sympathetic to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton).
Amendments Nos. 1 and 23 are obviously safeguard amendments. There is a concern that the House of Lords could vote for the extension of the life of a Parliament, and I have been asked to weigh that possibility. I have to tell my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that I do not think that such an extension is a reasonable expectation. If I consult my own history and that of my own country, I recall that I was born during the lifetime of a Parliament that had been extended because of the circumstances of war. The life of Parliament was also extended in the first world war. Other than that, our constitutional history shows that the trend has been to reduce the lifetime of Parliaments, from seven to five years. I do not know whether, in future, we will reduce the lifetime to four years, as that would be consonant with
the practice of many other countries. I therefore have to weigh the objectives of Opposition Front Benchers in tabling the amendments.
According to Opposition Front Benchers, clearly we want to preserve the presence of hereditary peers until stage 2 reforms have been implemented. We want also to give them voting and speaking rights if the Government of the day decide to extend Parliament. I should say that I now think of this place as a puppet Chamber which is run by, and follows the will of, Downing street. I have seen that fact demonstrated for over 20 years, and hon. Members who served before this Parliament will know perfectly well where the balance of power lies in such matters.
Do I really think that the House of Lords, even with a hereditary element in it, will vote to extend the life of a Parliament except in the most dire circumstances of a national emergency? Is that a reasonable, legitimate and weighted fear? I ask my hon. Friends to ponder the likelihood of such an extension. I genuinely do not think that it would happen. I do not think that many of us, in truth, think that the purpose of the Labour Government's proposals is merely to extend the life of Parliament. I do not think that many of us are so partisan as to think that that is the Government's objective.
I have the greatest difficulty in taking this group of amendments seriously. The Committee will know from my speech on Second Reading that I believe in an elected second Chamber. I want checks and balances; there is no question about that. Therefore, in trying to weigh up the matter, I ask myself whether I believe that the amendments are amendments of substance. The answer is that I do not. I also do not believe that I want to ensure that Members of the House of Lords should not be
We have heard all the arguments on expertise, but the thrust of the Government's manifesto and position is that the House of Lords is not legitimate. That is what it is about. As I look around the Opposition Benches, I realise that many Opposition Members feel that the legitimacy charge neuters the House of Lords. Consequently--in circumstances in which the broad judgment of a nation is contrary to initiatives from Downing street--there is no check or balance.
Some Opposition Members would be quite happy to be constructive in dealing with that situation, if we can build a democratic second Chamber that is able to check, and to reflect the changing pattern of public opinion. Such a Chamber would be able to confront Governments--the current Government are one of the worst offenders I know--argue its corner, and convert public opinion on what it believes are the issues of substance. I accept that that was a partisan point.
I certainly could not vote for amendment Nos. 1 and 23. I do not see the purpose behind them. I do not believe that the appointees of previous Prime Ministers or of the current Prime Minister would extend the life of a Parliament except in the most dire national circumstances, such as war.
Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree):
It was fascinating--a joy--to hear the eloquent remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). In many ways, he put me in mind of an American lawyer whose client is on
Listening to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I was put in mind of the case made in 1910 and 1911 for the retention of the House of Lords. At that time, many of the predecessors of Conservative Members would have deployed similar arguments to those made today. If there is such a wealth of talent and such a fund of experience in the House of Lords, I am a little surprised that the Lords appear to be moving meekly along the road to the abolition of the hereditary principle. If they believe what they say on the temporary or transient period, why not stand foursquare against it?
Mr. Wells:
If the hon. Gentleman takes 11 from 99, he will find that it is 88. In 1911, the House of Lords, in its present form, was thought to be a temporary measure.
Mr. Hurst:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that is exactly the nature of my fear about the proposal. The arguments about talent, experience and expertise can go back further than that. The beauty of standing to speak in this Chamber--albeit one of fairly modern origin, architecturally--is that the same arguments were used to defend the rotten borough system in 1832. The argument was that we would not have those talented people in this House if we left it to the vulgarity of the county elections. Indeed, those who represented county constituencies would have been despised because they did not have the talent and learning of the placemen of the great landed families. Eventually, however, we vulgar and coarse people succeeded, and the rotten boroughs were swept away, stage by stage, until they finally disappeared.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire makes a fascinating case. Many years ago, I read a book entitled "The Case for Conservation" by a former Member of this House--and, later, Lord Chancellor--Lord Hailsham. I shall quote from it, although it is not my view. The book put forward all the advantages of birth and talent, and stated that talent should be preferred, as against numbers. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire talked of constitutional vandalism and, of course, the preferred classes regard those who are not of their class as vandals at the gate who are about to pull down--not a watch, the rather delicate analogy that is used--but a great edifice of power that has existed for centuries.
I felt for a moment that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire was about to quote the immortal Conservative lines that appear in the book by Lord Hailsham and also, I believe, in Shakespeare:
"entitled to vote in a division"
but should continue to sit in the second Chamber.
"Take but degree away . . .
I believe that the amendment is a delaying tactic on the part of the Conservative Opposition, who are not yet genuine converts to the kind of democracy proposed by the Bill. The amendment is a device and an attempt to delay the will of this House and the people of this country.
And, hark! what discord follows".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |