| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Cormack indicated dissent.
Mr. Maclennan: I discharge the hon. Member for South Staffordshire from having made that point. I regret that I did not hear him speak, so I cannot pronounce with authority on his speech. I am very sorry about that, but I encountered unfortunate travel problems.
Several other Conservative Members made the point that hereditary peers were peculiarly independent, yet their lordships' voting record does not prove that.
The point was deployed extensively on Second Reading that their overwhelming propensity is to support the Conservative party, and, when informed that Rome is burning and in danger, to come from wherever they are and do what they are told by the Conservative Whips.
There is no reason to believe that the survival of hereditary peers would retain any independence that would safeguard any part of our constitution if it became threatened. From the record during the lifetime of the previous Conservative Administration, I do not see any evidence of hereditary peers playing a particularly noteworthy part, even in criticism of some of the, shall we say, incursions into what might have been thought to be sacred constitutional territory.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The right hon. Gentleman is replying to a speech that he did not hear, and was not made. The point made from this Dispatch Box was simply that it would be a practical solution for an interim period to allow that 40 per cent. who play such a prominent part in the Committees and deliberations of the House of Lords to continue to do so, without voting, until the second stage has been agreed. That is the case that has been advanced, but it is not the one to which he is replying.
Mr. Maclennan:
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience, as I do, of this House, the debate is not entirely turning on his half-hour contribution at the beginning of it. A number of other interesting speeches have been made from the Conservative Benches, and it is to those in particular that I was addressing my remarks.
When the Conservative Government, under the inspiration of their then leader, Lady Thatcher, decided to wind up the government of London--a move that was a profound constitutional monstrosity--there was very little sign of independence among peers, and no more independence was manifested by hereditary peers than by appointed peers. Once a person becomes a Member of the upper House, regardless of whether that person has been appointed or is there by accident of inheritance, he or she is a free spirit, capable of exercising independence, and does not owe his or her position in that House to the continuing approval of the Whips or the Government. None the less, time and again, their lordships have demonstrated their willingness to step into line behind the lead of the Conservative party. That is a strong argument for rebutting and rejecting the amendments.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
Is the right hon. Gentleman being fair to the upper House in saying that it fails to demonstrate independence? Accepting amendment No. 1 would mean that the so-called backwoodsmen could not be trotted out either to support or to defeat individual measures. Does he recollect that, had it not been for a considerable turnout of backwoodsmen--regardless of whether it is right or wrong, although he will certainly have thought it right--the upper House would have defeated proposals for the community charge?
Mr. Maclennan:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a fair point; I would not quarrel with that. However, I do not think that it invalidates my general case that, time after time, when one might have hoped that some independence would be exercised, it was not.
There is a certain seductiveness in the argument that there should be a check in another place on the possibility of, for example, the Government deciding to extend the life of a Parliament beyond the five allotted years. I am attracted to that view. There is a case for strengthening the power of the upper House over constitutional measures and, indeed, constitutional conventions, whichI should like to have embodied in fundamental constitutional law. It would be very healthy if Governments were not able to overrule our international commitment to the European convention on human rights, and if the upper House were empowered to prevent them from doing so, but an appointed or hereditary upper House does not have the constitutional legitimacy to make that an acceptable route down which to march.
Although there is support on the Liberal Democrat Benches for seeking to protect fundamental constitutional provision, such as the determination that Parliament shall not extend its life beyond five years, I very much hope that the Government will look for other means of facilitating the further check on the Executive when they come to think about the reconstitution of the second Chamber beyond the period on which the Bill particularly focuses.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
I am grateful to be called to speak in these important proceedings. I am a Conservative, and I am proud to be a Conservative. One of the reasons why I am a Conservative is that I believe in conserving that which is good about our country, and I believe that we should change things only if they really need to be changed.
There have been differences of view on the Conservative Benches--only the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Battersea (Mr. Linton) have spoken from the Labour Benches--on what might replace the other place. However, this side of the Committee has been absolutely clear on one thing: this, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) rightly said, is a dog's breakfast of a Bill. If we were in charge, this measure would not appear, because we do not believe in the Government's proposals.
The Bill should correctly be entitled, "The House of Lords (Destruction of a Thousand Years of British History) Bill". I make no pretence; I believe in the hereditary principle. When we debate the proposed composition of the second Chamber, it might be appropriate to raise the question and role of the monarchy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) so eloquently suggested, their lordships have something to offer during the proposed interim. The reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed differing views on a new upper Chamber has been given before. Others have suggested that there should be a wholly elected upper Chamber. I do not believe that that would be right, because it would put that House into conflict with this one. It is precisely because there have been so many such differences that all previous attempts to change the arrangements have failed. That is why I believe that the Government's proposal is fundamentally flawed and why the measure betrays their arrogance. They have decided to bring the Bill before the Committee without suggesting anything in place of the House of Lords.
According to an opinion poll conducted by MORI last November, 68 per cent. of the people--pretty democratic, I would have thought--felt that the Government should not introduce the change without proposing an alternative. In that survey, 68 per cent. of respondents said:
Mr. Winnick:
I wanted to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his opening remarks. He came out with the blunt truth--that he believes the hereditary principle should be retained. Whereas those on the Opposition Front Bench and others of his colleagues are covering up their views in every conceivable way, the hon. Gentleman stated his point of view honestly and fairly. That is basically the point of view of the entire Conservative party, and it is unfortunate that those on the Front Bench did not have the honesty to say what they believe in, as the hon. Gentleman did.
Mr. Howarth:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that I am honest. I am not sure that, it is always advisable or profitable to be honest in politics, but I have the advantage of being on the Back Benches.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out that the Bill will unquestionably go through both Houses of Parliament. They must, therefore, deal with the position after the Bill becomes law. It is entirely fair for them to argue that we must live with the realpolitik and try to improve the Bill, in so far as it is capable of improvement. That is why I support the amendment.
The public made it clear through that opinion poll that they believe that the Government are misguided in their proposal not to suggest alternatives to the current arrangements before abolishing that which already exists.
It is important that we consider the merits of the amendment relating to the role that hereditary peers could play--a non-voting role, but a speaking role. The Committee must understand that the hereditaries play an extremely important part in the daily life of the upper House. Most of those who preside over the proceedings in the House of Lords when the Lord Chancellor is not there are hereditary peers. They do it on the relatively small amount of their daily allowance. They do not have the sort of salaries that even we in this place have.
We should not ignore the active part that hereditary peers play in the activities of the other place, compared with the less active part played by many of those who are appointees, whether appointed by the Conservative party or the Labour party. It is true that the other place has the advantage, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, of previous Members of this place--illustrious Members who have guided the destiny of the nation. It would be fair to say that, for some of them, life in the more relaxed atmosphere of the other place is less enchanting than the cut and thrust of formulating policy and driving it through in this place. Therefore, the part that they play in the other place is, so to speak, a retired part.
Other life peers are great captains of industry. I always marvel at the fact that, whenever hon. Members stand up in this place to speak on behalf of a commercial interest in which they have an interest, they are immediately dismissed.
"Leave things as they are for the moment until all the details of the reform have been decided."
6.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |