| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Angela Smith: The crux of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that hereditary peers do a better, more effective job in the House of Lords. How does he square that with his earlier statement that he supports the amendment?
Mr. Howarth: I support the amendment because it will ensure that the hereditary peers will be there. I have tried to make my position clear. Lest the hon. Lady is in any doubt, let me repeat it: I oppose the measure, but I will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends because it at least ensures an element of continuity. It will also ensure that, in the other place, there will be those who have something to contribute, and who can spare the time that it is necessary to devote to the other place.
In his persuasive opening address to the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire offered some examples of the way in which hereditary peers make their contribution in the other place. He mentioned the work of its Select Committees, which are taken extremely seriously outside this place. Indeed, I venture to suggest that, in general, the other place is taken more seriously than this place. It is interesting that when one listens to "Today in Parliament" on what I used to call the Home Service--I am a Conservative--
Mr. Mackinlay:
On a crystal set?
Hon. Members:
On the wireless.
Mr. Howarth:
Indeed, on the wireless. One listens to some of the most articulate speakers and wonders, "Who was that? Which Prime Minister appointed him or her?" Then one hears that that was not an appointee, but a young hereditary peer. That is the one thing that the hereditaries have, which the life peers do not: there are a number of young hereditary peers who, I suggest, make an important contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire mentioned Lord Freyberg. I have met him, and I believe that my hon. Friend is absolutely right--Lord Freyberg has made an important contribution, and war widows have him
to thank for the interest that he took and the ability that he discharged to ensure that the relevant measure was brought to fruition by the previous Conservative Government.
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
Oh, Andrew!
Mr. Mackinlay:
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench might not like it, but I remind them that this is the Committee stage, and we Back Benchers will make our contributions, whether they like it or not.
The hon. Gentleman was referring to the benefits attached to the hereditary peerage, and folk coming in at 22 years of age and making a valuable contribution. During the Maastricht debate, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, and I do not believe that he said it disrespectfully, that the problem was down there in the House of Lords--if the lights were switched off, half of them would die.
That is a difficult and unpalatable truth to accept, but the fact is that, under both hereditary and life peerages, peers go on and on and on. Some peers who were appointed or who received their peerage through the hereditary principle were capable and had all their faculties, but there is no end to their period of service. It is not fair to them, it is an abuse of Parliament, and it needs to be stated, painful though it is, that some of the peers should not now be in Parliament.
Under the democratic principle, of course, it is for the electorate to decide. There is no way of bringing an end to parliamentary service in the other place.
Mr. Mackinlay:
That is inappropriate and it is not fair to those Members--
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. It is not fair that the hon. Gentleman should go on for so long during an intervention.
Mr. Howarth:
It is entirely fair that the hon. Gentleman should have his say and not be gagged by those on the Government Front Bench. It is significant that only two Labour Members have spoken on the Government's flagship measure and that only a few Labour Members have intervened. That says much about the Government's belief in democracy and the democratic process. I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I thought that he had an important point to make.
Some of the elderly Members in their lordships' House make some rather interesting contributions, even if they are ones with which I disagree. Lord Longford comes to mind. He is a great character and he should not be prevented from contributing to our national life, even though I do not agree with everything that he says.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. We are dealing with amendments that, by their very nature, are confined. We must confine ourselves to hereditary peers.
Mr. Howarth:
As far as I am aware, Mr. Martin, Lord Longford is an hereditary peer.
The First Deputy Chairman:
If the hon. Gentleman has not caught on to what I am saying, I am pointing out that other parts of his speech did not relate to the amendment.
Mr. Howarth:
I give way to the hon. Member for Battersea.
Mr. Linton:
I intervene in a genuine spirit of inquiry. We understand why the hon. Gentleman believes that life peers may have qualifications, whether we think that they are good ones or bad ones. However, does the hon. Gentleman believe that hereditary peers have a valuable role to play because any group of 759 people is bound to throw up a proportion with ability, or does he believe that there is something inherent in the hereditary peerage which entitles such people to sit in the other place? In one instance, there is the great-great-great-great grandson of an 18th century turkey merchant. Does that entitle such people to sit in our legislature or give them special abilities?
Mr. Howarth:
The hon. Gentleman has had much fun during these proceedings making jokes about the origins of some of those who sit in the House of Lords. However, this is a serious matter. We should support the amendment because the hereditaries bring something special. I shall illustrate that with one example. The other day--perhaps I should not mention his name because I did not say that I would be referring to him--I was speaking to an hereditary peer. He told me that he had spent 40 years of his life earning a living and trying to keep his hereditary estate going. He had always said that on reaching the age of 60 or 65, he would devote his time to taking his constitutional place in the upper House.
The hon. Member for Battersea should not belittle the attitude of mind that is displayed by some of those who take extremely seriously their responsibilities as hereditary peers in the governance and affairs of our country. There is something to be gained in having people who, from the first days of their life, have been brought up with the concept that, at some time, they will have to make a contribution to public life. That is precisely what the sovereign does in bringing up his or her children and that is what hereditary peers do when they bring up their children.
I advance the case for the continuation of hereditary peers to sit and speak in the other place because I believe that they have something to offer. Labour Members have offered nothing to put in their place. They have not tabled any amendments to the Bill. They have suggested that, if the other place behaves well--
Mr. Mackinlay:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong, is he not?
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. We need worry only about the amendment that is before us. The hon.
Mr. Howarth:
I am trying to support the amendment, which is to the effect that the hereditaries should continue to sit and have the right to speak in the other place. I have been advancing that cause, and explaining why they bring something unique to the quality of our national life and to debates in the other House. I believe that the amendment is absolutely right and proper.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is absolutely clear that many hereditary peers have shown, by their many years of service in the other place, a belief in the tradition of public service, which used to be described as noblesse oblige? That is something that is valuable in our public life and many citizens have come to be grateful for it. Many causes dear to Labour Members have been taken up initially by Members of the other place.
Mr. Howarth:
Indeed. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was attempting to demonstrate that those in the other place approach the assumption of their titles in a way that is hard for us as ordinary citizens to understand.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
I ask my hon. Friend to place on record the appreciation that is felt by many Members of this place of Baroness Wharton. There are Labour Members who are staunch supporters of the all-party animal welfare group. They know that as deputy chairman of that group, Baroness Wharton--Ziki Wharton--has put in an enormous amount of work although she is a working lady who has to earn her own living. I ask my hon. Friend to ask Labour Members why they propose to bar somebody like that from taking a seat in the other place and making a contribution that in other walks of life they would support.
6.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |