| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wells: As you will expect, Mr. Martin, I am anxious to stay in order so that you will not have to make a ruling. I want to ensure that you agree that we are discussing an amendment that will permit hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords until such time as the temporary Chamber is abolished and a new Chamber is introduced. I trust that discussion of the way in which the Chamber will work will be in order, as will discussion of why it is necessary for hereditary peers to remain there to participate in debates. Those are important issues.
I risk inclusion in the distribution of Hansard in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and being caricatured in the way of which only the right hon. Gentleman is capable. That is indeed a serious disincentive. I shall, however, talk about the way in which the House of Lords operates at present. Hon. Members have made speeches illustrating the fact that hereditary peers bring much quality and experience to their task, not least because many come from old families with a long tradition of public service.
Mr. Wells:
I must ask my hon. Friend about the difference between noblesse oblige and droit de seigneur: I understand that there is a difference. In any event, hereditary peers have given long service to the House of Lords, as have their parents before them, and that service is still important. I suggest that their background is irrelevant. It does not matter whether they are descended from the lady who serviced Charles II in St. James's park, or come from whatever other background the Labour party would like to sling at them; and it does not matter
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
7.15 pm
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am listening carefully to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he aware that the bulk of the work in the other place is done almost exclusively by those who accept no party Whip, that most are created peers, and that the Cross-Bench group is represented in 90 per cent. of votes as being always present and always ready to discuss matters of state?
Mr. Wells: There is a great deal in what the hon. Lady says. I believe that the Cross Benchers form the largest single group in the House of Lords--they cannot be called a party--and add enormously to what goes on there. They include life peers, but also many hereditary peers--200, I believe--who participate in the elements of House of Lords activity that the hon. Lady admires. I want to talk about the life peers' contribution as well, but I know that you, will call me to order Mr. Martin, if I start talking about life peers. At present, I must concentrate on the 200 hereditary peers on the Cross Benches.
Together with their life peer friends, those hereditary peers make a major contribution--in Select Committees and on the Floor of the House--to the objectivity and, indeed, the quality of debates for which the House of Lords is much respected, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out. I pay tribute to the selfless work of many peers.
The amendment seeks to preserve that in the interim House. We want to continue the traditions that have been established; we want the House of Lords to retain its credibility, and to continue its good work in checking what is done in the House of Commons and asking it to consider again when necessary. I especially appreciate the work of the House of Lords on European affairs.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter not of academic purity--as Labour Members have suggested--but of pure common sense that, in an interim House, it would benefit the Government as a whole to retain the maximum experience?
Mr. Wells:
Indeed. That is why I support the amendment. We are talking about quality, respect and credibility, and about the ability of the House of Lords to constitute a second Chamber of some merit. If the temporary Chamber is not of some merit, it will fall into disrepute, will soon be thought useless, and will therefore disappear. The last temporary arrangements for the House of Lords have lasted for 88 years: until today. There must be a danger that the temporary Chamber will become permanent, and that is one of many reasons for the amendment. The Government want a House of Lords that will be credible, will be able to handle the business and will be a check on the House of Commons, and that is why even they are beginning to support it.
The Government do not truly want a House of Lords that is elected and permanent, because of the timetable. Hon. Members know as well as I do that a royal commission that is given only nine months will do a very superficial job. If it has done a superficial job, how long will it take for a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider a badly drafted and ill-considered report--as this report is almost certain to be, after only nine months?
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendments. I know that he is always keen to keep within the scope of the amendments. I rise to try to assist him.
Mr. Wells:
I was hoping that, during my remarks, you would not feel impelled, Mr. Martin, to rebuke me for not keeping the debate closely related to the amendment. If I may demonstrate, it is important to consider what the temporary Chamber with the hereditary peers in it is likely to be like and how long it is likely to last.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry about the temporary Chamber. He needs to worry only about the amendment before us, which gives certain rights to hereditary peers. Other amendments may cover the points that he is trying to make. Obviously, when they come before us, he will be able to catch my eye.
Mr. Wells:
If I am not mistaken, the amendment talks about including Members of the House of Lords without the capacity to vote, but with the capacity to speak in the Chamber that the Bill sets up. Therefore, we need to talk about the totality of its make-up and whether it will work as a temporary Chamber, for however long "temporary" may be. It has been undefined in the Bill. It remains undefined by the Government. Therefore, we have to consider seriously how long the temporary Chamber with the hereditary peers--which is what I support: the hereditary element in that temporary Chamber--will last and the quality of that Chamber as a result of the hereditary peers being able to speak.
I strongly support the amendment, as I strongly support the next amendment--I will make other points on that, which I hope you, will find to be in order Mr. Martin--because I believe strongly that we need hereditary peers in the Chamber for the time being. The reason for that is that those are the people who give credibility to the House of Lords and provide quality in its work. I have paid great tribute to many of those who work in that way. I want to see them in the interim Chamber.
If the amendment fails, and I assume that we will be in order if we consider what will happen if the amendment fails, we shall have a House without hereditary peers being able to sit and to speak in the House of Lords. Therefore, we will have a Chamber--as the Bill proposes, before it is amended--simply with life peers. Life peers are appointed by Crown privilege--by the prerogative of the Prime Minister. They often have party allegiances, although some have gone to the Cross Benches, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said. However, would they be bound by the Salisbury convention?
As I understand it, the convention says that, when legislation reaches the House of Lords from the House of Commons, it must be passed to let the Government have their way. We may have a House of Lords without the hereditary peers being there to speak. Hereditary peers would probably honour the Salisbury convention, but life peers will not do so.
The Government have said that they will appoint at least 55 additional life peers. That will give the Labour party a quality of representation: there will be a balance between Conservative life peers and life peers who have adherence to the Labour party.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Perhaps I can again assist the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about the structure of the other place. We are considering voting and speaking rights for hereditary peers, so he should stick to the narrow confines of the amendment that is before us.
Mr. Wells:
I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Martin, that the Salisbury convention was so named because it was proposed and advocated by a hereditary peer.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Perhaps there is another occasion when the hon. Gentleman can talk about the Salisbury convention, but he should not do so in the debate on the amendments that are before us. They are too narrow for that.
Mr. Wells:
Let me bring myself directly to order. We want hereditary Members of the House of Lords to remain to speak--not to vote, but to speak; that is what the amendment is about. It is that body of peers, the hereditary peers, that will respect the Salisbury convention. I will leave the matter by making the following point if you do not wish me to go on and develop that point still further, Mr. Martin; I understand your need to keep the debate under strict control and I respect that fully: it is the hereditary peers who will respect the Salisbury convention. That is why we need them. Life peers are not likely to do so. I will leave that point to other debates.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |