| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): It is difficult to take entirely seriously some of the voices coming from the Opposition Benches, which accuse the Government of contempt and arrogance. It is difficult to understand how the Government could have proceeded in a more conciliatory and bipartisan way. They have relinquished patronage powers to the Appointments Commission; they have said that they will entertain a Cross-Bench proposal to retain a large number of hereditary peers chosen for the transitional duration; and they have established a royal commission chaired by a peer belonging to the Opposition. For a Government who have done all that to be accused of arrogance and contempt is extraordinary.
Mr. Tyrie: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was ever part of the Labour Government's original plan to have a royal commission? Is there anything conciliatory about deciding to go ahead with such a fundamental reform with no prior all-party consultation, as has always taken place in the past when fundamental reform of the Lords has been considered?
Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman gets into territory that he would be well advised not to get into. When the facts of the case are eventually written, he will see that, had the Government been able to secure agreement from the Opposition, they were minded to proceed on a consensual basis. As is well known, there were conversations afoot in the other place designed to bring that about. Unfortunately--I am afraid that the problem lay more in the Commons than with the Opposition in the end--it proved impossible to do that. We could have been considering a joint proposal on an agreed basis, but the Opposition decided to proceed differently, and that is a source of great regret.
If anything is true of this measure, after all this time and all its history, it is that we should have been able to bring about reform of the second Chamber on a reasonably agreed basis. We can argue about all sorts of things, and many complex details can be considered but, in view of everything that we know about the failure of past reforms, to be unable to proceed in a sensible, bipartisan way in the last year of this century is a most extraordinary position to be in. It is a source of great regret that those discussions did not bear fruit.
Had the Government taken what someone earlier called the "big bang approach" and said, "This is what we have decided to do: sweep away the hereditaries and install a
new second Chamber," the charges of contempt and arrogance would have had some substance. However, given that they are proceeding in an immensely bipartisan way--to many of my colleagues it is over-generous--it is extraordinary to be confronted with those charges.
Mr. Gale:
If the hon. Gentleman consults the Official Report--he is not using notes--he will discover that a few moments ago he said that the Government had generously agreed to accept a Cross-Bench amendment. That amendment is precisely what we are discussing now. Will the hon. Gentleman vote for it tonight or will he do as his Whips want and vote against it? If so, he will be as two-faced as the rest of his colleagues. Labour Members will then wait for the amendment to come back to this House and vote for it. This is the amendment which he says the Government have graciously accepted.
Dr. Wright:
Having paid close attention to the conversations that have taken place over the past few months, I concluded that the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons had disqualified themselves from making any constructive contribution to the debate, and that, if we were to secure a constructive contribution--albeit at a late stage--from Cross-Bench peers, we ought to consider that very carefully. That is what the Government have said they will do.
Mr. Tyrie:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright:
I should like to make some progress, but I will give way once more.
Mr. Tyrie:
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that all-party consultation should not involve deals made below stairs or in smoke-filled rooms? At the beginning of a Parliament, the Government should announce that they want to act on the basis of all-party consultation. They should announce a public debate, a public inquiry and a royal commission--if they want one--that will also be public. That is what has always happened in the past. It happened in 1918, in 1948 and in 1968. Why did the Government not do the same on this occasion?
Dr. Wright:
The hon. Gentleman is most ill-advised to keep reminding us of the history. Less than two years ago, his party fought a general election defending the rights of hereditary peers and opposing reform of the second Chamber. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), alluding quite properly to the issue of party funding, failed to mention that, when in government, his party refused to refer the whole issue of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. There is a history to all this, and I am afraid that, when it comes to be written, the Conservative party in the House of Commons will not come out of it very well.
We know that there is to be a transitional period. Whichever way we play it, the transitional House of Lords is a complex beast. I once spent a long time talking to Marxists, who used to talk constantly about the "problems of the transition"; but the "problems of the transition" are nothing in comparison with the problems of moving from the existing House of Lords to a future House. It is likely
to be a protracted and messy business. Even when we have removed the hereditary peers, we shall have about 500 life peers.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
We are now talking about adding nearly 100 more hereditary peers, to be elected by their own peers. We are talking about a Chamber consisting of 600 Members in the transitional period. Anyone looking at a mature, fully formed new House of Lords will know that it will contain only about 300 Members. We shall therefore experience considerable problems in moving from an interim reformed House to a fully fledged new House.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright:
I will give way once more.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Does the hon. Gentleman--who is a constitutional expert--agree with a Weatherill-type amendment to allow a certain number of hereditary peers to continue to serve in the transitional Parliament? Yes or no?
Dr. Wright:
I shall be minded to support such an amendment when it comes here from the other place.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright:
There is no need to become too agitated. I shall make a few more points, and then sit down.
The Government have said that they are minded to accept such an amendment if it comes from the other place. They do not have to do that, and many of my hon. Friends would prefer that they did not. They would like a clean sweep: they would like the job to be done in one go. I think that this is an act of extraordinary generosity--
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I am extremely grateful.
Is this a good idea, or is it not? If it is a good idea, why does the hon. Gentleman not support it now? If it is a bad idea, why does he not remain resolutely opposed to it, whatever its source? Can he not give a coherent answer to a simple question?
Dr. Wright:
I have already explained--I am sorry if I must embarrass the hon. Gentleman by explaining again--why I think that the Conservative Opposition have disqualified themselves from making a constructive contribution to the argument. History will testify to that.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the Government's clear strategies is to ensure that we prevent 668 people, nearly all of whom never attend the House of Lords, from being able to legislate for the rest of the country? If, as a result of the Government's moves, we achieve that in quick time--within a year--that is an important part of the process that we are undergoing.
Dr. Wright:
I agree. As the Opposition provoke me a little, I say that we have to remind ourselves that we are still dealing with an outrage. We are dealing not with an anachronism, or a bit of tidying up in which we have to engage, but a constitutional and democratic outrage.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |