| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tipping: I am aware of the problem; hon. Members on both sides of the House take an interest in the matter. Indeed, I have visited road hauliers in my constituency. There is an issue. Excise duties are high in this country, but certain concessions from which our road hauliers benefit are not available in other European countries.
Mr. Tipping: It may not be enough, but difficult judgments must be made. I imagine that there will be an opportunity, not for a statement and debate on this issue, but to raise it in debates on the Budget, which start on Tuesday.
Orders of the Day
House of Lords Bill
Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 March].
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question proposed [3 March], That the clause be read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord):
I remind the Committee that, with this, we are discussing amendment No. 12, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
To continue--Members of stage 1 of the upper House to play a full and active part in it. Underlying that matter is the effectiveness of the interim upper House, which, in turn, depends very much on its composition and the contribution that its Members will make.
So far, we have rather taken for granted the unique contribution of hereditary peers, which stems not only from their independence of mind and expertise, but from the fact that, crucially in the context of the new clause, they have made their contribution without being paid. That raises the crucial issue of whether the interim House, as the Government envisage it, can survive and be as effective without the hereditary element, and without the payment of its Members. Will life peers not only continue to make their variable contributions, but fill the gap left by the disappearance of hereditary peers, without us seriously considering pay and allowances--hence the new clause's importance?
I do not want to prejudge the matter. I have made my position very clear, for what that is worth. Ultimately--I hope sooner rather than later--I believe that we shall have a properly elected, accountable, small upper Chamber, which has equivalent powers to this place and whose Members are paid and supported appropriately by staff. It is much more difficult to envisage the operation of the interim House, composed as it will be mainly of life peers, with, perhaps, additional life peers appointed in some way about which we are not yet entirely clear, and to decide
whether we think that they will be prepared and able to make an effective contribution, so that the interim House is effective as an upper Chamber, if they are not paid.
We cannot proceed any further without providing a mechanism, as the new clause and the amendment do, to deal urgently with the matter; otherwise, we risk expecting an upper House of radically changed composition to play the role that it has up to now without any alteration in the support that we give to its Members.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are dealing with an historical hangover, because it was assumed that hereditary peers would have wealth, and that there is absolutely no reason for a similar assumption concerning life peers?
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I am sure that some of the hereditary peers that he and I know and love very greatly would say that the golden era in which they could be assumed to have wealth has, regrettably, long since gone. In fact, I would argue that, in some ways, the hereditary element is representative of society, because, regrettably, many hereditary peers are almost as impecunious as I am. Therefore, they could be said to represent a surprisingly large spectrum of society.
Mr. Forth:
Perhaps my hon. Friend is going to tell the Committee how impecunious he is.
Mr. Letwin:
I shall resist that temptation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem resides in the fact that many life peers are more impecunious than he is because they have no visible means of support?
Mr. Forth:
Yes. That takes us to the kernel of the matter. We cannot wait until stage 2, the final outcome, the culmination of the process, before we take a serious look at whether an interim upper House can be sustainable and credible if it is based on the acts of charity of its Members, on which we have relied for too long.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West):
As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to develop the argument that most hereditary peers are able to attend because they have some income. Given that only about 20 per cent. of hereditary peers attend, is there a relationship between the ones who attend and their wealth, compared with the ones who do not attend and their wealth? That would support his notion that attendance is related to one's other financial means.
Mr. Forth:
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady's figures are correct, but I will not fall out with her over that. I do not think that such on analysis has been made. I accept the relevance of her question. However, I believe that I am approaching the issue from a different direction.
We cannot assume that hereditary peers are all wealthy in their own right; that era is long gone. We cannot assume that hereditary peers make no contribution to the upper House, because they make a distinct and valuable
contribution. We cannot assume that life peers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution either, because it is a sad fact that very many life peers make little or no contribution to the upper House.
This is where I differ from Labour Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) does not fall into this category, but some of her hon. Friends make the mistake of assuming that "hereditary" means useless and bad and that "life" means valuable and good, and that therefore we shall have a splendid upper House if we do away with the hereditaries.
I challenge all those assumptions. Given the changes that will now take place--because the Government are willing them upon us--and given that, willy-nilly, the interim Chamber will consist overwhelmingly of life peers, we must seriously consider whether unpaid life peers will be able to sustain a credible upper House that will make a valuable contribution to the legislative process of holding the Government to account. That is the important question at issue as we debate the new clause.
As ever, my hon. Friends have done Parliament a valuable service in bringing this matter to our attention and giving us the opportunity to set up a mechanism to conduct a review of salaries to run in parallel with the work of the royal commission. At least that provides the opportunity to have properly remunerated Members of the upper House.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks):
My right hon. Friend referred to the Members of the interim House being properly remunerated. That is the exact terminology that the Government use. In chapter 8 of their White Paper "Modernising Parliament--Reforming the House of Lords", they refer to the "proper salaries" and research costs that a fully elected House would command, and indeed deserve. Why should something that is proper for an elected House be improper for an interim House?
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I said a moment ago--I may be coloured by my own prejudice--that in my view we should have, as quickly as possible, an elected, accountable Chamber, but a very small one. I have suggested that it should have 87 Members. I have said that because there are 87 European parliamentary constituencies, so we would have a ready-made electoral map for that small upper Chamber. In those circumstances, because of the nature of that Chamber, I should have thought that the Members could expect a rather substantial salary to reflect the role that they would play. The same analysis cannot apply to the interim House, which would still have several hundred Members.
'(1) The Secretary of State shall ask the Senior Salaries Review Board:
(a) to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords; and
(b) to detail the costs of their recommendations.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the final report of the Senior Salaries Review Board before each House of Parliament.'.--[Mr. Evans.]
2.23 pm
'the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords and'.2.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |