| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): The number 87, which my right hon. Friend has conjured up, strikes me as a useful number. He will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans),
who opened the debate yesterday, speak of the conditions in which the present Members were accommodated--seven to a room. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a number as 87 would fit very conveniently into that temple to the part-time Parliament which is being erected across the road from this place?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into speculating where my upper House of 87 Members would be accommodated. I can tell from the look on your face, Mr. Lord, that if I were to start to reply to him in even the briefest terms you would not allow me to do so, so I shall not, tempted as I am.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not tempt me further to explore the shape, size and accommodation of my preferred upper Chamber, although I hope that the day will come when I may explore those options fully.
Mr. Heald: I certainly would not trespass on that dangerous ground.
In reviewing the salaries and allowances, should not the Senior Salaries Review Body carefully consider what the functions of the upper House are and might be? In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend feel that a wide-ranging review by the SSRB is needed, focusing on the allowance available for research and secretarial assistance? I suggest that, if Members of the upper House are to have enhanced functions, they will need considerably more back-up than they have had.
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend asks a vital question. Interestingly, it runs in parallel with the question that we, the House, shall have to consider concerning the pay and allowances paid to Members of the Scottish Parliament when that Parliament comes into being. After all, their function and role will have altered, will it not?
We must confront the same question in relation to developments elsewhere in our constitutional arrangements. When we have a Scottish Parliament, with MSPs--as I believe that they will be called--fulfilling their functions, the relationship between such functions and pay will need to be explored.
Mr. Letwin:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem to which he has so forcefully drawn the Committee's attention is greater than he has been describing if, as a result of yesterday's debates and the lamentable lack of any concession by the Government to our amendments, the interim Chamber lasts a very long time indeed?
Mr. Forth:
I hope that that reinforces my argument. In the context of our amendments, if the Government had told us that they could guarantee that the interim arrangements would last only two or three years, we might then have conceded that it would not be necessary or proper to consider pay and so on. However, my hon. Friend must be right in saying that, given that we have no such guarantee, and that we cannot be certain how long the interim arrangement will last, we must have a mechanism to consider the issue of functions as related to pay.
All this argument now comes together in the new clause that my hon. Friends have offered to the House. I hope that we shall receive a very positive response from the Minister about it because I fear that, if we do not, we shall be left even more uncertain, confused and unhappy than we were when we considered the matter yesterday.
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk):
There are considerable dangers in the use of simile or metaphor, but my views on the new clause are best communicated by some form of simile.
Our current position is like that of a family with two cars, one of which has long been neglected, has been due for replacement for several decades, has not been maintained and is, in the family's general opinion, clapped-out or in a bad state of repair. Some members of the family argue that it is a vintage car, which should be protected, but the majority view is that it should be scrapped, and that that decision should be taken before the family argue about what should replace it. Some of the family may argue that the second car may not be appropriate to the modern age, and others may argue about the model of car that should be chosen.
New clause 9 is rather like asking the family, once they have decided to scrap the car, to have a discussion about whether--at such a late stage, the day before it is scrapped--it should be taken in for an assessment and overhaul, and perhaps a respray. I believe that most family members would accept that the new car would have to be appropriately maintained and that it should probably be a new model. There may even be an argument about what type of car it should be.
Whether or not we accept the need to discuss those issues, the relevant decision should be taken once we know what the new model of car is and, indeed, whether the family are intending to have a new car; after all, some of the family may have argued that, in the modern age, they should not buy one.
That simile illustrates our current position. Sensibly, Conservative Members are asking that we ensure that the new model of car is appropriate to its new function. Perhaps we should be arguing about why we need the second car, what it should do, how big it should be and when it should be used. When we have determined that, we can discuss the maintenance schedule, how much we invest in it and what colour the seats should be. All those questions are appropriate at the right time, but now, at the death-bed of the House of Lords as we have known it, is not the time to discuss how we should improve it and maintain it, or to determine--
Mr. Forth:
To follow the hon. Gentleman's rather ghastly analogy, what we are discussing is whether we should put any petrol in the car.
Dr. Turner:
I accept that on the way to the scrap yard is not the time to fill the tank with petrol.
Of course there is a serious point. When we debate a new form for the other place, we should make sure that it is appropriately equipped to do the job. We need to know whether its Members will be part-time or full-time, whether they will be seconded from industry for fixed periods to do a technical job, or whether they will be elected and will serve full-time, doing a different kind of job.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that--using his analogy of scrapping the current model--what is being created by the Bill is an entirely new model? The interim House may not be a temporary measure; it may be a long-term measure. Therefore it makes perfect sense to consider terms and conditions and pay as part of the new package that the Government will introduce as a result of the Bill.
Dr. Turner:
I admitted at the outset that there were limitations to the use of simile and metaphor, but it has some merits. I accept that the Opposition fear that what is seen as a temporary situation may be longer lasting. However, the new clause looks as though it is designed for the long term. By the time the work load of the interim House has been properly examined and reported, and the recommendations implemented, many of my hon. Friends and I will want an entirely new House of Lords brought into existence by legislation.
If the new clause is not mischievous, it is badly timed. We should indeed debate those topics, but at a later date.
Mr. Swayne:
It could, perhaps, be argued that there is some measure of profligacy on the Opposition's part. The taxpayer has undoubtedly been enjoying a bargain. If one measures productivity in terms of 2,000 amendments accepted per year, the rate currently paid out for the job is remarkably small. There is a strong argument that the taxpayer should continue to enjoy such a bargain, but that takes no account of the fact that the situation will have changed radically as a consequence of the Bill.
That is where I depart from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He is wrong in his simile about the car being scrapped. We are speaking of a different vehicle. The reduction in the hereditaries will remove a significant number of the working peers. That work load will devolve on to the remaining peers.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley):
Has the hon. Gentleman's party been asked to act as the trade union for the life peers? Have the life peers asked you to propose terms and conditions for them in the interim period?
Mr. Swayne:
I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, have been asked any such question, but I certainly have not.
The issue is the work load that will devolve on to the working peers. Unless support is provided for them, the work simply will not be done. There will be an insufficient number of peers to attend to it.
Only last night the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department refused to give any indication of the period that the Government had in mind for the duration of the transitional arrangements. That makes it clear that it is entirely proper to consider the issues arising from the proposed changes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |