| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): I shall be brief. I find the debate a little odd. I shall not be drawn into the analogy of cars, because everyone knows that all the best family saloons are made in my constituency by Vauxhall. I have no aspirations to go to the other place, so I shall not be drawn down that road.
The Opposition frequently preach to us about their supposed business skills, yet the new clause negates all the principles that would usually be used to examine a business case for determining the pay and conditions of a group of workers. The Opposition keep telling us that we do not yet know what those people will do, how long they will do it and how many of them there will be, so the Senior Salaries Review Body would be faced with an impossible task if we followed the logic of the Opposition case. On that simple basis, I hope that the Committee will resist the motion.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. We know that some time during this Parliament--if the Government have their way, at the end of this parliamentary Session--the House of Lords will lose a large percentage of its active membership. We also know that the House of Lords will continue to have to perform the functions that it currently performs. In other words, it will have to scrutinise legislation, and its Select Committees will have to examine deregulation, European Communities legislation and all the other things that they do at present.
We know that, in fulfilling those functions, the House of Lords will be deprived of the services of a great many Members who regularly attend, man those Committees and carry out that scrutiny. We know that there is no proposal in the Bill to change the functions of the House of Lords.
I find the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) an endearing Member, but what he said was arrant nonsense. He had the chance to try to push things on yesterday, but he did not take that chance by voting for the appropriate amendment. We know that the Government have no idea how long the House of Lords will continue to sit in its present form, but deprived of the membership of some of its most active Members. It might be for one year or two years. Even on the Government's admissions from the Dispatch Box, through the mouths of several Ministers in this debate, we know that we are speaking of a new form of second Chamber coming into existence after the next general election, at the earliest.
For a minimum of two years, but very likely for far longer than that--even if the Government win the election--
Sir Patrick Cormack:
--even if the Government win the election with a commanding majority--
Sir Patrick Cormack:
--both of which propositions I find highly improbable, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would agree. Even if that happened, we are probably talking, on the Government's own admissions at the
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea):
Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he has no interest to declare, as what he describes is, effectively, a new deal for hereditary peers? We have often been told how many of these hereditary peers live in Conservative Members' constituencies. I dare say that many of the backwoodsmen live, literally, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). How many live in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency of South Staffordshire?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
None. Not only is that irrelevant, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to listen to and understand what we have been saying.
We accept that the Government will get their way on the matter of the hereditary peers. That is not in dispute. We have accepted that time and again, although we do not necessarily think that the Government were right to make that a priority of their legislative programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said only yesterday that we accept that the Government were elected with a large majority and that that was part of their manifesto, although I doubt whether many of those who voted for new Labour did so for that reason. Nevertheless, the Government are entitled to claim a mandate. That is not at issue. At the end of this Session, the Bill is likely to become an Act of Parliament and, as a result, there will be no hereditary peers.
Not only is no Weatherill amendment incorporated in the Bill, but, when the House was offered the opportunity to vote for a similar amendment a couple of weeks ago, it rejected it. Therefore, we are talking of a House that will have a much smaller number of active peers than it has at the moment.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
The hon. Gentleman would make a passionate shop steward, but my experience over many years of trade unionism is that a group of people who want a pay rise put in for it first, before any other representation is made. I am not sure whether any such claim has been or is to be made. What purpose would there be in setting up any such review until we know the future make-up of the second Chamber? For example, if it is made up of largely indirectly elected Members from the regions--it may well be, but it may not be--how shall we to know what salaries such people are already receiving? It makes no sense at this stage to look at their salaries.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I almost despair. We know the composition of the House of Lords for the foreseeable future. We also know what its work load will be. That is not in dispute between the two Front Benches or between anyone who has examined the matter. We know that there will be a House of Lords which, for the foreseeable future, will consist of those who are presently life peers, those who are presently there by virtue of the fact that they are among the 26 bishops of the established Church,
Mr. Heald:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
In a minute. I am trying to conduct a teach-in on the new House of Lords. Let my hon. Friend contain his patience for half a second.
The House of Lords will consist of those three elements--the life peers, the bishops and the Law Lords. We also know that there may not be any of the 91 hereditary peers, because that is not in the Bill, and the attempt to put them there has been emphatically rejected by the House. We also know that, with the increase in business emanating from Europe, the work load will increase. Therefore, we know that a significant burden will be placed on the shoulders of a relatively few life peers. It is important to recognise that.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was wrong when she intervened, because 40 per cent. of those who currently attend the House of Lords are hereditary peers, and 10 of those who are members of the 20-strong Committee--the most important Committee of all--examining European legislation, are hereditary Peers. They will go. According to the Bill, they will not be represented by any of their number.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Let me make a final point and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)--chivalry demands that--and then to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
We have the work load, but we will not have the hereditary peers. All we are saying in this modest new clause is that the functions and composition of the House of Lords should be referred to the Senior Salaries Review Body so that it can assess whether it is desirable, sensible, prudent--whatever one likes to call it--that those sustaining the work load for that indefinite period should be adequately recompensed for so doing.
Mr. Heald:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be wrong to abolish duty-free goods until a permanent successor regime was put in place? Yet he is prepared to go ahead without any permanent successor regime for the House of Lords. Is that not one of the difficulties that we face? Therefore, would it not be right for the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at not just the temporary arrangement, but a range of options for the future?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The real difficulty that we face, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we have a Prime Minister who has perfected the art of dining a la carte, and who, therefore, picks and chooses what he wants, and who has no consistency, theme, rhythm or purpose behind his constitutional endeavours. The Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get up and talk about duty-free goods
Dr. Starkey:
I simply wanted to correct a mathematical point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. When I intervened, I said that only 20 per cent. of hereditary peers turn up and vote. That is entirely consistent with his alternative mathematical expression. That 20 per cent. may constitute 40 per cent. of the active peers. I simply wanted to make it clear that my point was correct and not altered by the hon. Gentleman's point.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |