| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): When they turn up.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The Deputy Chief Whip, who has obviously been pregnant with speech for hours and is desperate to intervene, says that they receive the allowance if they turn up. The Senior Salaries Review Body would be quite at liberty to say that any award that it recommended depended not only on turning up and signing a register, but on proper participation. The hon. Gentleman, as Deputy Chief Whip, knows that one or two people in this place merely turn up. He also knows that he sometimes offers them inducements not to turn up. The Deputy Chief Whip, as Deputy Patronage Secretary, is in no position to lecture me or any of his colleagues on that subject.
The Senior Salaries Review Body would be able to adjudicate on all those issues and particulars. This is a modest new clause.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester):
I think that I have almost got to the bottom of this statistical problem. It is clear from the figures that hereditary peers contribute half the total activity. In the 1996-97 Session, 182 hereditary peers and 186 life peers attended more than half the sitting days. That is rather more than the 40 per cent. you were suggesting, and strengthens the point you were making about having to do something about the remainder.
The Second Deputy Chairman:
Order. I was not making any suggestions.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
No, Mr. Lord, indeed you were not, but I was and I am grateful for the added weight that my hon. Friend's sage intervention gives to the argument that I have been trying to advance.
The issue is simple: do we want the new Chamber--the existing Chamber deprived of the services of the hereditaries--to be an effective, functioning Chamber? If so, surely it is common sense to allow the body that we have already established to look at the rewards for public service to include in its remit the service rendered by those who will sit in the other place? I rest my case.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
I intended to intervene briefly. Indeed, I had not originally intended to
Listening to the debate on this issue yesterday and today, it struck me forcefully that many Labour Members have not focused their minds on this aspect. They seem to assume that, if we wave our magic wand, the second Chamber will be transformed and we will continue as before. Their contributions to the debate have reinforced my anxiety about stage 2, because they are quite incapable even of looking beyond stage 1. They continually repeat the mantra "get rid of hereditary peers" without any thought for the consequences, one of which will be financial.
Mr. Heald:
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something rather sinister in increasing the work load of each individual peer without providing an adequate research allowance for the detailed back-up that they will need to do their job property? That may be because this arrogant Government do not want people saying, "We don't agree with you, and these are the reasons why."
Mr. Grieve:
One has only to examine the contents of the White Paper, which contains hidden suggestions that the future role of the House of Lords may be purely consultative because it will have no teeth, to realise that the Government's agenda gives rise to serious concern. [Interruption.]
Mr. Tyrie:
The Minister is nodding his head in agreement.
Mr. Grieve:
I shall give way to the Minister, so he can explain himself.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping):
I was interested in the language of the debate, and the remark about hidden suggestions in the White Paper. They are either in the White Paper or they are hidden from the White Paper.
Mr. Grieve:
White Papers always make fascinating reading. I enjoy reading them, but we must look between the lines. The drift of the Government's message was entertaining. In the White Paper, the Government said that they would make no recommendations to the commission about what they wanted, but, if one read about what might come out of the commission or what issues might be addressed, one immediately began to discover the Government's agenda. It is not just this White Paper: every Government document published for consultation purposes contains the same nuances, which one can quickly pick up.
I was fascinated to see in the White Paper the suggestion that, in future, there should be no blocking mechanism, even for one Session, that would allow the second Chamber to block legislation from this House, and
that the other place should be merely a consultative Chamber. It is extraordinary that that suggestion was included and that it came from a Government who want to extend democracy and extend and improve scrutiny of legislation.
Mr. Letwin:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's assertion that there are no hidden suggestions in the White Paper is contradicted by the fact that, although the foreword says that the Government will move to long-term reform, paragraph 11 on page 29 tells us that they will do so only if there is consensus?
Mr. Grieve:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Doubt about whether stage 2 will ever happen is a subject that has exercised us greatly during the debate. That is why the new clause and the amendment are desirable. We need pretty quickly to focus our minds on the matter of what facilities the other place, even in the interim, will require to discharge its functions properly.
We complain that we have inadequate facilities in this House--we complain that our secretaries are 300 yd from where we work and there are often complaints about resources available to Members. Compared with the resources available to Members of the other place, we bask in the lap of luxury at the taxpayer's expense. Those facilities are necessary so that we can discharge our functions.
I take the point that Members of the other place, not having constituents, do not have the same remit or the same responsibilities that we have. Nevertheless, they require support services, which they do not receive at present because it is, in effect, an amateur second Chamber. People contribute their expertise on a voluntary basis. It is my view that, even when the hereditary peers go, there will be a profound change in the ethos of the upper House and in the way in which it operates. Whether for the better or for the worse, the prevailing ethos in the upper House is that which has been created by the generations of hereditary peers who have attended. I picked that up from talking to life peers, who reinforced my view.
Leaving aside the fact that it is only the hereditary peers who are going, the upper Chamber will change considerably. We shall have to decide whether the life peers who remain will require a better form of remuneration and support. That will be one of the essential building blocks, and we shall have to see how that works when we consider stage 2. The Government say that we cannot divorce stage 1 from stage 2 and that we must view them together, albeit that stage 1 must take place separately to clear away the logjam. The promise is, however, that stage 2 will follow.
I shall be reassured that stage 2 will really take place when, even at this stage, we start to consider some of the issues that will be involved in that stage and can also be legitimately considered now. One of those issues must be the way in which Members of the upper House are remunerated. For that reason alone, I consider the new clause entirely innocuous. It does not interfere with the Government's main programme of getting rid of hereditary peers; it is sensible, for the Senior Salaries Review Body should have an opportunity to consider the matter; and, as a result, we shall be far better informed.
I dare say that, when it reports in December, the Appointments Commission may wish to consider this among other issues. However, it will help the House of Commons to have the independent view of the review body, which will constitute compelling evidence. I am worried about what happens once we have dealt with the principles involved in stage 2. It is apparent again and again that the Government are not very interested in allowing the House, or any other forum, to consider these difficult issues.
I am committed to an effective second Chamber that works. As I have said before, I believe that we shall end up with an elected second Chamber. I approve of that, but I think that it will prove rather more costly than what we have now. The sooner we get round to considering that, the better; otherwise, we shall remain in the cloud cuckoo land in which we are currently living and in which we are told, "Get rid of the hereditaries, cut off their heads, and we can forget about everything else." We cannot.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) moved the motion very eloquently last night. I remember what he said, and I hope that others do as well. He was extremely lucid. Other Conservative Members have also made a strong case for the acceptance of this straightforward and simple proposal by all reasonable people. I am sure that only reasonable hon. Members are present now!
3.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |