| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heald: The right hon. Lady makes my point. How ludicrous that on duty free--an issue of much less importance--the Government say that there has to be a permanent successor regime before the existing one is replaced, but, on the future of Parliament, which is critical to parliamentary democracy and the life of this country, they do not. They just take a pig in a poke and kick the issue into the long grass, waiting to see what the royal commission says. That laughable proposition has put us in this difficulty. I do not know what the royal commission is going to come up with, because I am not on it and it has not yet started its deliberations.
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Yes, it has; it has had one meeting.
Mr. Heald: I am glad that progress is being made. The only way to speed matters up--which is important--is for the Senior Salaries Review Body, which will have to consider the issue at some stage, to start now rather than waiting for four years, or however long it takes to get the royal commission report. Let us start the work now so that we can make some progress. People in this place should not have to work on the basis that it is a privilege to be here; neither should those at the other end of the Corridor. That is the effect of not giving a proper allowance for decent research facilities in the other place.
The new clause is well conceived. After a good debate in which many important points have been made, I hope that the Government will not come back with the contentious attitude that we have just heard from the Leader of the House.
Mr. Tipping:
Some serious points have been made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who introduced it last night. I understand why he is not here this afternoon. He returned to an issue that was discussed on Second Reading--the value of the hereditary and life peers in the other place. Several hon. Members have challenged me and my hon. Friends to support that argument. I have no hesitation in doing so. My colleagues at the other end of the building do a good job. They work hard and we should respect and value what they have achieved over many centuries. However, that does not justify the existing system. There is an acceptance across the House that the system has to change.
We get good value from the Lords. It is important to set the record straight. Life peers and hereditary peers work hard. I should like to give some figures. Some 40 per cent. of life peers attend two thirds of the sessions and 34 per cent. of them attend less than one third. Of the hereditary peers, only 20 per cent. attend two thirds of the sessions and 67 per cent. attend less than one third of the time. I am not criticising anybody. Those are the facts. There are 200 hereditary peers who have never attended.
Mr. Grieve:
I find it difficult to do the calculations immediately, but I am sure that the Minister can clarify whether those statistics show that the preponderance of day-to-day participation in numerical terms is by hereditary peers. We have tried to address the serious point that a substantial voluntary contribution from hereditary peers has provided the dominating ethos of attendance in the other place.
Mr. Tipping:
That may be the case. I shall do the sums. However, if the House and the other place pass the Bill, we shall still have a second Chamber with more than 500 Members. That is large in international terms. Those who have spoken in the debate have argued that 500 is not enough to do the important business at the other end of the building. I do not agree. The average daily attendance in the other place is around 400. I have tried to find Divisions involving more than 300 Members in the other place, and that happens most infrequently. The real work load and delivery of the vote are carried by fewer than 300 people.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that all the peers have a bad time and are not well regarded or well treated. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred last night to peers' poor accommodation. I have some sympathy with that view, and I believe that accommodation in this House could also be better. We need to work on that, but these are matters for the relevant House authorities--they are not within my gift, or that of the Government.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked last night about the rates of pay--in real terms, the expenses that peers receive. He quoted the figures. I will not argue with
the thrust of what he said, but he quoted the last set of figures, rather than the current set. However, it makes no real difference. The attendance allowance and expenses are meagre, and I suspect that they will need to be looked at.
Despite the shortage of good accommodation, and despite the rates of pay, there appears to be no problem in attracting candidates. I will remind the Committee of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in patronage and appointed life peers. He made it clear that his acceleration rate was not as high as that of some others.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
It was a deceleration rate.
Mr. Tipping:
I am sure that that was the point, and that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was proud of his achievements. On Second Reading, he said:
Lying behind the new clause is an assumption that has been made throughout our consideration of the Bill--that the transitional House will be our end goal, and that there will not be a second or final phase. I wish to reinforce a point that has been made perfectly clear--that that is not our intention. We need to deliver and finish the job, and the White Paper indicates the timetable. Some argue that the timetable is too short, while others argue that it is too long. I am not sure of the view of the Opposition, which seems to vary.
Mr. Winnick:
If the Conservatives believe their own propaganda--and I have some doubts--why should they believe that, if we are willing, as I am, to accept an interim arrangement in which 93 hereditaries remain, that should be permanent? We want all hereditary peers to be removed. Stage 2 is as important to us as it is--so they say--to them.
Mr. Tipping:
Our manifesto made it clear--as my hon. Friend has reinforced--that we want to see the end of hereditary peers. If an amendment to that effect were tabled in another place, we would oppose it at the moment. However, if that eventually came to pass, it would be a trigger for us to make haste more quickly. The Committee must be clear that we will complete the process.
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out last night, the time will come to review costs. That time should be at the end of the long-term review, after the royal commission, when we are clear on the functions and composition of the newly reformed second Chamber. At that stage, it might be appropriate to invite the Prime Minister to invite the SSRB to look at the salaries and expenses of Members of the fully reformed House. That issue would fall properly within the body's remit, and I hope that, at that point, there will be such an examination.
This is not the time to adopt the approach advocated in the new clause. We must be clear where we are going in the long term. We need to ensure that the second Chamber plays a valuable role and that its functions and composition are resolved via the royal commission and the Joint Committee, and via a consensus that we hope we can build up. That would be the point at which to look at salaries. Given that, I hope that the Committee will reject the new clause.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The Minister is a reasonable man who tries to show that he has listened to the argument, and tries to respond constructively when points are put to him. For that, we all honour him. Quite honestly, however, he has not responded to the debate at all. Let me put it simply and in words as clear I can muster--if the Bill is enacted, we will have a House of Lords, as from the end of this Session, which will consist of the present life peers.
"Every time I created one, nine people turned up saying that it should have been them."--[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 759.]
There speaks a man who has done the job. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have not heard it advanced that we cannot find high-quality peers to do the job that we require.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |