House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1999 (pt 27)

Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to labour the point, but let us take the example of Lord Cranborne. If his right to sit as an hereditary peer were to go and, subsequently, he were made a life peer, he would presumably not be able to take, if he wished to do so, the title of the barony of Essendon. That could be granted only by acceleration--the very thing that will no longer be possible. Will the Minister confirm that that decorative little bit of our past will disappear?

5 pm

Mr. Tipping: I will have to take advice on the matter, although my view is different from the hon. Gentleman's. To put it commonly, as they might in Nottingham, Lord Cranborne's title is another gong that he wears, and he is entitled to retain that gong. The key point is that the writ of acceleration is the writ of summons, and if there is nowhere to be summoned to, there is no question of a writ of acceleration. I had hoped to avoid any reference to Lord Cranborne, who has been paid a great deal of attention in the context of this debate.

I shall now discuss the question raised by new clause 51, which concerns the rights of the House of Lords in relation to claims of peerage and of precedence. A former colleague, now Lord Moynihan, was mentioned, among other examples.

I shall try to reassure the House that nothing changes. Difficult cases of claims of peerage will still be referred to the House of Lords for consideration, in the way that claims of Irish peerage continue to be referred to the Lords long after anyone has been able to sit in the Lords by virtue of an Irish title.

Although, under the Bill as it stands, no hereditary peers would be Members of the upper House, the accumulated wisdom of the House on the matter of peerage claims and precedents would still be available. I believe that the only requirement laid down in the Lords Standing Orders for hearing peerage claims is that three of the four Lords of Appeal need to be present. They will remain in the upper House because they will be members of a continuing Committee for Privileges, which will sit on the case.

Mr. Fallon: How can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that that will happen? Presumably, it will be for

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1284

the new House to decide on its own Committees and their functions. How can the Government be sure now that that new House will consider claims to titles that have nothing to do with itself?

Mr. Tipping: We are talking of a long historic tradition; a House of Lords Committee for Privileges that has existed and will continue to exist. It may well be within the gift of the other place to change its Standing Orders, but the Bill will change nothing in that regard; that is already within its gift. We intend the Committee for Privileges to continue, with three of the four Lords of Appeal sitting on cases.

As hon. Members know, these are technical and highly legal matters. There is no automatic qualification. The continuing Committee for Privileges will have to exercise its judgment. Given those reassurances on writs of acceleration and on the continuation of the House of Lords Committee for Privileges, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has responded to this brief debate. I also thank him for his unequivocal assurance on behalf of the Government about the continuation of the peerage and so many of the colourful things that go with it, which obviously mean as much to him as they mean to me and many others.

The Minister may underestimate the difficulties that the Government will face as they move towards establishing their next Chamber, but for the immediate future we are grateful to him, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 1)

(2) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in--
(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.--[Dr. Fox.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Fox: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25--Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 2)--

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1285

(4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in--
(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.

New clause 26--Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 3)--

'(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.
(2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Parliament in which it is made.
(3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.
(4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in--
(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.

Amendment No. 11, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert

'appointments to the House of Lords and'.

Dr. Fox: The new clauses and the amendment have three purposes. The first purpose is to move the debate on to the territory on which I believe the Committee would have preferred it to be from the start of the Bill's consideration--discussion of the role of the interim Chamber and, by implication, the Chamber thereafter.

It is extremely important that we consider the issue in the right order. We believe, as we have said from the outset of debate on the Bill, that first we must consider what Parliament as a whole should do, and what the relationship should be between Parliament and the Executive, the judiciary and Europe. When we have decided what the role of Parliament should be, we can decide what the balance between the two Chambers should be. When we have decided the balance between the two Chambers, and the relative powers and roles of the two Chambers, we can decide composition. That is a logical and sensible way to deal with our constitutional model.

The Government continue with their obsession with composition. The White Paper states in chapter 8, paragraph 1 on page 43:

"Central to the future House of Lords is its composition."

The Government begin every argument with composition, rather than role. The purpose of the new clauses is to set out what we believe the role of the second Chamber should be and to put the debate on a firmer footing.

Secondly, we want to reaffirm our commitment to a second Chamber--not one that is weakened and supine, which effectively leads to single-Chamber government, but a strong and virile second Chamber that will stand up to an ever more mighty Executive, which increasingly has the House of Commons in its grip. At present, the Commons is largely the Prime Minister and Parliament. We need a Chamber that is willing to tackle the Government and engage in serious scrutiny, without the fear of the retribution of the Whips, which is felt to a

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1286

large extent in the House. That practice has existed for some time, but has worsened in recent years. It is an unhealthy development in a modern democracy.

Along with our commitment to a strong second Chamber, those in that Chamber must have a commitment to the workings of Parliament. If the number of Members of the upper House is to be reduced by the Government's actions through the Bill, it is essential that Members of that House are willing to play a full role in the workings of the House and the duties that will accompany membership.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have played an active role in the upper House and who have been willing, for the meagre sums that were mentioned in previous debates, to become engaged in long and arduous debate on behalf of the people of this country--a contribution made not least by many hereditary peers. I wish that, during the many stages of the debate, the Government had been a little more generous in spirit about the fantastic contributions made by many hereditary peers to the process of government. That includes hereditary peers on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches.

We assume in the new clauses that, if the Weatherill amendment comes to pass, it will be via the Life Peerages Act 1958, and that is how any new life peers will be created. However, I am sure that I am wrong and that there is to be a new mechanism. No doubt the Government will want to clarify that as soon as possible.

The three new clauses are somewhat different, and we shall seek to divide the House on new clause 26, which we believe to be preferable. What do the new clauses suggest that the House should do? Clearly, it should examine Bills, draft statutory instruments, study European Community obligations, undertake the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and carry out the work of Select Committees.

I shall begin with Bills. We have had adequate reason in recent times to be grateful to the other place for its detailed scrutiny of legislation. That is a good signpost for the future. We will want Members of a reformed Chamber, whether the interim Chamber or beyond, who are willing to take an active interest in Bills and willing to send back to the House of Commons Bills that they believe to be mistaken and about which we should think again.