| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand our criticism. It is not that there is a two-stage reform,
but that we have one stage without knowing what the second stage will be. We are on a mystery tour of constitutional change. Either the Government do not know what they want and what their guiding principles are for the second stage or they are not telling us. Which is it?
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of what I am saying. We do not have to agree on our eventual plans for reform of the House of Lords to fulfil the principle set out in our manifesto and enshrined in the Bill that hereditary peers should not sit as of right in the House of Lords. That is a simple, elementary principle that is unaffected by any other consideration or wider reform of the House of Lords. Surely even the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government would be open to immense and justified criticism if they tore in to the House with a ready-made, ready-baked, pre-cooked set of reforms that had been the subject of plentiful discussion and debate behind closed doors in various Cabinet committees, but which had not attracted the views of anyone outside the Government and on which no one had had an opportunity to express their opinions.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's wonderful, flowing, honeyed words of soothing reassurance to the British people about consultation and measures that are eminently reasonable. If he is concerned about what other people think, will he reflect on the fact that an ICM poll conducted last November found that 68 per cent. of those consulted thought that the Government should not proceed with the first stage until they were prepared to put an alternative before the British people? The Government have failed to do that.
Mr. Mandelson: The people sampled in the ICM opinion poll are probably the same people who, by supporting the Labour manifesto, voted for the two-stage process that the Government are implementing. Having set out in their manifesto a clear two-stage process, it would be outrageous for the Government to abandon that the moment that they were elected to office. I do not know what democratic principles the hon. Gentleman is trying to espouse by suggesting that we should jettison the manifesto pledge on which we were elected and proceed in a different way six months later.
Mr. Wells: If the Government intended to implement the two-stage process that the right hon. Gentleman describes, why did they not appoint a consultative body--a Speaker's Conference or a royal commission--as soon as they came to office? That would have given opportunities for proper discussion, bringing in those on all sides of the argument, including the Official Opposition. I am not aware of any consultation having taken place with the Conservative party on the issue before the Bill was introduced. Does that not give the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's honeyed arguments about a two-stage process?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying further and further from the contents of the Bill. I should be grateful if we could return.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to you for saving me from this torture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regard it as a
torture to be led astray in that way. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) would have achieved the same end that has befallen other Governments that have embarked on a process of reform--endless, continuous and constant wrangling and debate between parties, without anyone being able to move a step further on reform of the House of Lords.
I am not surprised that the Conservatives find the process so worrying and fear that the approach set out in our manifesto will undermine them. Throughout their contributions during the debates on the Bill, the Conservatives have been on the horns of a democratic dilemma. On the one hand they desperately desire to oppose and upset the Government's plans, because that is what they think that they are there for.
In the process, they want to keep their inbuilt majority in the other place, which is the ulterior and not very well hidden motive of most of their contributions on the Bill. On the other hand, they know that championing unelected legislators as they have done and defending, extending and prolonging the life of hereditary peers does not play very well in the pantry--or is it in the kitchen, or on the kitchen table, or under the kitchen table; wherever the discussion is taking place between the Conservative party and the handful of members of the public who are interested in what they have to say on this or any other subject. They find it very difficult to make an argument against the Bill that does not sound like what it is--a defence, using one permutation of argument or another, of the hereditary peers.
The effect of that is that the Conservatives have taken a long time to fail to lay a glove on the Government's position, adding not a scintilla of sense or improvement to the Bill. They have succeeded only in embarrassing themselves by their rhetorical contortions and linguistic gymnastics, as they have wriggled and squirmed on the horns of the dilemma that I have described.
I do not want to dwell on the third feature of the House's consideration, but the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked me to comment on the genuinely felt and interesting debate on the further changes to the Lords that the Bill will make possible. The hon. Member for Woodspring rightly said that the Bill will create a new ethos in the House of Lords. It will whet the appetite for further reform. I have two points on that in conclusion. There is clearly a strong and widely held surface desire in the House for an elected second Chamber to give a thorough, democratic underpinning to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who has spoken before and may speak again if he is lucky enough to be called, will no doubt repeat that argument. It is a matter that I understand, but on which I feel agnostic.
I suggest that as the debate grows, however, other factors will find greater weight in people's consideration. One is the rather unattractive prospect of confrontation and gridlock between the two Houses of Parliament. Many have spoken of the immense contribution that the House of Lords has made to the legislative procedures of Parliament through its ability to review, to revise and to improve legislation without the tendentious grandstanding that more adversarial politics brings to debates in this place.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
I would not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) into a discussion on the nature of an elected second Chamber, and how it might operate--simply beyond entering a slight note of dissent with what he said, for I see no reason why gridlock should be the necessary consequence of election, if the powers of the two Houses are distinct and clearly defined and the possibility of second-guessing is not written into the constitution. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, that debate is for a later date.
What is remarkable about the debate and the Bill is that a major step is being taken to reform the House of Lords as we know it--a step that has eluded the grasp of Governments over the past 50 years. The grandfather of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool--[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] I did say that I was not proposing to follow the right hon. Gentleman's speech closely. That could be taken as an indication that he was free to go.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
It is a discourtesy.
Mr. Maclennan:
I do not take it is as a discourtesy.
Mr. Fraser:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not appropriate to respect the traditions of this House by listening to the debate after one's contribution? Is not the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) abusing the House by leaving the Chamber?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It is a strong convention of this House that hon. Members should stay to hear at least the speech following their own. Leaving the Chamber without doing so is to be strongly deprecated.
Mr. Maclennan:
I regret that I have triggered this exchange.
When the post-war Labour Government were elected--with a substantial majority, and an upper House in which there were no appointed peers--the proposed abolition of the hereditary peers would not have been regarded either as a high priority or as a practical proposition. How our constitutional affairs have rolled on since then is a matter for comment and note. Even the later attempt, in the 1960s, to bring about a change comparable to this one defeated a Labour Government with a substantial majority.
To some extent, what has been different on this occasion is that the Labour party has not only recognised the importance of making the reform, but was prepared to think it through in advance before it came to office. It was recognised that removing the hereditary peers from the
upper House was not a matter that would command enormously high priority in the minds of the British public, but none the less it was an important step towards modernising our legislature--and one for which we should be prepared.
Therefore, it was right for the Labour party to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats before the election as to how to bring the change about. Those were constructive discussions, and the two parties reached agreement on how to proceed. The Government have proceeded with all due diligence and speed to give effect to that pre-election agreement, which was reflected in the Labour party's manifesto--as it was in ours. There is reason for a little satisfaction, in that something that was clearly thought through in advance is proceeding according to plan.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |