| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: Every now and then in a debate such as this comes a moment of truth or revelation that sets the subject in context. That moment came, somewhat surprisingly, in the speech of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who revealed what we all knew but no one had dared to say out loud: that the amendment is the result of a rather sordid and dirty deal done--mainly by the Government, but with the connivance of others--to get the fag end of the Government's ill-managed legislative programme through. To achieve that, we are being asked tonight to alter our constitution and our legislature irrevocably.
That strikes me as one of the most disgraceful suggestions that I have heard in my time as a Member of Parliament. It certainly contrasts with the high words used by the Leader of the House, who spoke of solutions for the millennium and claimed that, for centuries to come, people would praise us for what we are about to do. It is as well that she did not have to listen to her hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet before making that opening speech, because, thanks to the hon. Gentleman, we now know the real truth. We are being asked to alter the upper Chamber--the second part of our legislature--to fulfil a grubby deal done partly to save some skins, but mainly to enable the completion of an ill-managed legislative programme. That is what the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe him.
Mr. Nicholls:
I accept the accuracy of my right hon. Friend's account of the motivation of Labour Members,
Mr. Forth:
Of course I accept that and, like my hon. Friend, I impute to the hereditary peers only the highest motives. However, I dispute whether what has been done is a proper solution for our legislative process, for our constitutional arrangements and for the long-term benefit of the country. Those are the things that matter, not pleasing a few people or accepting that their motivation is honourable, for such things are merely temporary.
It pains me to say it, but I accept the thrust of the argument advanced by the Labour party ever since the changes that we are now making were proposed. Labour started from the proposition that the upper House as it has hitherto been constituted is an affront to democracy. I accept that, even though I have always been prepared to defend the hereditary arrangement in the form that it has taken until now. I have no problem defending the long-standing hereditary element of the House of Lords; but, that having been swept away, I move to asking what the alternative is. The odd thing is that, if I accept Labour's original proposition, I have to adopt Labour's analysis and say that an upper House composed of appointees is also an affront to democracy.
Mr. Peter Bradley:
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman clarified his position. In an intervention earlier in the debate, he said that patronage corrupts both the granter of the patronage and the recipient. If the argument that patronage corrupts can be used against life peers, it can be used also against hereditary peers. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on the hereditary principle in the current constitution of the House of Lords?
Mr. Forth:
Unusually for me, I have not intervened in the debate, but sat patiently and listened carefully, so I did not say what the hon. Gentleman says I said--I may well agree with it, but I did not say it. In any case, my point is far more fundamental: if we are to rest the argument on what is or is not democratic, we cannot accept the continuation of an appointed element in a part of our legislature; nor can we accept the continuation of a rump of hereditaries who must, by definition, be an
I cannot accept the amendment, or any part of it. I cannot accept the continuation of life peers in the upper House, although I realise that that is not the subject of our debate. It strikes me as bizarre that people who give large donations to a political party can, as a result, end up as part of the legislature; that is neither acceptable nor democratic. Neither do I accept the continuation of an hereditary element.
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea):
Does the right hon. Member accept that many hereditary peers are Members of the House of Lords precisely because their ancestors gave money to the Conservative party? Indeed, that category includes many of those who were elected by their fellow peers to continue to sit in the Lords. For example--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. This is not a general debate on the hereditary principle. We are debating the amendment.
Mr. Forth:
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Simply because something happened in the past does not legitimise it now. Is the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggesting that it does? If so, and he believes that past events legitimise the giving of peerages to those who have made donations, that is a development that we do not want to pursue, do we, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
The other arguments expressed in the group of amendments are even more bizarre. One appears to be that the peculiar European principle of the list should now be imported into the composition of our Upper House. It is suggested that if, alas, one of the elected hereditaries passes on, the next one on a list should automatically fill the position. I do not find that an acceptable principle--even though, much to my regret, it has already crept into our politics--and I do not see why we should legitimise it or revalidate it tonight.
Even more peculiar is the concept of a by-election. The process is not defined anywhere in the amendments, apart from a single reference to a by-election; nor is there any description of how it might work. It has been suggested that such matters would be adequately covered by Standing Orders in another place. I am not sure that I accept that as a satisfactory principle for appointing members of a legislature. We do not know who would conduct the by-election and on what basis. We know only that the provision is in Standing Orders--which, presumably, are subject to alteration at the whim of the House. A series of propositions would deliver a fully functioning, law-making body within our constitution comprising either appointees or hereditaries--a rump of people chosen from a list or via an unspecified by-election; we know not what in any detail.
None of those propositions is acceptable. I believe that, once we have swept away the hereditary principle, we should go straight to a proper directly elected upper House. I will not dwell on that point, because this is not the time or the place to do so. However, that is my response to questions that were posed legitimately during the debate. I would have defended the hereditary principle; my party and I did not suggest that it should be changed. However, now that it is to happen, we must respond. My response is that the present arrangement is totally unacceptable. Until someone suggests a proper, legitimate, accountable, directly elected upper House, I will be unable to accept any alternative.
Mr. Nicholls:
I always enjoy following my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in debates as I can usually declare that I agree with everything he said. I cannot go that far tonight--although we start from the same position.
There is an assumption running throughout the debate and underlying this amendment that the hereditary principle cannot be justified in any circumstances. The assumption, to a greater or lesser extent, is that the case has never been made for the hereditary principle. However, I can explain--I can do so in a few words because it underlines my position on the amendment--why the case for the hereditary principle can be, and should have been, made.
We are always told that the hereditary principle cannot be justified because it is not democratic--as though one can examine every ingredient of Parliament and say that each must be democratic before the whole can be. Some people think that sovereignty lies with the House of Commons. The Prime Minister believes that it lies with him. In fact, sovereignty lies with the Queen in Parliament. The monarch is not democratic, and nor is the House of Lords. However, the Queen in Parliament is an institution which works democratically because it makes sure that the people can elect and depose their representatives.
Is the Parliament responsive and democratic? That is the beginning, middle and end of the democratic process. We could have a long debate on another occasion about how we got here, but it is no argument to say that the House of Lords is not democratic and thus should be abolished. However, I accept that we are beyond that point now.
What should we discuss when considering the House of Lords? We should talk about how it functions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |