| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Leader of the House, I remind Back Benchers that there will be a 15-minute limit on their speeches.
5.11 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): This debate provides the House with an opportunity to comment on the royal commission report on reform of the House of Lords, entitled "A House for the Future", Cm 4534. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work of the royal commission and its chairman Lord Wakeham. It completed a challenging task on time, although many people said that that could not be done, and produced a comprehensive and unanimous report which addressed coherently the issues that it had been asked to examine. That report means that debate on the next stage of the reform of the House of Lords, which was first mooted by a Liberal Government in 1911, has advanced significantly.
Of course, that is the second significant advance, the first being the House of Lords Act 1999. I remind the House that the Government made it clear at the outset that we saw this as a two-stage process and were convinced that the issues would never be addressed at all unless they were addressed in two stages. Three things confirm me in that view. First, it took most of the century to get to stage 1, which rather puts the whingeing about the so-called delay on stage 2 into perspective. Secondly, the debate in the House of Lords on the royal commission report provided a clear indication that many there still regret and oppose the demise of the hereditary principle, which sits rather oddly with the Opposition's claimed espousal of democracy. Thirdly, we must consider the sheer scale of the imbalance of the previous House.
After all the carping about Tony's cronies and all the allegations about packing the House of Lords, even after the departure of most of the 750 Members who were there on the basis of heredity, the Conservative party still has 32 more peers than the Labour party in the House of Lords. However, the Wakeham report may help us to move on to stage 2.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Will the Leader of the House confirm that there has never been a majority of hereditary peers in the other place?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means. If he means that there has never ever been a majority of Conservatives in the upper House, I am afraid that I cannot cast my mind back across all the centuries of its existence and be confident that that is the case. No one with any understanding of how that House operates would dispute that the Conservative party has always and overwhelmingly held control there.
I want to make it clear at the outset that Ministers are here to listen to the views of the House rather than to announce the Government's settled conclusions. As my
distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord St John of Fawsley, said in another place on 7 March during the debate on reform of the House of Lords:
- No one in their right senses would expect a government to come forward with firm decisions on a Royal Commission before there had been a debate in both Houses of Parliament. That would be quite contrary to the spirit of our constitution.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 971.]
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On this occasion.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, on this occasion: I accept that I do not always do so.
I want to make it clear, however, that the Government are minded to accept the broad outlines of the royal commission report; that is, we agree that the second Chamber should be largely nominated, with a minority elected element with a particular remit to represent the regions, and that there should be a statutory appointments commission. On the more specific proposals, such as the size and method of selection of the elected element, or the precise powers and functions of the House and the appointments commission, we have made no firm decisions and will want to hear alternative views.
We have said, too, that we want to proceed, if at all possible, by consensus, and the unanimity of the report encourages us to hope that it may be found. I hope that today's debate will strengthen that view.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): Will the right hon. Lady indicate whether, in seeking consensus, she will be seeking the opinions of the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr. Wigley: Because of the regional dimension of the report and the need to ensure that we are getting a balanced picture before we come to final conclusions.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that anyone has reached a view about asking for any formal response, but of course the Government are interested in hearing views from all quarters and from all who take an interest in the way in which these matters will be decided.
The first and founding principle that the Government made clear is in the royal commission's terms of reference, and it says that its recommendations must have regard
- to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament.
One logical conclusion of that is that there is no need for a second Chamber at all. We do not draw that conclusion. The Government believe that there is a role for a clearly subordinate second Chamber, primarily in the legislative process. There has, of course, been criticism of our insistence that the second Chamber should be
subordinate. It has been suggested that the primary purpose of the second Chamber should be not to scrutinise legislation and to ask the Government and this House to think again about individual proposals, but rather to hold the Government to account. That is the function of this House. It must be done by the Chamber that has the power to dismiss the Government. To have two Chambers, each with an identical role in that respect, would be bound to lead to conflict and confusion.
Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon): I completely agree with the right hon. Lady about the proper roles of both Houses, but does she not think that a second Chamber that is subordinate to the House of Commons is wholly incompatible with its being completely elected? If it is completely elected, it will seek parity.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share that view, as I will make clear in a few moments. It is for precisely that reason that Lord Wakeham and his colleagues came to the conclusions that they did.
The main purpose, as we see it, of the second Chamber in our parliamentary system should be to make a distinctive contribution to the legislative process. Indeed, the fact that it is distinct and different from that of this House has always been one of the principal claims made on behalf of the House of Lords by those who defended it even in its unreformed state. That, therefore, is the role of the second Chamber from which its functions flow, and we asked the royal commission to look first at the role, then at the functions and only finally at the membership required to carry out that role and those functions.
To make a distinctive contribution, we argue, the second Chamber needs to be distinctively constituted. While understanding the political considerations, it should not be dominated by them. Although it would not be representative in the direct sense that Members of Parliament are representative, it should broadly reflect the economic, social, gender, religious and ethnic make-up of society. It must contain enough expertise to make an informed and non-partisan contribution to debate on any subject. We believe that an elected, or largely elected, second Chamber would not deliver that combination of requirements.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): I am left wondering whether the new second Chamber should reflect the social class composition and perhaps the wealth distribution and educational qualifications of the British public.
Mrs. Beckett: That is an interesting point, on which my hon. Friend will no doubt want to enlarge during his own contribution to the debate.
The Labour party, in gathering its evidence for the royal commission, and the royal commission itself found that a constant theme ran through the representations that they received: people do not want a second Chamber that is a clone of the House of the Commons or that loses the contribution of a non-party political element.
The Government agree with the royal commission's analysis that the most efficient way to ensure the right mix of political, non-political and diverse Members will be to select the appointed majority individually. That will equip the second Chamber for the job that it should do, but it will not undermine the position of this House as the
cornerstone of our political system. We accept the proposition that a high proportion of the appointed membership of the second Chamber should be broadly representative of political parties and that the balance of that membership should be determined according to the votes cast in the preceding general election.We believe, and strongly endorse, the royal commission's view that no political party should ever have a majority over all the other elements in the second Chamber. Indeed, I hope to hear a strong and clear endorsement and acceptance of that from the official Opposition today. I have repeatedly pressed for such a declaration; I hope that it will come in uncompromising terms. Not only do we reject the notion that any party should have a majority, but, like the royal commission, we reject the proposal for a wholly elected second Chamber in the same united Parliament. That would be bound to lead to conflict and division.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |