| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central): Cannot my right hon. Friend conceive of designing a remit for the second Chamber that makes it complementary to this Chamber, not in conflict with it? If she cannot, does she understand that she is saying that democracy has no role to play in the second Chamber? Where does that leave the people of this country? Surely they have a right to elect people who sit in half of our Parliament and it is not for whoever does the selecting--whether the Government, or we in the Chamber--to determine who should sit; it is for the people of this country to decide who sits in the legislature over them.
Mrs. Beckett: I know my hon. Friend's strong views on the matter, but I simply tell him that, no, I cannot imagine a remit that would not be a recipe for conflict if there were two elected Chambers in a single Parliament. Indeed, I cannot imagine a remit that would not lead to a conflict between Members themselves about who had the right and the authority and who was elected most recently. All that would be a recipe for division and conflict. Of course I accept the case that my hon. Friend makes; I simply tell him that it is my view--I speak for myself now--that, yes, it is true that democracy is given expression by the election of representatives to serve the people, but democracy is not strengthened by adding another body to which people are elected to carry out exactly the same job. That would produce a different combination of democratically elected Chambers and would lead to conflict. I get the impression that there are some who would welcome that and who, in consequence, support it. I do not put my hon. Friend in that category.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): Is it not a fact that, under the recipe proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and other hon. Members who believe in a wholly elected Chamber of whatever sort, they would find that there was an alternative Member of Parliament for their constituencies who would claim to represent them as much as they did and take up the same cases and claim to be able to deal with them better? [Hon. Members: "What about the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?] The Members of the two Houses of
Parliament would simply strive for greater authenticity, without the outcome of a properly representative two-Chamber democracy.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. Following the sedentary interjection by Conservative Members, I would add that the point is that there would be not a Chamber with a different role and remit, but a second elected Chamber in this Parliament--not in another Parliament--and a challenge to the supremacy of the House.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): Why is the United States able to have two directly elected Houses in the same Congress without constitutional deadlock?
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the United States suffers constitutional deadlock repeatedly. However, putting that aside, and although I yield to nobody in my pride in that country and its place in our history, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States is an entire continent and has what can only be described as a federal system. We are a united kingdom; we do not have a federal system.
Mrs. Beckett: That is a legitimate debating point, but I simply say to him that that is a different matter from having two elected Chambers in this Westminster Parliament.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), but shall not give way again on this point.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): It will bring the right hon. Lady no comfort to know that I have rather more sympathy with her analysis than she might suspect. However, surely the problem is that the elected Members of a largely appointed House, even if few in number, would assert their authority. Inevitably, there would be a two-tier House, only one of which would have elective authority, with all the problems to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred. If she wants an appointed Chamber, why does she not seek friends in unexpected quarters and state the case for the logic of making that Chamber wholly appointed and unelected?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. If he has read the Lords debate, he will know that a substantial number of Members, including many Conservatives, made precisely that case. However, the royal commission had to consider a range of issues and proposed a mix of Members. Although I accept that there will be unease about that, the proposal was made unanimously and the Government are not inimical to it.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): The case that the Leader of the House is making against a largely democratic second Chamber appears to rest on the view that there will be gridlock between this place and the other place, but are there not the Parliament Acts? Do not they
lay down the limits to that gridlock and state very clearly what a second Chamber may and may not do to challenge this place? Why does she think that those restraints would be swept away if we had an elected or largely elected second Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman might have observed that, even without a wholly elected second Chamber, there are those in the Lords itself, as it is today, who question whether we should have quite the same balance in the Parliament Acts and wonder whether the Lords should be able to reject and not merely delay legislation. My case rather than his is being made.
When I said that I would take interventions only from the hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Chichester, I meant that I would take interventions on that point from those who were on their feet and would then continue. However, I did not observe the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I apologise and give way to him.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the right hon. Lady. As a believer in democracy, I find it acceptable for the House of Lords to be unelected while its powers are extremely limited. Surely that is the point.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I do not wish to go into it at length. There is also the issue of the powers of the Lords and whether we are discussing those that they currently have and do not exercise or those that they should have and should exercise. That, too, represents a delicate balance that has to be properly considered.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely, but is not there a problem? If we are to have some elected and a large number of non-elected Members, there could be divisions between them. The elected Members could feel that they had greater authority than the others. Will she comment on how that might change the atmosphere in the second Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: I am deeply grateful to learn that my right hon. Friend is in agreement with me, bearing in mind his historic role in wrecking previous attempts to reform the House of Lords. He makes a legitimate point, which was closely examined during the debate in the Lords and will, I expect, be discussed in our debate. The arguments are difficult: I believe that those who say that the cohesion of the second Chamber will not deteriorate into two-tier membership have the balance of the argument, but I accept that there is room for wholly legitimate differences of opinion on that point.
On the issue of whether election and the supremacy of the House of Commons are compatible, I am aware of at least one right hon. Opposition Member who not only supports a wholly elected Chamber, but, in consequence, rejects the supremacy of the House of Commons, believing one to be incompatible with the other. The Government share the view that the two are incompatible. On this
interesting issue, one finds agreement in surprising and unprecedented places. For the first time ever, I find myself at one with the noble Lord Waddington, who said:
- Of course, an elected Chamber composed of the representatives of the people has a special authority. That is why one does not want two of them.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 961.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |