Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
On the issue of the measures being piecemeal, I would simply say that it is possible to parody any legislation at the time of its introduction. With the single exception of the 1689 Bill of Rights, all legislation
has been piecemeal. The Reform Act of 1832 was actually relatively modest in scope. It took another 60 years to get anywhere near a universal franchise for men, and 100 years to achieve a franchise for women. The Parliament Act 1911 was seen as a relatively modest interim measure, yet we now see it as having huge importance.
My record on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been mocked. The damnation of it by the Opposition was that it was not much more than a recapitulation of the non-statutory freedom of information code, although I did not agree with that. I think that the facts speak for themselves. The Human Rights Act 1998 might have been dismissed as piecemeal, but that is not what is said about it now. So far as the House of Lords is concerned, the Life Peerages Act 1958 could have been seen as piecemeal change-
Andrew Mackinlay: It was radical for its day.
Mr. Straw: Indeed, and it was of major importance. The House of Lords Act 1999 has changed the composition of the other place, as well as making a major difference to its assertiveness. It has led it to being much more active in regard to change.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Is the Secretary of State saying that, when the history books are written, clause 29 will be a shining highlight of the reform of Parliament?
Mr. Straw: No, that was not the point that I was about to make.
I was going to say that we should not make the best the enemy of the good. There seems to be no one who will defend the principle behind the election of hereditary peers. No one has done so today. Every argument has been a body swerve. Furthermore, we all believe that this will be a step, albeit a modest one, towards reform. I hope that everyone accepts that keeping the hereditary by-elections would not be a provocation for further reform but simply a blockage to the further reform to which all the parties are apparently committed. If we add all that together, we can see a strong case-which was made most eloquently by the hon. Member for Chichester-in favour of this change, and not much of a case against it. With that, I commend the clause to the House.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Tyrie: I beg to move amendment 92, page 15, line 32, at end insert
'or a term peer within the meaning of section [Term peerages] of this Act'.The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 93, in schedule 4, page 52, line 36, after '(c.21)', insert
'or a term peer under section [Term peerages]'.New clause 25- Life peerages -
'(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958, is amended is as follows.
(2) In section 1(1), after "life", insert "or such other period as may be specified in the letters patent".
(3) In section 1(2), after "conferred" insert, "or at the end of such other period as may have been specified in the letters patent".'.
New clause 47- Term peerages -
'(1) Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a term peerage having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) A term peerage conferred under this section shall entitle the person on whom it is conferred-
(a) to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and
(b) subject to the relevant provisions of sections 30 to 33 above, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a term peerage conferred under this section shall expire on the appointed day of poll for the third General Election after the day on which the term peerage was conferred.
(4) Where a period of two years or less has elapsed from the day of conferment of a term peerage under this section to the day of poll for a General Election, that poll for a General Election shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculation under subsection (3) above of the time of expiry of that term peerage.'.
Mr. Tyrie: This is a relatively modest proposal that I worked up last year with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). New clause 47 and the consequential amendments will create a new class of peerage: term peers. As their name implies, term peers would be appointed for a fixed period rather than for life. The length of their term could and probably should be based on the approach already agreed by the major parties in their discussions on the make-up of a democratic Chamber-namely, that a predominantly elected second Chamber would comprise those serving a single long and non-renewable term of probably three Parliaments.
The term length was a proposal that came out of the talks on the White Paper, but I recognise that, in the search for consensus, some further changes could be considered for the way in which term peers are appointed, which concerns the Liberal Democrats.
I am proposing a modest step-certainly much more modest than the democratically elected second Chamber that I believe the British people deserve. If I thought that a democratic option could get through by consensus at this time, I would support it wholeheartedly, but I know that it will not. If we tried, the result would be a controversial Bill leading to a huge row. As I said, the plain fact is that the British people would find it extraordinary if the next Government, faced with the biggest economic mess since the 1930s, with the highest level of debt to GDP and the highest deficit since the second world war, decided to embark on a major constitutional upheaval. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, such a reform would absorb all the political energy of this place for at least a year. It would be irresponsible to engage in that with so many crucial economic questions facing us.
However, all three major parties support democracy for the Lords. It is also true, although the figure is not often mentioned-my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) did mention it-that 59 per cent. of Conservative MPs voted in 2007 for a largely or wholly elected second Chamber. There were even higher majorities in favour of democracy in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The point has been made that some of that voting might have been tactical; of course that is true, but some of the voting against democracy might have been tactical, too. That tells us absolutely nothing. The fact is that there is a clear majority in this place for democracy-there probably has been for a long time. It is regrettable that using their large majorities the Labour Government have not found an opportunity to take us further down the road.
The problem is that any major Bill simply would not get past the Lords. I have no doubt that the Lords would oppose it. An early Bill to introduce democracy for the second Chamber would lead us straight into a constitutional crisis that the public would not understand, even though two thirds or three quarters of them support such a measure. They will rightly expect the Government to get on with the economic crisis in front of us.
By contrast, the term peers measure will not cause a constitutional crisis. Its advantages would be relatively modest, but they are at least straightforward and I hope that colleagues will agree that they are worth having. First, they would take the House of Lords a step along the road of what Lord Jay, the Chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, described as moving along the curve from honour to job. We need a Chamber of people who are committed to fulfilling a parliamentary role and to doing a job of work in the 21st century, not a status House or a legacy status House. There is an increasingly important job for the second Chamber to do and the term peers proposal will increase the chances of getting a higher degree of commitment and quality from the people who are put there to do the job.
The second argument in favour of the proposal is that a major problem of the existing House would be addressed: the inevitable upward ratchet in the size of the House, given the way that it is presently constituted.
The Government have been concerned about that problem, which occurs because an incoming Government inevitably want to make sure that their party is the largest single party in the Lords. The first thing that they will do under the existing rules-they have no choice-is to appoint a large number of life peers. Of course that life term is likely to be longer than the average life of the incoming Government and so those peers will still be there afterwards, leading to a ratchet effect each time and to an ever larger House. That becomes even more true as parties, as they have begun to do, seek to appoint somewhat younger lifers in order to get plenty of work out of them. That means that the peers will be there for even longer, even before we take into account increased life expectancy. The Lords will continue to grow.
At 740 Members, the Lords is already the largest democratic Chamber in the world-if we exclude the Chinese national party congress, which is the only other chamber as big. Britain, as far as I know, is also the only bicameral democracy with a second Chamber larger than the main Chamber, which is quixotic. Ending the ratchet will be hugely valuable and term peers will take us a long way down the road to dealing with it.
A third reason for supporting term peerages might seem paradoxical-particularly coming from me-but it is that the proposals would leave the existing life peerage wholly unaffected. That would minimise the risk of friction as term peerages are introduced. Should the parties decide so to do while in government, life peerages could be phased out or brought to an end, so the life peerage could be replaced by the term peerage, albeit quite slowly. That was how, gradually-not immediately-the hereditary peerage was phased out after life peerages were introduced in 1958.
Given that, for various reasons, neither party has the stomach for fundamental reform of the Lords and that this is probably an inappropriate moment in the economic cycle to attempt such reform, we need to make the best of what we have-the existing House-and I hope that this modest proposal will achieve that. It will provide the maximum benefit with the minimum disruption and it will address the ratchet, so I hope that it will be supported by Members across the House.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |