| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was talking only about those who voted against it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should not have teased the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I also sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who has expressed my general view of the reason for our existence in this temporal world—namely, to cause mischief and irritate those set in authority over us. He certainly succeeded in doing that.
It would be unreasonably economic if I simply attended to the Bill. I do not think that any of your Lordships have limited yourselves in that way. We have revisited the saga of the 81, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred. My only observation on the Bill is that its odd consequence would be that the delaying power would be more effectively given late in a particular Parliament rather than early. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that strikes me as a shade on the bizarre side, to put it at its kindest. The Government will not oppose the passage of the Bill through this House, but it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that we do not agree with the proposal that forms its central core, which is that the powers of a government with a fresh Commons mandate from the electorate are more circumscribed than they are later in that Parliament. That seems wholly bizarre.
A number of questions have been asked. I was asked why the White Paper did not deal with powers and functions. I do not think that that is right. The White Paper says on page 4 that the House of Lords should be:
- "A revising and deliberative assembly—not seeking to usurp the role of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber".
Arguments have been made this evening about whether we should scrutinise secondary legislation better, whether we should scrutinise treaties at all and
whether we should look at European-derived legislation. There are many views about those topics, but they have nothing to do with the Bill.The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a question—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and others—about the Joint Committee. I repeat what I said recently in the 81-speech debate. I said that we had been perfectly willing to have a committee to deal with the parliamentary implications. However, I repeat—I think for about the sixth time—that we were not able to agree terms of reference. On every occasion that I have said that I have never been contradicted, so I doubt that this evening will be a first.
Questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and others about legitimacy. I repeat the view that I expressed in the earlier debate. Election—direct or indirect, with open or closed lists—is not the only route to legitimacy. If the reformed composition of this House, with its powers and functions, is part of a constitutional settlement, that constitutional settlement, approved by both Houses, confers legitimacy.
One then—I hope—asks: legitimacy for what? I would suggest it is legitimacy to carry out those roles and functions that I described earlier—not to have primacy on taxation, and not, ultimately, to be able to insist in the context of primary legislation if the House of Commons, after the Parliament Act, due reflection and delay, decides otherwise.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, asked a few rhetorical questions. There is always a danger about the latter because sometimes they are actually implied. Why is it that we now keep talking about the Parliament Act? A more cynical creature than myself might say it is because we no longer have 400 Conservative Peers in the House. The Conservatives have a majority over the Labour Peers, but they do not have the 400 in-built majority which they rejoiced in, treasured and clung to for so many years. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, gave vent to hyperbole saying that, by inviting the hereditary Peers to go, we had accomplished the most dramatic act in the past 600 years. That is not so—not if I remember the Lord Protector's activities with any degree of accuracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was quite right to say that Clause 2 is not required. I shall say no more about it because it seems to me not to have any effect.
We shall certainly need to consider the way that we operate. The sort of inquiry that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is carrying out is capable of being most helpful to your Lordships, especially in the post-devolution context and perhaps as regards how we manage our relationships with devolved assemblies. At present, we rely significantly on concordats, but they depend on good will which may not always obtain. It seems to me to be a legitimate question as to whether, as the years unfold, we should perhaps consider more formalised arrangements even if, after consideration, we come to the conclusion that they are not required. I said "as the years unfold" and thus reminded myself that this must be the only legislature in the world where an interim measure is still regarded as such after such a short passage of time as 91 years.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, was right to observe that we did not accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to entrenched powers. I should like to make it perfectly plain that we still do not accept that proposition.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, at this point. I should point out to him that we have an open mind on lists. The matter was not set out in the White Paper as something upon which we had decided. I am happy to repeat our position in that respect.
I am sure that Clause 3 of the Bill is not intended as a tease, but it certainly has that effect. If there is a "popular election"—with however limited a component of popularly-elected Peers—it implies that that would be some sort of watershed. I do not believe that to be correct, either in principle or in theory. Indeed, I do not think that it would be correct in practice.
All in all, I have tried to deal with the issues raised this evening, extraneous as they may be to the purpose of the Bill. I repeat: the purpose of the Bill is to give an incumbent government less power in their early stages than in their later stages. I find that very strange as a constitutional doctrine.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put just one question to him. He referred to a possible settlement of the problems that arise at present. If such a settlement is achieved, can the noble and learned Lord say whether that would merely be the starting-point of further demands by the other House, supported by the Parliament Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the absence of a written constitution and bearing in mind that our constitutional development has always been organic and incremental, it seems to me that whatever settlement both Houses arrive at on this occasion—that is, if there is one, as the noble and learned Lord says—it could not conceivably be regarded as the end of the journey; nor ought it to be. In the absence of a written constitution, I believe it would be a sign of terminal decline, not to say death, if either of the institutions to which we have been referring were not
able to change, whether it is in composition or in the way that they actually function within the parameters of their respective powers.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, are we to conclude from his comments that he agrees with the notion that our arrangements are inescapably interim?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, our arrangements share the characteristic of being inescapably interim with all human life and all human activity.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this very interesting debate. I am glad that we had it. I am also glad that it saved the Leader of the House from another nightmare by allowing him to spend a few more hours listening and commenting on the subject.
For me, the noble and learned Lord's most interesting comment was the one that he has just made—that "certainly we will have to look at the way we operate". I believe that that is at the heart of the matter. I do not think that this is the end of the story, and I am very glad that we should go forward in such consideration.
Both my noble friend, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke very powerfully about the key point in my little Bill: the close relations between elected Members and powers. I think that that is the discussion and the argument that will continue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that in his judgment this is not the time to go into the detail of that issue. I can only ask when the time will be. Surely power and composition must be dealt with at the same time. If we do not do so, we may not have another chance for another 40 years. I do not want that to happen.
I thank very much all those who participated in the debate. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, told me that I dipped my toe into the stream of reason. I am not quite certain what I have to do to get my major limbs into the stream, but, as we are neighbours in Sussex, I shall doubtless find out in due course.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
- House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |