| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Letwin: Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he was going to tell us about the Government's plans for change of the House of Lords. He has not yet done that. In the last few seconds of his speech, I wonder whether he could tell us what he thinks the Government's plans to change the House of Lords actually are.
Mr. Rammell: The Government have made it absolutely and abundantly clear that they will set up a
royal commission. They have set out the framework within which it will operate. As a sign of their good faith, they have appointed a senior Conservative party politician to chair that royal commission. That is not something that the Conservative party ever did in 18 years of government; it never attempted to create a consensus. We are going forward. We are modernising and we are going to end the indefensible: the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords.8.58 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): I oppose the Bill because it is inadequate. It is inadequate because it does not deal with the whole issue.
May I apologise in advance for the fact that, having taken part in the debate, I will not be present for its conclusion tomorrow evening?
I am happy to answer the question of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). He has asked it of everyone else, but he has not yet asked it of me. I will save him the trouble by answering it immediately. Personally, I do not oppose the principle of clause 1.
I do not defend the hereditary principle. I have not fought to become a Member of Parliament to defend a principle that, had my family had anything to leave--which, sadly, they did not--it would have gone to my younger brother. Worthy as he is, that is manifestly unfair. I could not possibly put myself forward for election and then defend a principle that is manifestly unfair and undemocratic.
Labour Members seem to be arguing for democracy, but they are arguing for undermining democracy. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that Labour Members express surprise, because they clearly do not understand what they are doing by supporting the Bill. The Bill should address the overall issue of reforming Parliament and the constitution, but it does not.
Today, the Leader of the House seemed to be very pleased that the primary adjective she could use in describing the Government's proposals was "simple". Time and again, she said that the proposals were "simple", as though that were the Bill's best commendation. The Bill is simple only because it addresses only half the issue.
Maria Eagle:
Is the hon. Lady aware that, for 88 years, the Conservative party has been saying that we cannot deal with the issue unless we deal with all of it? Consequently, there has been no dealing with the issue, and the hereditary peerage continues to sit and vote in the other place. Does she not realise that the Bill offers a way of getting the job done?
Mrs. Laing:
I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady--the Bill is a way of not getting the job done. If the Government were serious about getting the job done, they should have included all their proposals in the Bill so that the House could consider them. Ministers have had 21 months to do so--what have they been waiting for? The situation is exactly opposite to the one that she describes.
Earlier in the debate, the Leader of the House was wrong about the situation. It is easy to say that we should get rid of a certain system or object, but we are not dealing with the real argument if we do not say what should
replace that system or object. Ministers have not dealt with the real argument either in today's debate or in the White Paper, but are simply continuing to delay consideration of the real issues. If Labour Members were serious about getting the job done, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said, they would not support the Bill in tomorrow's Division.
Angela Smith (Basildon):
Perhaps the hon. Lady can help me. Several times today, I heard Conservative Members say how much they supported clause 1, but they would not vote for the Bill because it did not go far enough. Perhaps she will tell us how Conservative Members can support clause 1 after the Tory party's 18 years in government, during which they introduced no such provisions? Some of us are a little confused about the depth of their support for clause 1.
Mrs. Laing:
It is a matter of priority. [Laughter.] I do not know why Labour Members find that so amusing. In 18 years of Conservative government, we made changes that really made Britain a better place for its people to live in. We did not talk nonsense about modernity or about how the House of Lords Bill would--as the Leader of the House of Commons said today--make for a better Britain. The previous Government's actions in their 18 years in government made for a better Britain. The current Government are simply undermining all those actions and all that is good for the people of Britain.
Labour Members--in the House of Lords Bill, and in their attitude--are undermining democracy itself. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he was surprised at Conservative Members' argument that wider constitutional reform was necessary, and that he and other Liberal Democrats were in favour of constitutional reform and recognised the need for wide reform. If he does not mind my saying it, he is being honest--[Interruption.] He does mind my saying so. Nevertheless, I commend him on recognising the honesty in Conservative Members' position on the issue. Moreover--of necessity--the honesty of our position shows the dishonesty of the Government's position. The Government are dishonest on the issue because of the piecemeal nature of their constitutional reform.
Mr. Maclennan:
As the hon. Lady has been kind enough to refer to me in such flattering terms, perhaps I should say that the message that I was trying to get across was quite simple--that she and her colleagues who are opposing the Bill, and therefore opposing clause 1, are letting the best be the enemy of the good.
Mrs. Laing:
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I consider it my duty to stand for the best, not just the good. That is why I shall not support the Bill. My constituents sent me here not to accept some mediocre little compromise, but to argue for what is right. I am not here to argue for what is popular in the opinion polls or for the old-fashioned, dogmatic principles of Labour Members, who have argued for the abolition of the House of Lords for years and years. Now they want to do it, but there is no point in doing it in such a second-class fashion. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's advice and continue to argue for what is best.
Labour Members are arguing not on principle, but purely for party advantage.
Mr. Savidge:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing:
I cannot give way again because I do not have time.
The need for reform is not determined by the fact--pointed out by so many Labour Members--that there are usually more hereditary peers who support the Conservative party than any other party. That is a nonsensical argument. When I made the point earlier, Labour Members seemed to find it amusing, but peers are by their nature independent. They can choose to be members of the Conservative party, but they did not get there because they were put there by the Conservative party.
That should not be the basis of the argument. We should not be arguing for party advantage, as the Labour party is. We are arguing on matters of principle. If we were arguing merely for party advantage, we would want to keep all the hereditary peers.
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove):
You do.
Mrs. Laing:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We do not propose to keep all the hereditary peers, because we are prepared to argue on principle.
Mr. Paul Clark (Gillingham):
I am confused about which principle the Conservatives are fighting on. The Conservative party's campaign guide in 1997 said:
Mrs. Laing:
The principle of any parliamentary reform should be about how the people hold the Government to account. That is the principle on which I argue for reform of Parliament. If we had a principled Government, they would be arguing that, but they are interested only in pressing the right buttons to get the right answers in the opinion polls.
"It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
Conservative Members have said that they do not agree with that. What is the Tory party's position?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |