| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allan: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in a debate that is properly for the reformed second Chamber. I simply point out that two elected Chambers seems to be the global norm in a bicameral system. Everybody else gets by with two elected Chambers, including the United States.
Mr. Rammell: The Chambers in the United States have very different functions from those proposed and debated here.
The concern that I am expressing about a 100 per cent. elected Chamber is not some novel, new Labour concern. The Brice convention in 1917-18, under Lloyd George, rejected the option of a directly elected second Chamber on the ground that it would inevitably become a rival to the House of Commons. The same concerns were voiced in 1948--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Member must be careful. We are debating amendments that are far more narrow than his comments. We should try to concentrate on the Weatherill amendment.
Mr. Rammell:
I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely responding to some of the points raised by Conservative Members.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal(Mr. Gummer), for whom I have great respect--he knows that I agree with him on matters European--asked why I am in favour of a two-stage process. It is because history teaches us not to trust members of the Conservative party on this issue. Throughout the past 89 years, Conservatives have said, "Of course we are in favour of the notion of a reformed second Chamber, but we need to see what will follow it." The lack of consensus on a second stage has then been used as a means to block reform and the abolition of the hereditary peerage.
Mr. Gummer:
If the hon. Gentleman had a leg that gave him pain, would he think it sensible if someone suggested that it should be chopped off before it was decided what should be put in its place? No, he would want to know first what was on offer instead of his defective leg. The hon. Gentleman is offering the House a curious concept: we will get rid of what we have got--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), has passed between you and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and between the hon. Gentleman and a Conservative Member who was intervening. Is that in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I shall deal with the things that I see and hear. At the moment, I am trying to deal with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose intervention is too long. The best thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Rammell:
Let me answer the point of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, by saying that, by agreeing now on the first stage of reform, we shall concentrate minds on achieving the second stage. The past 89 years of history show that, if we abolish hereditary peers now, we are far more likely to get second stage reform than would otherwise be the case.
I hear protestations from Conservative Members--
Mrs. Laing:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell:
I shall finish the point; then I will give way.
I hear protestations from Conservative Members that their integrity is being impugned and that of course they are in favour of reform. I would not ask you to believe me or believe the Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall quote to you Lord Chalfont in a debate in the House of Lords, who said:
Angela Smith:
Do not quote manifestos.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Once again, I urge the House to get back to the amendments. We must deal with the amendments before us.
Mr. Rammell:
I shall follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
An accusation has been made that the Labour party and this Labour Government are unfairly using their position to create a significantly increased number of life peers. That fails to take account of what has happened over the years, with the huge Conservative majority in the second Chamber. Are Conservative Members arguing that we should continue to accept that we shall permanently be in a minority position vis-a-vis the Conservative party in the House of Lords?
When we are judging which party is being dogmatic and trying to use the situation in a partisan way, we might make an instructive comparison. We have a Labour Government and a Labour Prime Minister who, for the first time, are giving up the rights of patronage, and are seeking a second Chamber in which no party has an overall majority. Contrast that with the Conservative party in 1979, with Lady Thatcher as Prime Minister. Despite the fact that there was already a significant majority of Conservative peers over Labour peers, she sought to increase the disparity between the Conservative party and the Labour party. That shows which party and which Government are being straight and fair on these issues.
Mrs. Beckett:
As the last intervention suggested that the Conservative party's bona fides were demonstrated by having been said to be in favour of some form of different system--perhaps election to the House of Lords--for such a long time, I remind my hon. Friend that, on paper, since 1948, the Conservative party has been in favour of no party having a majority in the House of Lords, but it has added to that majority ever since.
Mr. Rammell:
Absolutely. In responding to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I am very conscious that the word hypocrisy is not allowed to be bandied around in the Chamber, so I choose my words carefully. She makes her point very forcefully.
The nub of the amendments--
Mr. Rammell:
I shall not give way again, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The nub of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and of some of the concerns expressed by Conservative Members, is that this is not a two-stage process--that the Government will complete the first stage and then things will remain the same for ever and a day. I honestly do not believe that to be the case.
The Government are arguing, on the record, that this is a temporary solution. We are today abolishing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. The Wakeham commission will report by the end of the year, and we have committed ourselves to setting up a Committee of the two Houses afterwards. Given the sequence of events that will flow from that set of propositions, I find it inconceivable that the Labour party will not have to give an explicit commitment, in its general election manifesto, to the second stage of reform. Therefore the Conservatives' accusations are without foundation.
Finally, I would return--
Mrs. Laing:
I can understand the hon. Gentleman's passion against the hereditary principle from the arguments that he has made. I can also understand why, despite that, he may well support the Lords amendment this evening out of expediency; but why did he not vote against it when I proposed it on 16 February, when he was free to do so?
Mr. Rammell:
The hon. Lady well knows the answer. It is about tactics and practical politics and government. Had we agreed to that amendment at that stage, that would have reinforced those Conservative peers who wanted to block our proposals for reform. The Bill would have returned to this place and, because it was not in its original form, we could not have enforced the Parliament Acts. That seems to me to be perfectly sensible.
Mrs. Laing:
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is consistent. So why did he not vote against it in February? I have just checked, and he did not.
Mr. Rammell:
Because I want the issue to be resolved once and for all, after 89 years, and I believe that the Cross-Bench amendment is the most practical and effective way to achieve that.
"One of the things about which I am sorry is that the Conservative government, when they were in power, did not take some steps towards reforming this House."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1999; Vol. 606, c. 225.]
10 Nov 1999 : Column 1161
The fact that the Conservative party never took those steps, and certainly never did so in 18 years in government, undermines the Conservatives' claims that they are in favour of reform.
Mr. Tyrie:
Lord Chalfont is an ex-Labour Minister who now sits on the Cross Benches. As for the hon. Gentleman's wider points, for the better part of 100 years, the Conservative party has been proposing forms of direct or indirect election to the second Chamber. For much of that period, the Labour party has been proposing complete abolition of the second Chamber, and has done so in three manifestos since 1911.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |