HC Deb 14 December 1998 vol 322 cc600-1
32. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)

When she expects to introduce legislation ending the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote. [62161]

36. Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)

When she expects to introduce legislation to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. [62166]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

The Government intend to introduce a Bill, and publish a White Paper, on Lords reform in the near future.

Dr. Gibson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tumbrels are ready for the viscounts and barons, and that people everywhere want both stages of this legislation to go through as fast as possible so that we can deliver our manifesto pledges? Does she have a little sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is in such disarray over the matter?

Mrs. Beckett

I find it hard to have sympathy with the Opposition on this matter. They have created huge problems for themselves simply because they were not prepared to recognise that the hereditary principle has long since had its day.

Dr. Turner

It is 87 years since the Conservative party—or at least its predecessor—recognised that there was no case for retaining the hereditary principle. It is wriggling like mad to delay yet further. Can I have an assurance that the Bill will provide for an upper time limit, preferably not beyond the life of this Parliament, on any interim agreement under which hereditary peers continue to vote?

Mrs. Beckett

The Government are anxious to make progress on this legislation, as on our other manifesto commitments. That is why we hope to introduce the Bill in the near future. My hon. Friend asked me to speculate on its content and precise detail but I fear that I cannot do that before publication. No doubt he will have the chance to make his points in due course.

Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk)

Does the President of the Council believe in a strong and independent second Chamber?

Mrs. Beckett

I certainly believe in an independent second Chamber with its proper role to carry out vis-a-vis this body. The notion that the House of Lords, whatever its strengths, is independent exists only in the fevered brains of the Conservatives.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

We have often asked for an assurance that all stages of the Bill will be taken on the Floor. We have not received it. This is a constitutional measure. Is there any reason why all stages should not be taken on the Floor? Do the Government seriously believe that they can deal with stages 1 and 2 in the life of this Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett

I told the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on Thursday that we are happy to discuss through the usual channels whether the Bill should be discussed on the Floor.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to speculate on whether it would be possible to complete the entire process in this Parliament. That requires me to speculate on the time that it will take to handle the legislation, on how it goes through another place, on the speed with which the royal commission completes its work—I hope that it will indeed be speedy—and, not least, on the date of the next general election. All I can tell him is that the Government intend to make as much progress as possible, as fast as possible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Do the Government intend that the 91 hereditary peers should become life peers as part of the second stage so that some of the bovver boys in ermine will remain?

Mrs. Beckett

I am not sure whether I entirely follow my hon. Friend's question but let me say how I understand the position. People sometimes mean different things when they talk about stage 2. The transition House is the outcome of stage 1. If the agreement holds, it may be that some people will remain in that. What happens beyond stage 2 is a matter for the royal commission, a Joint Committee and, ultimately, this House.