Constitutional Change (Hansard, 3 April 2001)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
My Lords, our major programme of constitutional reform of course drew out profound debate in Parliament and the country about the nature and effectiveness of our institutions, their mutual relationships and our sense of national identity. The Government have both contributed to and learnt from that debate. But we have concluded that we were right to have removed the hereditary peerage from this House, subject to a temporary right for one-tenth to remain; right to have created the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales; right to press ahead with 720 democratic self-government for Northern Ireland as part of the peace process; right to create the regional development agencies and to restore an all-London tier of government; right to have put the Freedom of Information Act on the statute book: and right to have introduced the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act will stand as a major legislative and constitutional monument to this Government's first term of office.

§ Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. I heard a great many "rights" in his response. With his well known reputation for listening and taking advice, in the quiet weeks ahead will the noble and learned Lord reflect on two points? First, has devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made the trend towards an English national parliament at Westminster irreversible? Do any of us really want that? How could it be reversed? Secondly, on a more domestic front, is it not time that serious all-party consideration was given to the appropriate powers of this revised upper Chamber? If we are to have a credible ability to revise and delay, is it not time that we went back to the situation in which we had the ability to delay public legislation for two years rather than 13 months?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not believe that there is any appetite in England for a national parliament for England. As to the second point, the Wakeham commission was of the clear view that the basic scheme of the Parliament Acts should remain unchanged, and we agree. The noble Lord's proposition would turn back the clock from 1949 to 1911 and allow the Lords to delay for two Sessions, not one, the will of the elected Chamber. That does not find any support from the Government.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, given that impressive list of constitutional changes, will my noble and learned friend reflect perhaps a little further on the Human Rights Act and give his view on whether it is settling down or has produced the chaos in the courts that many of its opponents foresaw?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, those who opposed the Human Rights Act as some kind of alien intrusion from Europe predicted, as my noble friend correctly said, chaos in the courts and suggested that they would become clogged up with worthless cases making centuries-old English traditions illegal. The prophets of doom have had their day in the media but have been comprehensively proved wrong, as we knew they would be. The courts and Whitehall were well prepared. Our decision to allow for a long pause between passage of the Act and implementation to ensure preparation has been vindicated. Hopeless cases are being rejected; the most important cases are being fast-tracked and sensible decisions are being handed down. Our institutions and practices have been shown to be substantially convention-compliant; where they are not, the Act signals a new partnership between Parliament, the executive and the judiciary to make them more compliant.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the impressive list that he read out was all part of the Cook-Maclennan agreement between our two parties prior to the last election and that we therefore share pleasure in the progress made during this Parliament? Does the noble and learned Lord believe that an early and radical reform of this Chamber, devolution to the English regions and fair votes for another place would make a good menu for another reforming Parliament?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, we welcome support from all quarters, including the Liberal Democrat Party. That is undoubtedly an attractive menu, but it is one to which I cannot commit the Government.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, have the Government none the less not learnt some lessons from the creation of a London mayor, which has led to disputes and confusion over transport plans, of a Scottish Executive, which is now in the process of decimating the Scottish fishing industry, and of a Cabinet committee, shared with the Liberal Democrats, although the Government still do not know from day to day whether the Liberal Democrats will be with them or against them?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is of the nature of all forms of devolution that diversity is promoted. It is not necessarily the case that the Government will like every decision of the Welsh Assembly or, indeed, every decision of the Scottish Parliament or Executive. But the function of devolution is to promote diversity, in which we should rejoice.

§ The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, in the light of the increased proportion of appointed Peers since the reform, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the appointed Peers make an important contribution to the House because of the experience in medicine, social work. politics and other fields that they bring? Does he share the observation that appointed Peers, especially those who serve for a long time in your Lordships' House, suffer from mysterious bouts of amnesia when they forget those who have appointed them?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am not sure about the noble Earl's latter point because I am sure that every Peer, whether appointed or otherwise, values his or her independence. We are sometimes asked whether the House is now more legitimate. It is in the sense that it now has a predominance of life Peers, who have been individually selected, and it may be that that does make the House more legitimate. However, the Government remain committed to the primacy of the House of Commons, the elected Chamber, as expressed in the Parliament Acts.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the great problem with constitutional reform is that most people find it economically irrelevant? What the regions want is 722 more investment from outside and more migration from inside. The trouble with constitutional reform of this kind is that it is entirely irrelevant and makes more difficult those two important economic problems.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I doubt whether there are many in the House who would agree with that. It is of the highest importance to recharge and reinvigorate our institutions and to bring them closer to the people they serve.