House of Lords Reform

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting an election system, but with functional rather than geographical constituencies. The big question then is how we make sure that we do not leave people out. A lot of the population would be covered by such constituencies, but not people who do not fit into those particular groups. The employment structure of the country is changing rapidly, so it is difficult to define what those occupational groups would be. In the end, the easiest way to run a democracy is on a geographical basis. I want to come to the fundamental reason why we should have a second Chamber. It is to be a political check and balance, not just to represent regional and local interests, although the point about the present second Chamber being fundamentally a London-based Chamber has been made several times and very well. The second Chamber should be a check in a legislative process that often operates far too quickly. We legislate at great speed. In the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and various terrorism Bills we have approached a knee-jerk democracy. The problem with that is that the population of the country needs time to react. If we are to have any public influence on the political system, the public need time. Most people most of the time pay little attention to politics. Often they do not realise that their fundamental interests and rights may be in danger, so they need time to organise—to come together to put pressure on their rulers. For that to happen, we need the checks and balances provided by a second Chamber whose job is to delay things, to get in the way and to cause creative tension in the system. If we are to have a body with power to block, even for a short time—a year or so—how does that body choose which Bills to block and which to let through? How does it choose to block the Hunting Bill but not the Identity Cards Bill? If a body of people is to have that important power and choice, the only way it can legitimately exercise it is if it is elected. In a constitutional system, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, there will be other people—namely, constitutional judges—with the power to make Parliament think again, but in our system, we do not have that option at present. All we have is the second Chamber’s power of delay. Any Chamber that has the power of delay, to allow the population to organise itself into opposition, must be elected; it cannot exist simply by power of patronage. On the propositions before the House, my position logically leads to my voting for 100 per cent. election, so why should I vote for anything else—apart from the fact that my party wants me to? I am prepared to put up with 80:20, because in a House with 80 per cent. elected, 20 per cent. selected, the likelihood that a proposition would go through because of the votes of the 20 per cent. is quite low. It would be possible for such a House to adopt a procedure that allowed it to think again if that were to be the case. In addition, 80:20 would give a House with a profoundly democratic culture—the 20 per cent. would be exceptional.