Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

First, I think that it is extremely unlikely that this Bill, and certainly this clause, will end up on the statute book, and I suspect that the Government know that. Nothing controversial will get through in the wash-up, so we are having an academic debate. My second point is in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who unfortunately is not here. He talked about the tyranny of the logical and praised reaction. It might surprise him, if he reads Hansard, to discover that I think there is something to what he says. Burke said that politics ought to be adjusted, not to human reason, but to human nature. There is a lot in that. Institutions, above all, should be organic, and traditions and customs play an important role in that. However, it is also important constantly to be reconciling that organic development with an undercurrent of logic and reason. That is why we cannot carry on with the House of Lords as it is. It is not enough to say that it is refreshing that we have by-elections of hereditary peers and that they add a bit of colour—that was another phrase used—to the other place. That will not do at all. I do not see how I can oppose a clause that will remove the hereditaries, so I shall support clause 29 in the Lobby. There are two issues to consider—one of principle and one of political tactics. The issue of principle was not much discussed in the first half dozen exchanges, but it has started to be discussed near the end of the debate. The point of principle is very straightforward—it is the one that we have just heard and which we also heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I In the 21st century, there should be no place in our Parliament for people who have inherited the right to make our laws. It is very straightforward. Some people may disagree with that, but there are not many of them and they are completely out of step with the electorate and the spirit of the age. Allowing hereditaries to continue to sit in the second Chamber can only erode the credibility of our Parliament and only weaken the second Chamber, making it more difficult for it to perform a meaningful constitutional role. Clause 29 will do no more than end the absurd by-elections—risible and absurd were the words used by the Secretary of State—that would otherwise keep the hereditaries going in perpetuity under the current legislation. We have had numerous quotations from Lord Steel about Old Sarum, and the absurdity of those by-elections tells its own story. They do no credit to our parliamentary system.