Tony Benn was briefly a reluctant member of the second chamber (the 2nd Viscount Stansgate) and has been a longstanding critic of the unelected second chamber.
He is, as has been widely reported, supporting David Davis in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election because of his vehement opposition to the proposal for 42-days pre-charge detention.
I was struck by his comments at the end of an article last week in The Daily Telegraph explaining his reasons for supporting David Davis. He concluded:
‘If the Lords, as expected, also rejects 42 days, it would be a constitutional outrage to use the Parliament Act to enforce the will of the Commons on the second chamber.’
Coming from someone who one would expect to support the will of the elected House over the Lords, this is a notable recognition of the role of the Lords in defending civil liberties.
For sure, but it is not as if Tony Ben’s position is that there shouldn’t be a second chamber, just that it should be democratically elected. Clearly it is important to have a more deliberative second chamber to act as a brake on the commons when it fails. Indeed Ben’s point must be that because the Lords lacks a democratic mandate it can just be kicked aside too easily.
Hmmm…. I think you are doing Tony Benn an inadvertent dis-service here – but I haven’t yet read the original article. I don’t think he is being inconsistent or hypocritical here. What he is suggesting is that if 42-day detention is not a manifesto commitment the use of the Parliament Act is inappropriate. But I can’t second guess Tony Benn.
[Maybe you could post a link to the Telegraph article, for ease?]
Whilst he has been a long-standing and consistent opponent of the House of Lords, I certainly wouldn’t bet my house that he wouldn’t once again change his mind and see the Lords as the best bet of preserving the role of the Houses Of Parliament as a check and balance against the giving away of sovereign powers, and embarking on ill-advised foreign adventures.
But before that could happen one suspects a sea-change in the views of the noble Lords on things like the ‘War on Terror’ and the Constitution of the EU might be required.
I notice that, since 1949, three out of the four Acts passed without the consent of the Lords have been enacted since Labour assumed governing in 1997.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts.cfm
The fourth was the War Crimes Act, 1991. Why did this not get passed by the Lords?
I think Tony Benn’s comments show that it is vital to have a second chamber to scrutinize the work of the House of Commons (whether you agree that the House of Lords should remind as it is or become an elected chamber, that is the question!?
I don’t think I am doing Tony Benn a dis-service, inadvertent or otherwise. He is not a supporter of an elected second chamber. In 1980 he made clear that he thought the first task of an incoming Labour Government was to abolish the second chamber.
ladytizzy: yes, since the passage of the 1949 Parliament Act, four Acts have been enacted under the provisions of the Act (war crimes, European elections, age of consent, and hunting). The War Crimes Bill was to enable those convicted of Second World War crimes and resident in the UK to be tried in UK courts. The Commons passed it by a large majority. The Lords rejected it by a large majority on the grounds that they didn’t think it would have any meaningful effect. What was distinctive about this conflict was that it was a case of Commons versus Lords and not Governmment versus Lords: the votes in both Houses were on free votes.
Hmm.. Fair point.
“Coming from someone who one would expect to support the will of the elected House over the Lords, this is a notable recognition of the role of the Lords in defending civil liberties.” [Lord Norton]
This seems to imply that you expect Tony Benn to support ‘the will of the elected House over the Lords, come what may, without exceptions’.
I suspect that Tony Benn would put the rider that he supports ‘the will of the elected House over the Lords, where that has democratic legitimacy’. I’m not familiar enough with the Labour party manifesto to know whether they explicitly said that there would be 42-day detention [or covered it under some sort of ‘umbrella cause’] or indeed that the EU Constitution referendum might be dropped if the name were changed…
But I take your point that in life one rarely has an ‘a la carte’ choice – one has to choose ‘Menu A’ or ‘Menu B’ – I merely pose the question whether Tony Benn is as committed to abolition of the House of Lords now that ‘democratic Government’ seems to consist of the PM’s close confidantes taking decisions on a sofa in Number 10..
Maybe you are like those badgers his son has been having so many problems with. Some people think they should be spared – many say that progress will not be made until they are culled. But nobody seems to quite be able to make their mind up to the extent that they are willing to wield the knife, so to speak..
Bedd Gelert: It is a question perhaps best posed to Tony Benn. I have no authority to speak for him, even if he was once a member of the Lords. I am not sure if the analogy with the badgers quite holds. There is a debate as to whether badgers are the cause of a problem. With the Lords, some see us as part of a problem, some as part of a solution.
I have to say I agree with Lord Norton that Tony Benn has been inconsistent on this matter with this latest statement. As an opponent of the Lords while I am sure it will reject 42 days I care little for the outcome of the vote as I feel it carries little legitimacy. I think Tony Benn by supporting David Davis and now seeming to show a least some defence of the Lords has embraced the “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” approach. One that is both politically bankrupt and completely unprincipled.
I’m still wondering what the point of this article was.
You quote
“Coming from someone who one would expect to support the will of the elected House over the Lords, this is a notable recognition of the role of the Lords in defending civil liberties.”
I think you are being disingenous here, yes we all know that Tony Benn makes very good copy and unfortunately is used more for his celebrity status than anything else. I certainly didn’t get the impression that he was recognizing the role of the Lords in defending civil liberties at all, he was simply supporting a stance on civil liberties.
The fact remains whether you approve of the Lords or not it is the ONLY option the democratic process has of appealing against bills from the House of Commons.
It has nothing to do with being consistent or inconsistent (nor as it anything to do with my enemy’s enemy cliche; if it is the only option that a person has – regardless who it is – then of course it will be the option they take.
What was Tony Benn to do? Simply cut his proverbial nose off to spite his face? What would be the point and, if I may say so, it is this kind of stupid politicking that has got us where we are in the first place. Let’s not forget that it was precisely because the Government played politics that this clause got through in the first place. Just remember how many votes it was passed by and how those votes were supposedly gotten?
That is what we should be talking about, not some pap about what an ‘celebrity’ ex-politician is or isn’t doing. Save that for your own personal ‘Blog’ not this one.
wcobbett: I’m afraid you rather miss the point that Tony Benn was not simply supporting the Lords in opposing 42 days – which could be justified in terms of being the only parliamentary (as opposed to judicial) option still available – but asserting that it would be a constitutional outrage for the Government to resort to the Parliament Act to get it through. On your last point, it is a perfectly legitimat point to make, not only because Tony Benn gets coverage of his remarks but also because this blog is about the House of Lords – the subject of his comments.
Lord Norton, then you and I must be reading different articles (it would have been useful if at all possible for a posting of said article’s url – I am referring to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2903.xml).
It is not until virtually the last sentence that the House of Lords is mentioned and even then it was hardly ‘about’ the ‘other place’ but simply a side comment
I shall quote:
“If the Lords, as expected, also rejects 42 days, it would be a constitutional outrage to use the Parliament Act to enforce the will of the Commons on the second chamber.”
That is it.
Nowhere else in the article does it mention House of Lords. Hardly making the Lords the ‘subject’ of his comments. I think you are flattering yourself if not the Other Place.
He was simply supporting ‘David Davis’ (not the Lords) in the opposition to the 42 days and it certainly would indeed be a constitutional outrage if the Parliament Act were used if the Lords does overturn the bill.
So no, I don’t think I missed the point as there was no point to miss and I again stand by my question of wondering what on earth the point of this blog article was for.
wcobbett: The length of the comment is not material but rather the fact that he made it, and far from being incidental it was a material point. My original point is not affected by anything you write. I was addressing the substance of his comment.