House of Lords Reform (Hansard, 24 March 1982)

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given further consideration to the subject of House of Lords reform and whether they will make a statement.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)
My Lords, as I explained to the House last December, the Government will continue to search for changes in the House of Lords which would be widely acceptable to the parties. But such changes can only proceed on the basis of all-party talks which in turn must depend upon some measure of agreement on the type of reform which might take place. At present there is no sign of this agreement.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, does the Minister realise that that is a somewhat unsatisfactory Answer? Does she also realise, or do the Government realise, that the absence of some indication or suggestion of reform of your Lordships' House only serves to strengthen the attitude of those who seek to abolish this House? Is the Minister aware that if at the next election political views take a certain direction there might be an immediate demand for the abolition of this House? Is not there every reason why both Houses of Parliament should begin to discuss, even in a temporary and perhaps potential fashion, what kind of reform is required for your Lordships' House?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is that everybody in your Lord-ships' House would view it as appalling if the House 961 of Lords were to be abolished. I think that is a view which is shared by a great many people outside your Lordships' House. But the fact of the matter is that reform of your Lordships' House, as I indicated in my original Answer, can proceed only where there is a measure of agreement that reform is required and a measure of agreement as to what that reform should be. At present there is no indication that there is such agreement.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, while there may be general approval of the notion that the House of Lords should continue in being, neither the Labour nor the Conservative Party wishes it to function effectively because it would be a nuisance for them if proper resources were to be made available to Back Benchers of this House as they are in another place to do their jobs properly, and that is the reason why we are kept on such short commons?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I would not accept that remark. I think that the House of Lords does work effectively. The proof of this is the number of amendments which are made in this Chamber and which are accepted by Governments, and the number of times we have been instrumental in making improvements to legislation, promoting legislation and airing subjects of national importance.

§ Lord Lee of Newton
My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer a very vital question? Would the Government care to have a look at what is undoubtedly the finest collection of resolutions and advice, contained in a report produced by a committee of Labour Members? If she would like a copy, I will be very happy to provide it, and perhaps the Government could then circulate it as a Green Paper for national discussion.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the publication that was issued by Labour Peers some years ago, I have read it, but I shall be very happy to read it again. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will draw it to the attention of their colleagues in the House of Commons.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that while the present stance of the Labour Party is that the House of Lords must be totally abolished, there is no chance of agreement between the parties, and that in those circumstances and while they continue the date for the very much needed reform of this House is never?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I cannot go beyond the statement I made in my original Answer to this question. What is important is that all Members of your Lordships' House should be talking to their colleagues in another place and persuading them towards this point of view.

§ Lord Sudeley
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether she does not agree that, like our case law, the House of Lords has a strictly prescriptive basis, and therefore that any reform 962 of the House from a rationalist's point of view must be viewed with strict caution?

§ Baroness Young
What I think is true, my Lords, is that there have been a number of very successful reforms since the Second World War, which have been of a relatively minor nature, or were so regarded when they were introduced, but have altered the House of Lords. These are the sort of matters noble Lords are thinking of when they talk of reform.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that a desire to abolish the House of Lords in its present somewhat indefensible form does not necessarily indicate a devotion to single-Chamber government?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I come from a party that is completely committed to having a second Chamber, and I have said so frequently. I would like to think that the party to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, belongs said the same thing in such vigorous terms.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
I am, anyway, my Lords.

§ Lord Robbins
My Lords, would the noble Baroness not admit that there was a close approximation to a solution a few years ago, which was only defeated (if I may use the term in your Lordships' House) by an unholy alliance in the other place?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I do not think that I should describe the Members of the other place quite in those terms. However, it illustrates the difficulties of reform at a time when there was a very large measure of agreement that there should be reform and even on the terms of that reform; still, it was not possible to bring that reform about.

§ Lord Byers
My Lords, I wonder whether I might put it to the noble Baroness—speaking as one who was a member of the three-man committee in 1969—that it might be worth while to seek another examination of the possibility of reforming the House of Lords by a committee of this House only, in order to give some idea to the other place of what is at risk?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I will certainly note that point.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, may I ask one further question? Is the Minister aware that there are many Members of your Lordships' House who have expressed the opinion that what is required, even as a temporary measure indicating the need for some measure of reform, is that we should deal with the obvious imbalance of numbers in your Lordships' House? Could we not begin with something of that kind, which would indicate to the general public that, while we wish to retain the House of Lords—as I do myself because I do not believe in a single Chamber and have made that point quite obvious in my writings and speeches—we are trying to create (and forgive me for using the expression) a more democratic assembly?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has spoken up for the House of Lords on many occasions, and we are always very glad when he does so. I will of course look carefully at what he has said and the suggestions which he has made.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that in any proposals which may at a future date be brought forward there will be no suggestion of an age limit for Members of your Lordships' House?