HL Deb 18 May 1999 vol 601 cc210-4

(" .—(1) During the period while the Act remains in force, recommendations by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1951 shall be made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) Not more than twenty recommendations shall be made during any period of one year.

(3) Not more than fifteen of the recommendations referred to in subsection (2) shall be for the conferment of a life peerage on a person who is a member of a registered party; and such recommendations shall be made in proportion to the respective number of votes cast for registered political parties at the previous general election.")

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to explore briefly the reaction of the Government to the idea of a limit on the exercise of patronage. The proposal is related to the idea that there should be safeguards in the interim House. It would prevent any government, of whatever colour, flooding the House to support a programme that was being amended by a House in which they did not have a majority. I appreciate that it is not the Government's stated aim to seek a majority in the House. The Opposition have the same view. But we would be wise to avoid any government in the future coming into temptation in that way. The amendment proposes putting a cap on the number of creations in any year which would apply to all parties.

It may be helpful to examine briefly the historical precedents of the annual creations made by recent governments. My source is an excellent paper produced by the Library of the House. The Macmillan government created an average of 16 new Peers per year; the first Wilson government created 25 per year; the Heath government, 12 per year; the second Wilson government, 38 per year; the government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, 19 per year. The government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher created 18 per year, and Mr. Major's government created 25 Peers per year. Mr. Blair's Government—and I do not wish to make any political point—created 67 per year. At least that was the figure at the time of the Library paper. I understand some of the reasons for the high number of creations of the present Prime Minister. A further rash may be on the way in pursuit of the Government's stated intention to achieve broad parity between the parties. We do not dispute that aim.

What will happen during the rest of the life of the interim House, to which this amendment applies? Has any limit been considered? Will a limit be considered? Given the practice of Prime Ministers who have been in office for 23 of the past 40 years, do the Government agree that there is nothing in the figure of 20 that could not be adhered to? I know that there is increasing fear that the exercise of patronage may well get out of hand in the interim House. This is one way of preventing it.

I am also conscious that on 13th May 1999 (at col. 1419 of the Official Report) the Leader of the House made a generous offer to my noble friend Lord Lucas to enter into discussions between the Committee and Report stages on the question of how an appointments commission and similar potential safeguards might work. I welcome that proposal. I wonder whether the amendment might form part of that meeting. Perhaps not, but whoever is to respond to the amendment may wish to deal with the matter. I assure the Leader of the House that we on the Opposition Front Bench will readily take part in such talks to see whether a consensus on an appointments commission can be reached. I beg to move.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that this is a probing amendment. I certainly do not want to delay the Committee but the amendment raises a number of interesting issues that go beyond the points made by the noble Lord. Subsection (2) of Amendment No. 135 states: Not more than twenty recommendations shall be made during any period of one year".

I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned that in the period 1992–96 the average loss through death of life Peers was 19. So it must be noted that, give or take one or two, the noble Lord is proposing that there should be no more recommendations in a year than there is likely to be wastage through death. In other words, the Chamber will continue with a constant number.

It has been widely agreed in the terms of the Government's White Paper that there must be a balancing of the numbers on a political basis. Even were there to be no more nominations of Conservative Peers during the life of the new Chamber, it would still not be possible to redress the balance given the disproportionate numbers at present.

Paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the Government's White Paper and paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 set out the Government's understanding of the present position and also their intention for the future. The White Paper indicates the balance since the last election between the three principal parties. The figures are plain for everyone to see.

I seek to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there is no possibility, even if the new House survives a great deal longer than most noble Lords would wish it to do, in balancing the new Chamber, given the figures for votes cast in the last election on the basis of no change whatever in the numbers. That is the simple arithmetic which everyone must recognise.

It depends on when the figures are taken, but in broad terms 46 party life Peers are Conservatives, 42 are Labour, and 12 per cent are Liberal Democrats. So there must be some "coming down" in the number of Conservative life Peers. We all understand that there has to be an increase in the number of Labour life Peers. And there must be, to use the words in the White Paper, considerable proportionate creations of Liberal Democrats to obtain what would properly be our share of political life Peers.

So when we look at a figure of 20, and then allow, as I understand it, five for the Cross-Benches, it is plainly nonsense to believe that, were an amendment of this kind to be carried, it would contribute in any way at all to what I should like to believe would be the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as well as those expressed by the Government—and which I am sure are shared by the whole Committee.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I suppose that we should be grateful in debating this amendment that the Opposition Front Bench officially recognises that some sort of proper balance of forces within this House is desirable. It has never seemed particularly to worry them in the past. Even last evening we were told by the Opposition Chief Whip that it is really this side that has the majority, and that is perhaps because we work harder.

There are two problems with this amendment. The first is that it is unnecessary. We have repeatedly made it clear that we do not intend to flood the House with new Labour Peers. We have committed ourselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, just said, to seeking only broad parity with the main Opposition party, to maintaining proportionate creations and to maintaining a Cross-Bench presence.

The second problem is slightly different. What the amendment does not do is enable any serious rebalancing of the relative party strengths in the House to take place because it deals only with new creations and not with existing numbers—what might be called the stock of Members. So although there is provision for new creations to be proportioned, the formula ignores both current disproportions and vacancies in the total existing membership created by death—as I said, the stock of existing Peers.

Would it, for example, under this amendment be open to the Prime Minister not to offer the Conservatives any new peerages on the grounds that they had suffered no deaths, but to appoint the seven new life Peers to which he was entitled, since Labour has suffered more than seven deaths, and to offer the Liberal Democrats their two; or would all batches of creations need to be in strict proportion regardless of the underlying circumstances?

I also remind the Committee that there are many more than three registered political parties. There are a dozen represented in the other place alone. Presumably they would have to share one, or sometimes two, appointments a year. Is that, for example, to be done on the basis of strict rotation, or on the basis of which party can put forward the most deserving candidate?

As I said, the Government's White Paper addressed the question of the stock of membership of the House, since it is that which determines relative party strengths and which in turn ought to reflect the outcome of a general election. A proposal which applies shares of the popular vote only to the flow of new creations, or seeks to put a ceiling on new creations alone does not take account of those realities. Therefore, this amendment is irrelevant politically and would not work in practice. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is anxious to join in the conversations that I have agreed to have with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the basis of his previous amendments. I should obviously be very happy if he would do so.

Lord Elton

Will the noble Baroness tell the Committee, as this is a probing amendment, whether the Government have in mind any optimum number for the total membership of this House? What is the proposed best size for doing the work that the Government have in mind for it?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I am sure that the noble Lord can do the arithmetic in relation to the subsequent House, which involves the 500-odd life Peers and other creations on whatever formulas achieve that. The longer-term arrangements would obviously be appropriate for discussion by the Royal Commission.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

I was only trying to get to the principle; namely, the question put by my noble friend Lord Elton as to whether or not the noble Baroness felt that it would ever be right to impose an annual cap, barring some of the difficulties that she raised. Obviously the answer is no, there should not be a cap; there should be complete freedom for the Prime Minister to choose as many as he wants. The intention of this debate was not to give the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the opportunity to make the case for more Liberal Democrat Peers, although I am glad that he did not miss that opportunity.

Is it the Government's intention to move to the composition of this House reflecting votes in a general election in the interim House, or is it to wait until we arrive at the longer-term, stage two reforms?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has read the very precise comments on this matter in the White Paper referring to the transitional House.

Lord Strathclyde

So there is no further thinking on that! Well, this has been a useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 135A and 135B not moved.]

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 135C: After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—