House of Lords Reform (Hansard, 6 December 2001)

§ Lord Selsdon
asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, what mathematical model they have applied or what actuarial research they have conducted to ensure that the total membership of the House can be capped at 600 in 10 years' time without any diminution in the existing number of life Peers.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, the Government Actuary's Department estimated that, on average, 17 to 18 life Peers could be expected to die each year in the first decade of this century.

Noble Lords
Oh! Shame!

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the House currently has 704 Members. The net gain in numbers from the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers and the entry of 120 elected Members is 28. Taking account of those figures, the estimated mortality rate means that the Government can justify the statement in paragraph 91 of the White Paper; namely, the proposal for a cap of 600.

§ Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned—and ever-youthful—Lord the Leader of the House. But is he aware that government statistics can be wrong—as noble Lords have proven from time to time? Is he further aware that Members of this House, more than any other minority group in the country and possibly in the world, have a propensity for long life because of the active use of their minds? By my calculations, up 100 Members may be forced to be removed if the Government seek to achieve that objective. Will the noble and learned Lord give an undertaking that under no circumstances will the Government seek to remove any life Peer?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, your Lordships certainly have a propensity for long life—and long speeches—but, as my noble friend reminds me, not yet a propensity for immortality. We have made it plain in the White Paper that present life Peers are in no danger of compulsory exclusion. Equally, the question has been raised of a voluntary retirement age, and possibly a retirement resettlement package.

Lord Renton
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

Lord Renton
My Lords, having helped Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary in 1958, to pilot the Life Peerages Act through another place, perhaps I may assure the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that life Peers are living longer and longer; and that the more expertise that can 946 be kept in and attracted to this House, rather than "Lobby fodder" by the creation of life Peers, the more will the public interest be served.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Lord is himself a life Peer. He has never been regarded as Lobby fodder on any occasion, by anyone. The tables indicate—unless I am about to be corrected; I hope that the noble Lord whose mobile phone is ringing will say: "I am on the train"!

§ Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
My Lords, I hope that I am old enough to be able to ask this question. It is relevant to the total numbers given. Will the Minister explain why the analysis on page 31 of the White Paper of the so-called imbalance in party strengths, includes the remaining hereditary Peers? As the hereditaries will not sit in the reformed House, only the number of life Peers matters for that calculation. Will the Minister place in the Library a corrected version of page 31, indicating the proportion of life Peers for each of the three major parties as compared with votes cast at the last general election—which is the proper basis for discussing the future composition of this House?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, there is no inaccuracy in paragraph 31. It sets out the present facts. There will be a period of time between the beginning of our discussion on second stage reform and Royal Assent when the presence of a significant number of hereditaries has a connection to party strengths. But the simple arithmetical calculation is an easy one, and I am perfectly happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, the figures given by the Minister suggest a net difference of 28. He referred to 704 being the current strength of the House; 92 hereditaries will go; and 120 Peers will be elected—bringing the figure to 732. But he made no reference to "people's Peers". Does that mean that the commission will be redundant, and that the only method of entering this House will be by election?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
No, my Lords. The indication of the Government's thinking given in the White Paper is that there should be a new independent statutory commission. Its remit, over a 10-year period, will be to work to the 600 cap. Plainly there will be a lengthy transition period when the commission will have to work towards that cap. I do not believe that it is unattainable, particularly as the background papers in the Printed Paper Office show that some Members of your Lordships' House do not attend very regularly and might be quite pleased to take a permanent leave of absence.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, why do the Government believe that 600 is the necessary limit for an effective upper House? Would it not be possible to reduce that figure by 20 or 30 per cent and still retain the same quality?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, if the noble Lord can specify for my noble and learned friend the 947 Lord Chancellor and me where that 20 or 30 per cent might come from, we should both be extremely pleased. Not every Member of this House devotes all of his or her time to parliamentary business. Many would say—and I would be among them—that that is one of the strengths of this House. If the House were significantly smaller, not all of the range of expertise would be available and I think that Parliament—and therefore the country—would suffer.