HL Deb 29 January 2002 vol 631 cc72-4

2.51 p.m.

Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the comments of the Lord Chancellor in the debate on House of Lords reform on 9th January about the interim nature of the Government's proposals on composition are consistent with the White Paper's title The House of Lords: Completing the Reform.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)

My Lords, the White Paper was called Completing the Reform following the language of the Labour manifesto of 2001. Your Lordships will recall that, in our previous debates, the removal of the rights of the hereditaries had been described as phase one and that phase two would follow. In our debate on 9th January, I was seeking to explain that the White Paper proposed a phase two which would constitute completion of the reform for the present. I added that, after a period of years, it would no doubt be correct to revisit the composition issue, so that what we were proposing was, a compromise for today, not a solution for all time".—[Official Report, 09/01/02; col. 565.] Although 120 elected is the maximum possible at present if the rights of the existing 587 life Peers are to be respected, I was indicating that there could he greater flexibility over time. History never ends.

Lord Campbell-Savours

My Lords, in light of the very convincing evidence that my noble and learned friend gave last week to the Public Administration Committee in another place, is it not fair to say now on reflection that the White Paper title—Completing the Reform—was inappropriate and perhaps even unfortunate?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, from the reception of the White Paper, I am ready to agree that many people seem to have been misled by the title. As I said, however, we were signalling completing phase one and phase two for now, with the maximum number of elected being consistent with respecting the right of the existing life Peers. If revisiting the issue at some stage were to be called stage three by others, I would not be uncomfortable with such a description.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the phasing of any reform—such as that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, with the support of a few Conservative Peers, that 80 per cent of 300 Members be elected; regardless of the actual number and way in which it is arrived at—would count as the last stage of reform?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it is a very far remove from any of our thinking on this subject that 80 per cent of the Members of this House should ever be elected. We believe that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons is essential to the stability that lies at the bedrock of our constitution. As your Lordships know perfectly well, and as your Lordships' two-day debate showed, the problem is that, on the issue of House of Lords reform, there are as many opinions as there are politicians to express them. So, yes, there is as yet no consensus around the White Paper proposals, but nor is there any consensus around any other set of proposals. I believe that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, to which reference has been made, would attract near unanimous rejection on the Conservative Benches in this House—that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were to hold a free vote on them.

Lord Renton

My Lords, as your Lordships' principal task is to invite the government of the day and the House of Commons to think again, would it not diminish the value of your Lordships' House if we found that, owing to excessive democratisation, we had a majority here that coincided with the majority in the other place?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as I said, the bedrock of stability in our constitution is that the elected Chamber is pre-eminent, and is ultimately entitled to have its way when there is conflict with this House. It must be remembered that the conventions underpinning that are premised on this House being unelected and the other place elected. It really is not real-world politics to deny that, if the proportion of elected in this House became substantial, the dynamics of the relationship between both Houses would fundamentally change. It could even be argued that a substantially elected House of Lords had a superior legitimacy, on the basis that there are some who think that PR is more legitimate than first past the post. I emphasise, however, that the Government proposed 120 elected not on the basis that it would give this House greater legitimacy, but as a means of ensuring representation in this House of the nations and the regions.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that reform of the upper House cannot be complete until we have considered the functions and powers as well as the composition of that House? Does he agree that the White Paper contains nothing of any significance whatever on that subject?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, we can of course talk about the parliamentary aspects of reform. However, I believe that most Members of this House believe that, broadly speaking, the functions and powers of this House are correct. They operate as a check and a balance on the House of Commons. In my own view, the starting point of any consideration of the issue is not some type of bidding process about how many elected there should be, but an examination of the purpose of this House, having regard to its powers and functions. We should then ask ourselves what that tells us about the composition issue.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has announced that there is to be a third stage of reform of this House. He has also said that the Labour Party will have a free vote, and that there are no politicians who can agree on this subject. Is not the greatest place of disagreement at the heart of the Government themselves, in the Cabinet, with a fundamental disagreement between the noble and learned Lord and the leader of another place, Mr Robin Cook? Therefore, is not the best possible way of seeking to resolve these differences between parties and within parties to establish with some haste a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine those issues?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord misheard me: no suggestion has come from me about a free vote, other than to invite him to conduct a free vote among his own Benches to confirm what we all know very well—the Leader of the Opposition's proposals in another place go down like a lead balloon on his own Benches. I have not announced that there will be a stage three; what I have said is that we shall be well able in time to revisit the issue of the number of elected Peers while at the same time protecting the preeminence of the House of Commons. If others—not the Government—were to call that stage three, that is a matter about which I am relaxed.