HL Deb 08 December 2003 vol 655 cc547-51

2.59 p.m.

Lord Selsdon

asked Her Majesty's Government: How many Members of the House, on 26th November 2003, were elected Peers and how many were appointed Peers.

The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

My Lords, there were 684 Members of the House of Lords on 26th November 2003, of which 539 were sitting as Life Peers under the terms of the Life Peerages Act 1958, 27 were sitting as either serving or former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the terms of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and 26 Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England were sitting as a consequence of taking up their diocesan sees. There were also 92 hereditary Peers excepted from the provision to exclude hereditary Peers under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999.

Lord Selsdon

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the opaque transparency of his response. In this season of good will, could I ask him whether he would be kind enough to recommend to his honourable and right honourable friends that the correct title for the hereditary Peers to whom he has just referred is "elected hereditary Peers", unless the word "elected" sticks in his throat?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do not think that it would be the right way to describe those Peers. For example, as we know, the last election that happily resulted in the arrival of my noble friend Lord Grantchester was an "election" held in which there was an electorate of three and something like three times as many candidates. Of course, technically, hereditary Peers are elected, but I do not think that people beyond the confines of this Chamber would necessarily think that they have been "elected" in the more conventional sense.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with respect, the noble and learned Lord cannot get away with that. Does he recall that it was an election suggested by the Labour Party, which formed the Government at the time? It had the approval of Members of the House of Commons; it had the approval of Members of your Lordships' House; and it had the approval of Parliament. It is not possible to say that they were not elected. The system may be wrong, but that is the Government's fault.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as the noble Earl heard, the question to which I responded was whether I would recommend to my right honourable and honourable friends that henceforward they would be called "elected" Members of the House. The answer is no, I will not recommend that to my right honourable and honourable friends because I do not believe that people beyond this Chamber would regard that as the kind of election they perhaps had in mind for the House of Lords.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, having listened to the noble and learned Lord on the "Today" programme this morning, why does he not accept that the way forward to a proper democratic reform of your Lordships' House involving real elections is not for the Government to seek a non-existent consensus but to show some leadership?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, before we move beyond the House of Lords reform Bill, which will be proposed this Session, we should seek to find consensus. Accompanying the announcement of a statutory appointments commission and the removal of the hereditaries, we made it clear that the door was open. We hope that we shall be able to move people through it.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, it is good news that the noble and learned Lord is in favour of consultation and consensus, but why is he in favour of it only after the passage of the proposed Bill rather than before?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, because it has taken so long to reach consensus, the idea that the hereditaries should remain and that any Prime Minister of the day should still be able to determine the size of the House and the size of the respective political parties is, I believe, no longer sustainable.

Lord Elton

My Lords, even at this late stage, does not the noble and learned Lord consider that there would be merit in considering the arrangements of both Houses at the same time?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, that may well be right for further stages of reform but, in terms of the hereditary Peers, the statutory appointments commission and the idea of the Prime Minister being able to determine the size of the House and the size of the political parties, I do not believe that anyone suggests that that is a sensible or appropriate way to deal with the matter.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord believe that the 15 Peers who were elected by the entire House deserve the title of "elected hereditary Peer"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, again, I do not believe that they deserve that title. They are deserving in many respects but, as to whether they should be called "elected", one should look at how the world outside the Chamber views this issue. The question of "elected" Members of this House means "elected by a wider public".

Lord Marsh

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that this exchange demonstrates beyond any argument the enthusiasm and desire from all quarters of the House to get on with these reforms?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, that is not necessarily the impression one gets from this exchange. However, I am more than happy to agree with the noble Lord. We should try to move on and make progress on the two reforms to which we are referring.

Lord Hughes of Woodside

My Lords, would not an examination of the voting lists from the last time we had choices of the kind of House we would have reveal that the hereditary Peers were all over the shop, just like everyone else?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do not know the precise figures but this House voted three to one or four to one in favour of an appointed House. This may well not be the stage two that the Labour Party wishes, but it certainly appears to be the stage two that a vast majority of this House want.

Lord Elton

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord realise that his answer to my first supplementary question was highly unsatisfactory to those of us who were elected—whether we are called "elected" or not— because we understood that we were elected in order to be here for the final settlement? The noble and learned Lord's answer suggested that what is to be done next is merely to eliminate those of us who were elected in order to get on with the job without us being there to put in our piece.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as was made clear at the time the assurances were given, they were intended to be for a short period. The transitional period was intended to last—

Noble Lords

No!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, that was specifically said at the time the assurances were given in Hansard. The precise reason that the hereditaries were staying was for that short period. As regards the assurances given in relation to stage two and its definition, as I said earlier, the stage two that very many people on the other side of the House wanted was a fully appointed House.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord remember—if he was here— that there was no reference to a short period? I was here. There was no reference to a transitional period as a cut-off on the basis of the deal that was made. Does not the noble and learned Lord know that?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, both of those points were referred to by my noble and learned friend the then Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate on the 1999 Bill.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord refers to a "short period", is it in comparison to the life of the nation or only to the life of one Parliament?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, a "short period" in relation to the particular assurances that were given is a short period not in relation to the life of the nation but a few years at most.

Lord Selsdon

My Lords, I hate to correct the noble and learned Lord but in the September edition—as in every edition since 1999—of the publication Who does what in The Lords reference is made to 90 Peers as "elected". I commend the noble and learned Lord to read that publication.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am grateful. I shall certainly read it. I am not sure that it is necessarily regarded as an authoritative document.