House of Lords Reform (Hansard, 13 October 2003)

Baroness Sharpies
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Weatherill amendment for the retention of 92 elected hereditary Peers until stage 2 of House of Lords reform was negotiated on terms which were regarded as binding by those who gave it their assent.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
My Lords, the Weatherill amendment was negotiated on terms considered to be binding by all those who 604 gave it their assent. It was agreed on the basis that it was a transitional arrangement and that agreement on final reform was within reach in the near future. It has not been possible to obtain that agreement, and consequently the basis on which the amendment was negotiated has changed. We have therefore developed proposals which form the next stage of reform and which go as far is possible at this point. There was never any intention that the Weatherill amendment should become a permanent settlement.

Baroness Sharpies
My Lords, I find the noble Lord's Answer less honourable than the Question, which is all about honour. Perhaps I may ask the Minister why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not answering my Question. Is he aware that this House is being blamed for what has occurred in the Commons, where his honourable friends did not come to a consensus on the issue?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I shall pass the first comment by, although later in my Answer I hope that I will have an opportunity to demonstrate why the Government have behaved utterly correctly and honourably in terms of the agreement that was reached. To the perhaps flippant question of why my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is not answering, there are two answers. First, that is what junior Ministers are for. Secondly, there is a physical reason. Noble Lords will have noticed with amusement the soft-shoe shuffle that Lord Chancellors have to perform in moving left and right to the microphone.

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I have it on very good authority that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would be delighted to be sitting on these Benches and answering Questions at Question Time, but he would need to be released from his position as Speaker to do so.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, what an interesting remark the noble Lord has made; namely, that junior Ministers are there only to draw fire from their superiors. I entirely agree with my noble friend's suggestion that it would have been seemly for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to have answered the Question, since he is such a pioneer when it comes to improving your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I accept the compliment and agree with it strongly. The Lord Chancellor is a genuine pioneer in reforming this House. We have seen a range of reformist measures during the past three months that do the country credit and will do this House credit when they are implemented.
I shall to turn to some of the specifics, because there is a danger—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Lord Filkin
Then I will stay with supplementary questions if noble Lords wish me to, which is why the 605 Lord Chancellor is not answering the Question. He is not answering because that is exactly what Ministers in a department of state do. They answer questions across the full span of their brief and it is a pleasure and a privilege to do so.

§ Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that the principal reason set out for removing the hereditary Peers was to end the situation where one political party had dominated the Houses of Parliament, regardless of anything else? Does he recognise that, since the changes were made, the Government now win three out of four whipped Divisions and that the House is clearly responding to debate and is no longer dominated by one party? Is that not a relevant change of circumstances since the original review was carried out?
Finally, does he recollect that his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he spoke about the matter last week, paid glowing tribute to the surviving hereditary Peers, pointing out quite rightly that many are among our most active and effective Members and expressing the hope that they might well survive as life Peers in the future? If that is a valid tribute to their quality, as indeed it is, why cannot arrangements now be made for them all to survive into the future on that basis?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I echo the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in paying tribute to many of the remaining hereditary Peers who serve in this House. It is the nature of this House that over a period of years one comes to respect and to like people across all Benches and to be appreciative of their contributions. That does not mean that one does not move on issues of principle to make change when it is clearly necessary. The argument that there should be a continued presence in this House of people who owe their presence here to birth rather than to other proper processes of merit has been lost some time ago. It does not do this House any credit whatsoever to argue that we should perpetuate that.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor clearly signalled that if, as part of a process of change, other parties seek to nominate to life peerages people who currently sit by virtue of birth, that is a matter for them. However, I emphasise the point that while we respect and value the contribution that has been made, that is not a sufficient reason for perpetuating a constitutional and historical anomaly, and the country recognises that.

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, is it not the case that if the Government were determined to achieve a proper democratic reform of your Lordships' House, they could do so? It was said in the Statement on 18th September that: On the further reform of this House, we will continue to look for a way forward". Do the Government really mean that or are they simply propounding that any further reform beyond the current proposals should be kicked into the long 606 grass until some distant time in the future? Are the Government proposing any further reform before the end of this Parliament or will the issue be included in their manifesto for the next?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, the position in those respects was made very clear indeed in the Statement that the Lord Chancellor gave to the House in September. He said two things: first, that it was necessary to bring stability in the medium term to this House. That is what those proposals will do. He also made clear that that was not the final stage of reform and there were a range of issues set out in the consultation paper that still await resolution at some point in the future.
However, given where we are in the lifetime of this Parliament, we will be busy indeed putting these measures into legislation. Therefore, I think that it is unlikely that there will be further legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament. As for the manifesto, I am pleased to say that I am not in a position at this stage to say what will be in that.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, the proposals that the Government have made for an appointed House were substantially accepted by this House in February, while it rejected the six proposals for an elected element. On the proposal to put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, there was an opposition amendment to the 1999 reform Bill which would have put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, so I presume they will support that. My noble and learned friend has already spoken about the future of the 92. He has indicated a way forward in which some of them could stay. Is our discussion today, therefore, perhaps a shade synthetic?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I have no difficulty in agreeing with my noble friend Lord Carter. I shall emphasise why I think there is a degree of manufactured outrage about some issues. Perhaps I may illustrate the weight of the reform that we are proposing at this stage.
First, for the first time in British history, we are ending the Government's ability to control the size and the composition of this House. Never again will a Prime Minister be able to do what has happened in the past; namely, to bias appointments to this House in his own favour. Secondly, we are ending membership by birth and replacing it with membership by merit. Thirdly, we will enshrine in statute that never again will any party command an overall majority in this House. The Opposition Benches had 20 years in which to do that had they so wished. There was not a whiff of that whatever. Fourthly, we are putting in place a statutory Appointments Commission, which will put completely beyond the influence of the Government the ability to appoint people to the Cross Benches of this House and vet those Members of the House who are nominated by their party political leaders.

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Filkin
Your Lordships have made my point for me: there is not time to list out all the measures in these changes.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, might a hereditary Peer be heard?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, we are out of time and we should move on to the final Question.