HL Deb 21 October 2003 vol 653 cc1493-6

2.44 p.m.

Lord Barnett

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's Statement on constitutional reform on 18th September, an invitation has now been made to the non-statutory Appointments Commission to make recommendations for new non-party Peers; and, if so, what number, if any, was suggested.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, the Prime Minister has invited the interim Appointments Commission to recommend a small number of non-party political Peers.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, it was a strange statement by the Lord Chancellor at the time to suggest that some more Cross-Bench, independent Peers should be appointed. Does my noble friend accept that at the recent count we already have 179 Cross-Bench and independent Peers, plus another seven "Others", as they are called? Some of them are excellent; some of them even sit here on my Bench.

However—as I always want to try to help the Government—would it not be more sensible and helpful to getting business through the House if the Government considered announcing now that those hereditary Peers who are proposed to be removed were—all who wished—offered life peerages in advance, so that we could proceed with our normal business?

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his spirit of helpfulness. As he knows, there is a commitment in our published proposals to the retention of a strong independent element in this House. I can only echo the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he commented on the hereditary Peers: I hope that we shall continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them, should they be nominated as life Peers in the future".—[Official Report, 18/09/03; col. 1058.] That remains the position.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, until 18th September, it was government policy that the party of government and the main party of opposition should, in relative terms of strength, be in broad parity. Since 18th September, that position has changed and the Labour Party now says that it should have a majority over the other political parties. Is that another sign of the Government breaking an undertaking?

Baroness Amos

No, my Lords. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would like to read again what we said. We said that no one party should have an overall majority. That remains the position, but there are a number of proposals for considering the percentage of votes cast in an election and asking the statutory Appointments Commission, once it has been established, to determine the number of Peers across the House on a party political basis as well as with respect to the Cross Benches.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that it remains the Government's position that they will base the appointment of new political Peers on the share of the electorate at the previous election, which affects the main party of opposition and the effective party of opposition alike?

Secondly, will the Appointments Commission, some of whose members were appointed by virtue of having been outstanding contributors to this House, ensure that all those appointed are informed that they can make a contribution beyond their own expertise to the work of the House? That would be extremely welcome.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I entirely agree with the second point made by the noble Baroness. On her first point, she will be aware that a consultation document is out. The Government's position has always been that we should consider the percentage of the vote, but we have also asked in the consultation document whether we should consider the percentage of seats that parties hold in the other place.

Lord Peston

My Lords, while echoing the views of my noble friend Lord Barnett on converting the remaining hereditaries into life Peers, which is a matter that we can debate when we receive the Bill, can my noble friend explain why the commission is the body being used to make those appointments? If your Lordships' House has a future—and I hope that it does—it will be as a working House. With one obvious exception, the members of the commission who are Peers seem not to take part in the workings of the House; they seem to have no knowledge of the hard slog—of last night, for example. Where Peers are involved, would it not be better if the appointments were made by Peers who are committed to this House and do its work?

Baroness Amos

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we currently have an Appointments Commission. Those on the commission were reappointed in July. The Government have proposed that we move to a statutory appointments commission. My noble friend's point about the knowledge that members of that commission should have will be taken into account when we move to that process.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, will the Minister reassure us that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the chairman of the commission, has rid himself of his prejudice against considering hairdressers? I declare an interest: my father was a hairdresser.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had a prejudice against any particular group. It is gratifying to know that the noble Lord's father was a hairdresser.

Lord Craig of Radley

My Lords, while I greatly welcome the Government's indication that hereditary Peers who sit in the House may well return as life Peers—that is within a party's gift—has the noble Baroness any suggestion about how hereditary Peers who sit on these Benches may find their way back as life Peers after the removal of the 92?

Baroness Amos

My Lords, my noble and learned friend made it clear in the Statement that, when time allowed, we would move towards some kind of legislation. As part of the process of taking that legislation through, I have no doubt that such issues will be discussed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, rather than fiddling around, as the Government are doing, with a hybrid system, would it not be better if they now decided that it was right to have a fully elected House of Lords and pursued that as a policy item?

Baroness Amos

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a difference of opinion between this House and the other place. We intend to move to the next stage, which involves a fully appointed Chamber.