Privy Council and House of Lords Reform (Hansard, 23 October 2003)

§ The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
My Lords, no.

§ Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply, but is it not time for some more vandalism masquerading as modernisation? Does the noble Baroness remember that the previous Lord Chancellor—now something of a cult figure on this side of the House—said that the decision to retain 92 hereditary Peers until stage 2 was complete was an agreement made between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and was binding in honour? Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that no mention was made of any small print that the promise could be broken if the Government could not make up their mind about what to do about stage 2? Is not the simple truth that the Government have broken their word and devalued the word of a Privy Counsellor?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, no. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who will be aware that this House came to one conclusion in respect of the next stage of House of Lords reform, voting 3:1 for an appointed House. The noble Lord will also be aware that in another place, when the seven options were put forward, there was no clear decision on any of the options. In view of that, the Government have made it clear that they will go ahead with the next stage, which is the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, while I accept that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House gave a clear answer to the first part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I must confess to some sympathy with the second part of his question. The commitment made to this House about the second stage was understood by most of us at least to involve a serious attempt to discuss with all parties in this House what would now happen as a result of the differences at the two ends of Parliament. Is the Minister aware that many of us are deeply disappointed that the 1770 Government are now going ahead with one part of their reform without paying too much attention to anyone else's proposals for reform?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that. There has been a White Paper; there has been a joint committee. The joint committee put proposals to the two Houses. There has been no agreement between the two Houses. In the absence of any agreement, the Government have put forward proposals for consultation. We are expecting the results of that consultation after December.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are some advantages in the present Privy Council system? For instance, the oath taken by a Privy Counsellor is equivalent to signing the Official Secrets Act as regards protecting sensitive and confidential information, such as records of Ministers' discussions, as well as official secrets.

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, members of the Privy Council sign an oath which enables them to have conversations with each other that can remain secret. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that there are some advantages to that system.

§ The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, as the son of an MI6 officer, perhaps I may steer your Lordships back to the question of House of Lords reform. Does the Government agree that one of the issues that needs to be revisited is not the either elected or appointed issue, but the different modes of election and different modes of appointment? That is something which we need to look at again.

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, that may well be something which this House feels the need to look at again, but I must say that there was a clear majority in this House in favour of an all-appointed Chamber.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, as regards the answer that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House just gave to the right reverend Prelate, surely the Government have made up their minds on the nature of this House? Is not this policy a sign of the failure that the Government have had on constitutional reform? They started with broad agreement on change; they are now entirely isolated. No political party agrees with their way forward on the reform of the House of Lords.

§ Baroness Amos:
My Lords, if there had been broad agreement on change, we would not have gone through the lengthy process that we have gone through until now. The Government tried very hard to ensure that there was a degree of consensus. That is why there was a Royal Commission; that is why there was a White Paper: and that is why there was a joint committee.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree, or is she aware—she was not 1771 here at the time—that the essence of this arose because there should be no stage 1 before stage 2? Is the noble Baroness aware that it was to accommodate that contention that this deal in honour was struck? It is quite contrary to the essence of the deal to proceed as the Government are now proceeding. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this matter.

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, the noble Lord's memory is slightly different from mine. I understood that one of the reasons that we came to that deal was to enable pressure to be brought for a further stage of reform. My reading of the debates in this House indicates that. However, I must repeat that there has been no agreement between the two Houses about the next stage of reform. In the absence of that agreement, the Government have put forward their own proposals.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the greatest obstacles to a consensus within this House on the subject of House of Lords reform is that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, is wholly out of step with virtually every member of his own party?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, there are very clear differences on the Opposition Benches, but I have to say that there are differences on our Benches too.

§ Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, declaring an interest in this matter as a Privy Counsellor, perhaps I may go back to my noble friend's original Question. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us what is the use of the Privy Council at the moment, apart from oaths and such like? Given that there are a number of members of the Privy Council from the Commonwealth, would it not be helpful to seek their advice and experience about how either their elected or partly elected Houses work in their countries? Would that not be useful information for the Government, who are rather lacking in inspiration on this matter?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, we have a considerable amount of information, not just from Commonwealth countries but also from other countries, about the operation of their parliamentary systems. With respect to the noble Lord's question about the use of the Privy Council, given that the noble Lord is a member, I am sure that the Privy Council must have some use.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, as a hereditary Peer who has been prepared to step down at any time during the past 21 years—far too long a period for me to have been here—it seems rather strange that when the House of Commons could not agree, the Government should say that that was the end of the matter. Surely, when an impasse like that has been reached, should not the 1772 answer be for the Government to say, "go back to the drawing board", and not to say that that is the decision?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, my noble friend will recall that, historically, it has been incredibly difficult to reach a degree of agreement on House of Lords reform, not only within this House but across the two Chambers. In the absence of that agreement, the Government have put forward their proposals. Otherwise, we could go on debating these issues ad infinitum.