House of Lords and House of Commons: Relative Powers (Hansard, 4 February 2004)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
My Lords, the Government made it clear in the consultation paper, Next Steps for the House of Lords, that they had no immediate plans to change the role and powers of this House relative to the House of Commons.

§ Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, my noble friend will recall how a majority of Members of this House drove Clauses 41 and 42 in the then Criminal Justice Bill—they were on jury trials—into the long grass, but the same Members tell us that they support the primacy of the House of Commons. Does he believe that the use of affirmative instruments voted on in both Houses under a twin-lock procedure is compatible with the primacy of the House of Commons?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, it is no secret that the Government were not best pleased to experience 16 defeats on the then Criminal Justice Bill, including on the removal of jury trial for complex cases, a measure that we felt was essential to the proper pursuit of criminal matters. Having said that, one is aware that the House has a responsibility to scrutinise legislation. The issue is all on the detail of how far and how regularly the challenging and questioning in amendments is pressed by this House to the other end. Therefore, I stand by the position in the White Paper, which is that the broad balance of powers is right but, as ever, there will be disagreements, particularly towards the end of the Session, on whether those powers should be taken right to the limit.

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, does the Minister agree that membership of this House nowadays represents a balance of political opinion in this country rather more accurately than membership of the House of Commons, where the Government have 63 per cent of the Members on the basis of 42 per cent of the vote? In those circumstances, is it not right that this House should continue to have powers that enable us to negotiate modest changes to government legislation?

§ Lord Filkin
Well, my Lords, what an ingenious argument. One should look at the comparative influence of—how shall I put it?—the third party in a tri-party or quadrilateral balance of power and the strength of the Liberal Democrats, in terms of many of their amendments. One could make an argument, quite richly, that on that basis the Liberal Democrats are over-represented in this House.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords—

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Carter!

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, in the most recent Parliament, there were 1,650 Divisions in the House of Commons and the Government did not lose one.
675 There were 650 Divisions in this House, and the Government lost 25 per cent. I take no pride in that statistic but, if it is a question of which House is holding the executive to account, I think that this House is doing a good job.
Will my noble friend agree that in this House, in which the government party is the third-largest party and has less than 28 per cent of the vote, there is a heavy responsibility on it to remember two fundamental conventions; namely, that the elected government are entitled to secure their programme of legislation and that, after suitable negotiation, the elected Chamber should finally have its way? The negotiations on the then Criminal Justice Bill could never be described as suitable.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend, a former Chief Whip. That is very much our perspective on the issues. He reminds us that the Government have 28 per cent of the vote in this House. He could also remind us that, in the proposals that we have set out to remove the remaining hereditary Peers, our vote will increase to 31 per cent. Therefore we are enshrining in those proposals that this party in government will never have an overall majority, and nor will any party in government in future. I hope that the House will commend that.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and congratulate him on having asserted the constitutional position of this House with total objectivity and on having concentrated on the essence of the problem, which is how, when and how often we exercise our power.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I am always grateful to receive compliments from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but I wish he would make them to me in private to protect my reputation.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, I ask my noble friend to follow the injunction of the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches and encourage the powers that be to change the balance rapidly so that it reflects the results at general elections more fairly? When can we expect that augmentation of forces and when can we expect the Light Brigade to come to the assistance of the Government?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, the noble Lord reads the newspapers, as I do. Over the turn of the year they were quite rich in rumours in that respect. However, that is only one part of the issue. The more fundamental part is how we intend to move forward to the second stage of reform of this House and to the subsequent stages of reform that will also be required. Before long we shall look forward to sharing those views with the House, as we are still absolutely committed to our 2001 manifesto. I shall repeat that if there is any doubt about it.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are perfectly respectable bases for supporting the 676 decision to continue jury trials in long fraud cases'' The first is the very high percentage—80 per cent—of success achieved at present, which I believe is higher than for any other category of case; and the second is that the Law Commission was specifically asked by the Home Secretary to report on whether there are any means of improving the understanding of the law by members of the jury. The Law Commission reported and produced certain recommendations, none of which the Government have ever put forward as being satisfactory.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I am unsure whether I detected a question, but I note the comment with the appropriate interest.

§ Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, given that the Minister reads the newspapers, as do most noble Lords, can I tempt him to comment on the views expressed in an interview with Mr Peter Hain in the Times last Friday?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, if I recollect, my right honourable friend was signalling the importance of making further progress on House of Lords reform, not merely on the very substantial package of proposals that we have already set out, but he was clearly looking at how to go further than that, as that will not be the end of the process or the story.

§ Viscount Bledisloe
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the largest single group of electors is those who cannot bring themselves to support any single political party? On that basis, does he also accept that the largest group in this House should be the independent Peers?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, if one were wearing a hat one would shake it at such creativity. I am not sure that the largest proportion of electors support no parly. I believe that in general elections a majority of the electorate vote for one of the main political parties. I refute his assertion.