| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brady: Is the Minister aware that the same guidelines apply to appointments to health authorities and trusts? In that context, since 1997 some 232 Labour councillors have been appointed to such bodies, as against 20 Conservatives and 30 Liberal Democrats. The guidelines clearly give no guarantee at all.
Mr. Tipping: I will not stray from the terms of the amendment, but I will answer the question--it is quite simple. In previous years, there was a serious imbalance on health bodies and trusts, but the commissioner will look at the matter. There is nothing to hide. We will look forward, and act on the commission's recommendations.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): In regard to representation, the Minister mentioned the three main parties. It is not for me to defend the position of the Scottish National party or that of the parties from Northern Ireland, but will there be no representation for those minority parties?
Mr. Tipping: It is not intended that they will be represented on the appointments commission, but they will be proportionately represented in the other Chamber.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister. It will save him from having to make the point later.
The Minister will have noted that the new clause introduced by the Weatherill amendment results in some movement towards proportionality. There has, however, been an increase of a mere 2 per cent. in the representation of the Liberal Democrats, as opposed to a 10 per cent. increase in Labour's representation.
Mr. Tipping:
The right hon. Gentleman merely demonstrates how much more needs to be done. If he takes that view, it might have been helpful if he had voted for the way forward rather than sitting on his hands and taking no part in the debate on the earlier amendment.
How the parties choose their members is, of course, a matter for them, but I hope that they will follow our example of openness. The appointments commission will be encouraged to seek nominations from a wide field, including nominations from members of the public--the so-called people's peers. [Interruption.] Traditionalists groan at that--traditionalists who, perhaps, have not moved on from the 18th century, and have continued to support hereditary peers. How much better it must be for
people to be appointed to the House of Lords because of what they have already achieved, and what they can do for the country.
Mr. Swayne:
Is not the proper procedure for choosing "people's peers" a proper election with universal suffrage?
Mr. Tipping:
I hope that we shall discuss that point soon. I hope very much that the royal commission will stick to its timetable, and that the House will have an opportunity to express a view on its report during the lifetime of this Parliament. I hope that we can discuss the issues vigorously, and find a solution that will give us a better system than the one we have now.
Mr. Tyrie:
When the Labour party made its submission to the Wakeham commission, why on earth was there no mention of any proposal to use election as a means of selecting those who will sit in the upper Chamber?
Mr. Tipping:
The Labour party has expressed its view. I was fortunate enough to hear the Conservative party express its view to the Wakeham commission. I will not be drawn on what the Wakeham commission will recommend. I hope that it reports quickly and that we can move on very quickly to the second stage.
We are asking the appointments commission to vet nominations for political peerages, which is currently undertaken by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
Mr. Hogg:
The Minister told the House that he would be kind enough to say why, if he is so keen on a commission, he will not put it in the Bill. Will he now answer the question?
Mr. Tipping:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must restrain himself a little. He has been in the House for many years. I told him that I would address the issue and I will.
The third element of our proposal is that the Prime Minister has publicly committed himself to relinquishing control of the nominations and will not interfere with the nominations from other political parties. That process has already started.
We are already going much further than any Prime Minister has ever gone. In debates in both the House of Commons and the other place, there has been an attempt to suggest that, although the present Prime Minister's promises can be accepted, one cannot be sure of the future. I am confident of the honour of any Labour Prime Minister, but is the Conservative party saying that it cannot have the same certainty? By backing the amendment, it must doubt its own integrity.
Another question has been frequently addressed: if our commitment is clear, what is the objection to putting the provision on a statutory basis? That is the basis of the amendment.
Mr. Tipping:
I want to deal with that question after giving way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. Kenneth Clarke:
The Minister has said that the Labour party is against election and prefers nomination.
Mr. Tipping:
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is my neighbour, of what I said: I want to deal with that question. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), he should restrain himself for a moment.
Our main contention is that such a move is inappropriate and unnecessary: there is no need to have legislation to establish a body of the type that we have in mind. Advisory non-departmental bodies are normally established without statutory provision. That does not affect either their standing or effectiveness. The Neill committee itself is such a body. Debate on the issue has frequently confused the question of the Prime Minister's role in the matter. The two are separate issues. We can take the Prime Minister out of the process, as far as it is possible to do so, without any statutory provision.
We are also talking about a transitional process. Why make elaborate statutory provisions for something that is only temporary? Why introduce one form of appointments commission by statute, when it is possible that we may receive recommendations for a different approach? The royal commission's terms of reference give scope for that. The clause is elaborate and raises as many questions as it answers.
Legislation, by necessity, needs to cater for all foreseeable circumstances. A non-statutory arrangement can lay out the broad principles, which can be developed and adjusted accordingly, which cannot be done as easily with legislation. As I have said, there are many gaps in the provision. For example, what would be the terms of service for commission members?
Mr. Mackinlay:
One of the attractive features of the Lords amendment is that it proposes an annual report to Parliament by the commission. We do not have that under the Nolan, or Neill-style committee--not automatically. We will want some guarantee that, in the appointment of legislators--the appointment of Members of Parliament--an opportunity is built into the system whereby we can scrutinise the appointments commission and ensure that it is doing its work and has not been manipulated in any way. It must be the subject of scrutiny. That is our role here. The amendment contains that provision.
Mr. Tipping:
It must be the case that the appointments commission, whether it is a statutory or a non- departmental public body, is accountable. It will produce reports. I am confident that hon. Members on both sides of the House will review its operations and challenge it if it is not effective.
8.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |