---

House of Lords Reform

17. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the powers of the upper House. [175297]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government remain committed to reforming the second Chamber, but to proceed in the present climate of determined opposition in the Lords would crowd out the current legislative programme. Nevertheless, the Government will return to the issue in our manifesto, and I hope that we will gain a consensus on reforms that would maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons and ensure a proper revising role for the second Chamber.

Mr. Turner : I thank the Minister for that reply. Just as the design of a car differs from that of an aeroplane, because they have different functions to perform, should not the design of the House of Lords depend on the functions that the Government have in mind for it to perform?

Mr. Leslie: Most hon. Members would agree with the notion that the House of Commons should be supreme in the final decision-making process and, therefore, that the powers of the House of Lords should follow that overriding principle. The Lords has a revising function, but any change to increase the legitimacy of the second Chamber would need to maintain the balance that we already have.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): If, as my hon. Friend says, the House of Lords is a revising Chamber, why should it have any powers of delay? If it is to have such powers, they should be for a maximum of three months. The present delaying period is far too long and gives too much power to the unelected second Chamber.

Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend clearly believes that the House of Commons should be supreme, as do I. It is important that the second Chamber can exercise revising functions, including asking the Commons to reconsider. However, that has to be a reasonable power, exercised in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Was not the replacement of the hereditary principle with the hybrid hereditary and crony principle only ever meant to be a short-term answer? The total failure of the Government's policy of Lords reform has destroyed the legitimacy of any plans that they may now have to vary the powers of the other place.

Mr. Leslie: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. He raises the issue of the hereditary peerage. The Government still believe that we should get rid of the hereditary peerage, but unfortunately we met considerable opposition in the second Chamber that could have jeopardised the whole legislative programme, especially if Conservative and Liberal Members ganged up and blocked all the other good measures that we want to introduce. We will rightly
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1433
 
return to the issue and ensure that we introduce reform that squares the supremacy of the Commons with extra legitimacy for the second Chamber.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Is not evidence mounting daily that the transitional arrangements are becoming too permanent? There is little incentive for Government to reform an upper House to make it more effective. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that there is sufficient political will to achieve that reform, and will he consider deleting the present powers of the House of Lords to veto secondary legislation and, at the same time, incorporating a power for it to veto or substantially delay constitutional reform?

Mr. Leslie: There is certainly the political will on the Labour Benches to reform the second Chamber. It is possible to find a solution and reach a consensus on the issue. We have encountered opposition from the Conservatives and Liberals in the other place. We hope that they will start to act in a more grown-up and mature manner so that we can find a consensus on the issue. I live in hope.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): The Minister has just heard another complaint about the House of Lords being unelected. Do the Government now accept that it would be folly to tinker with the powers of the other place unless and until it is prepared to face up to the need to make it more democratic and representative and to tackle the issue of its composition?

Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has a point to the extent that composition should be dealt with at the same time as the roles of both Chambers. It is important to maintain Commons supremacy, but a change in the legitimacy of the second Chamber may have a de facto impact on its role and functions. We will need to bear that in mind when we reach the final stage of reform, as I am confident we will.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Is not the best way of securing the supremacy of this House to ensure that the other House is never either wholly or partly elected?

Mr. Leslie: That may be one option, but other people may feel that the second Chamber needs to be more connected with the public at large, although not as supreme and as much of a final decision maker as the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman has his views and other hon. Members have theirs; I think that it is possible to find a solution to the issue.

Supreme Court

18. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): If he will make a statement on the potential for political interference in the (a) funding of and (b) appointment to the proposed supreme court. [175298]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government's proposals are specifically designed to
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1434
 
minimise any possibility of political interference in either the funding of the supreme court or appointments to the supreme court.

Mr. Robathan : Has the Minister seen the comments made by Lord Hope of Craighead in his written evidence to the Lords Select Committee? He was particularly interested in funding and pointed out that the Law Lords' running costs are currently met by the parliamentary vote, over which the Treasury has no control, and that that insulates the Law Lords almost entirely from interference by the Executive. He said:

"At present, the executive cannot lay a finger on the work that the law lords do. In an uncertain world, this is a vital guarantee of judicial independence where it matters most which our history has bequeathed to us, and I do not think that it should be given up."

Those are the comments of a very senior former judge. Will the Minister comment on them?

Mr. Leslie: I have seen those comments. Indeed, the Select Committee in the other place has been looking into many issues relating to how we might fund a supreme court in a way that preserves its independence. Yes, we want as much independence as we can possibly give, but we are talking about taxpayers' money and the House of Commons has to vote that money from our electorate, so at some level there must be a degree of accountability for the spending of taxpayers' money. That is not to say that we cannot find a way of having independence in the system, and I am sure that a solution can be found as the debate continues.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): Does the Minister not agree that, although there should be no political interference, there has to be political involvement in the whole process? That is the only way that we can achieve accountability to Parliament. Will he confirm that, in the ongoing discussions about the new supreme court, the higher judiciary are being kept informed of the Government's proposals? Far too often over the past few weeks, very senior judges have criticised the proposals, yet we know that there is an ongoing dialogue between the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers and the judiciary. Will the Minister confirm that they are all being kept fully informed and that they consent to the changes that are taking place?

Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that we have that dialogue and partnership with the judiciary in the reforms that go ahead. Of course, there will be differences of opinion, and different ideas and solutions will be suggested, but at the end of the day I hope that we can gain consensus and see the Constitutional Reform Bill approved by the other place and brought to this House as soon as possible.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Does the Minister recognise that not only the funding but the staffing of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords are entirely protected from the Executive, because the Committee is part of the House of Lords, and that it will be necessary to write into the Bill a much clearer arrangement to protect the funding from the Executive and to give the court designated officers who are not themselves part of the Executive?
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1435
 

Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee whose report we shall debate in more detail in Westminster Hall on Thursday—I am just advertising that for other hon. Members. We shall be looking into how we can improve independence of funding, although I have to point out that the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as a UK Department, is capable of providing that level of ministerial accountability for taxpayers' money. That is an important principle because, ultimately, Parliament has to account to our electors for a resource that is procured from them.

---