Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Northbourne: I have not wanted to intervene in the terrifying crossfire between the two major parties and the very distinguished speakers who contributed to it. However, I want to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to Amendment No. 134, which is included in this group of amendments. In scale, this amendment is more modest and does not refer to the proposed appointments commission. Indeed, it refers specifically to the independent Peers. Noble Lords may say, "Well, you would talk about independent Peers because you are speaking from the Cross Benches", but it is the other way round. It is because I believe passionately in the importance of independence that I sit on these Benches. The debates--I was tempted to say "the interminable debates"--that we have already had on this Bill have been splattered with references to the importance of the independent Peers. Of course, the Government have acknowledged that they want a strong independent element, and have said that they want a significant Cross-Bench element.
Amendment No. 134 is a probing amendment, the purpose of which is to see whether the Government will explain a little more clearly what they mean by the word "significant". I find it fairly easy to understand what they mean by "broad parity" between the two major parties, but what do they actually mean by "significant"? In the context of cot deaths, or road accidents, 1 per cent could be significant. In another context 50 per cent could be insignificant. Will the Government tell us something more about what they mean by "significant"? I do not have the undivided attention of the Front Bench but on Tuesday the noble Baroness said,
The White Paper at Chapter 6, page 33, refers to the appointments commission. I understand that the new commission will have a status somewhere above the present Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and it will do more than safeguard independent Peers. This is a significant move by the Government which will ensure that the country understands the role of our independent element in this Chamber and that it is not looking for another elected Chamber.
I supported Amendment No. 31 on Tuesday in the cause of reform, not in the cause of democracy. I trust the Government will continue to resist the idea of a sham democracy through an elected Chamber here. It is becoming an old red herring waved about by both parties and sections of the media. It will not satisfy anyone who believes in the balance between our present Chamber and another place. To ensure that this happens the Government will have to make more of the idea of the valuable quota of independent Peers. As has been well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that measure should be on the face of the Bill. It already enables us to argue that we are not a pale shadow of another place. I would like to see more public recognition of independent Peers as Peers who are seen to represent their professions in a voluntary or part-time capacity. However, that is a discussion for another day.
Much more detail will be needed when the proposal comes back from the Royal Commission. I have written to the Royal Commission in these terms. In the meantime I hope that the Government will stand up to the pro-election lobby and secure the principle of the element of Cross-Bench Peers. I believe that that is what the modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, sets out to do.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I know the Committee is anxious to hear the Minister reply. However, I venture to take a minute or two to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, has urged upon the Government Front Bench. I know that they took careful notice of what the noble Lord said, as it is always sensible to do. I wish to add one facet to the point that he made, which was that the country will find it difficult to understand why the Government should resist the intention--these are not necessarily the exact words--behind the amendments put forward by my two noble friends.
I wish to add a little force to that, if I may without presumption, by going back a few days to the tremendous battle that we had on Clause 1. We had put forward a formulation which we believed would without any doubt secure the declared intention of the Government. The Committee will remember that the matter concerned the words, "by virtue of a hereditary
peerage". I shall not repeat the arguments that were made. However, the Government said time and again that they were going to proceed in this way because that was stated in the manifesto. The manifesto commitment was recited time and time again. After a while I came to recognise the force at least of what was in the Government's mind. They were concerned not to allow any perception--we know the force of perception--that they were somehow going back on what they had put before the country in their manifesto.The executive summary of the White Paper states,
"This White Paper sets out how we intend to deliver on those promises, through a step-by-step process of reform".
All that my noble friends seek to do is to assist the Government in their declared intention to deliver on those promises by writing into the Bill the very words that the Government employed in the White Paper.
Lord Kingsland: So effectively have your Lordships conveyed the fundamental messages that underlie the various amendments that, I am glad to report, I have very little to say.
Lord Kingsland: However, I shall say it. I listened to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
Greenwich, with some bewilderment. I think the best I can do--perhaps I can say this on behalf of the Government Front Bench--is to refer him to paragraph 19 of their own White Paper which states, inter alia, that,
At paragraph 3 of chapter 6 the White Paper states,
In the press release on the Labour evidence to the Royal Commission, the Labour Party--which, dare I say it, has some loose connection with the Government--said:
If that is so, why are the Government so afraid of doing the same thing in relation to the appointment of Peers, who are, after all, independent of both or, I should say, of all three political parties? What is so special about that which requires the Government to handle it by prerogative, especially since the Government have said that the transitory House will be very transitory indeed?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page