26 Mar 2002 : Column 157

House of Lords

Tuesday, 26th March 2002.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

House of Lords: Elected Member Options

Lord McNally asked the Leader of the House:

Whether an opportunity will be provided for the House to debate and choose among the various options on the size of the elected element in a reformed House of Lords.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, making time available for debate is a question for the usual channels. The consultation period on the White Paper ended not long ago and we want to make sure that we have considered the responses fully before we proceed any further.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that taking refuge in the "usual channels" is the parliamentary equivalent of consigning the matter to a black hole? Will he take note of the cross-party Select Committee in the House of Commons and Early Day Motion 226 in another place which recommend a largely or totally directly elected House? Is not the noble and learned Lord's prevarication about consulting this House really because he is petrified that such consultation will reveal an identity of analysis and purpose between the two Houses which would allow for a rapid and radical reform of this House? Is he not clinging to a system of patronage which would have made James I blush?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: On the other hand, my Lords. It is very cruel and wicked to call Chief Whips a "black hole" as a collective noun. I have read the report of the Public Administration Select Committee—it is an interesting document—and I have looked at the EDM. We recognise that there are differences of view. But what unites us is the desire to make this place better, and that means looking at its composition and the way it works. Those matters are well in hand.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on two occasions over the past 12 months the Government have asked the House to debate and vote on the issue of hunting, but they refuse to bring forward any further proposals on the House of Lords. In view of the disagreements that exist between the Houses— and very often within the parties—is it not time for the Government to review their position on the setting up of an authoritative Joint Committee of both Houses to examine these issues in the main?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is true that we have discussed hunting on two occasions. We have

26 Mar 2002 : Column 158

put our minds occasionally to House of Lords reform—indeed, on 21 occasions—including in 1999 a single debate which lasted 14.8 hours, although it felt longer. In the Session 2001-02 we improved ourselves still further by having a single debate for 16.6 hours. The one thing that no one can say with any semblance of accuracy is that we do not discuss the most important issue—that is, our own future.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend's answer mean that there will or will not be a Bill in the next Session?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett knows that it is quite inappropriate to guess or speculate about the contents of the Queen's Speech. However, your Lordships will have read with great interest the Prime Minister's speech at the London School of Economics. Should any of your Lordships not have had the opportunity to do so, I commend it. He said, quite unambiguously, that we are now in the third phase of the Labour Party's programme. The third phase—this appears at page 9 of the speech—includes,


    "completing House of Lords reform, bedding down devolution and making the peace process in Northern Ireland durable for the long term".

So completing House of Lords reform is very much on the agenda for this present phase, which is the third phase. We do not intend to leave it as unfinished business.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the object of debating this affair unless the Government are prepared to fulfil their undertaking and set up a Joint Select Committee of both Houses on all aspects of reform?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was not the undertaking. The undertaking was that there should be a Joint Committee on the parliamentary consequences, the parliamentary aspects, not on composition—which, as the noble Lord is aware, was exhaustively debated by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. The point of debating the future of the House of Lords, as I understand it—apart from its intrinsic interest to all of us—is to come to a conclusion.

Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, have the Government considered further the issue of indirect elections from the Assemblies and the Parliament to this second Chamber?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, of course. I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for raising this issue. It is a proposal which is put forward quite often from those who are Members of either the Assembly in Cardiff or the Parliament in Scotland. The proposal has its attractions, but it also has disadvantages.

Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that if he wants to complete the process

26 Mar 2002 : Column 159

of reform of the House of Lords, the Government have to produce proposals which are broadly acceptable to both Houses? Is he further aware that it now seems that the House of Commons would accept a division of 50 per cent elected and 50 per cent not elected as a minimum percentage of election? Is he also aware—I hope that he is—that the 50:50 proposal would probably now be acceptable to this House? If so, is not that what the Government should do?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Richard, but obviously we shall need to look for broadly acceptable proposals. I also endorse his reading of what our colleagues in the House of Commons feel. It may well be the case that the 50:50 split might be acceptable in this House to avoid the revolutionary enthusiasm of the "80 percenters".

Lord Renton: My Lords—

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that democracy is fully represented in the other place, but only on a party basis—and that there is a lack of the talent, expertise and experience to be found in this House? If this House were democratised, it would be shameful were we to lose the independent benefit and judgment of the Cross-Benchers and the vast amount of talent and expertise that exists here. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that to democratise this House to too great an extent would be to hurt the constitution?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not long ago, the Conservative Party had a majority of about 300 in this House, and I never heard any complaints about party advantage on those occasions. I know the deficiencies of democracy. They offer themselves to my mind every single day.

Measles

2.45 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are taking action to anticipate the possibility of a serious outbreak of measles.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Department of Health is working closely with health authorities with the aim of increasing the current

26 Mar 2002 : Column 160

rate of MMR uptake in order to reduce the risk of measles. The department has also taken advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on strategies to respond to any resurgences of measles, mumps and rubella.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Do the Government accept that some parents are worried about the triple vaccine because it deals also with mumps and rubella, and because of rumours about side effects such as autism? What are the Government doing in order to reassure the public?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me make it clear that the Government's independent expert committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and indeed the Committee on Safety of Medicines, have reviewed the kind of suggestions that the noble Lord has raised. Their advice is that there are no new data relevant to the safety of MMR vaccines. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has concluded that the current scientific evidence does not support a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism or bowel disease. I fully accept that there is a need to ensure that scientific information is available to parents who are concerned. It is our intention to let parents have that information—not in a lecturing way, but by giving them the data so that they can then make their own judgment.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page