| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
House of Lords Reform
3.37 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 20th June be now considered, and that a committee of 12 Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on issues relating to House of Lords Reform;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 9th July at half-past ten o'clock in Committee Room 20.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House or the approval of the House for the Motion, but noble Lords will have noted from the Minutes of the Committee of Selection that sat on 10th June that I moved— and lost, on the casting vote of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees—an amendment seeking to increase Cross Bench representation on the 24-strong Joint Committee from just two to three members. I owe it to the House to explain my reasons for that untoward step.
I make it clear that I imply absolutely no criticism of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. My Motion, having collected an equality of votes for and against my proposition, presented the noble Lord with a most difficult situation. He dealt with it entirely correctly as he should, and my Motion was defeated. Nor would it be right for me, at the risk of delaying the establishment of this important Joint Committee, to attempt to persuade your Lordships to invite the Committee of Selection to reconsider its recommendations.
For some years, by custom and practice it has been conventional for the usual channels and the Committee of Selection to work to an allocation ratio of two:two:one:one—that is, two each for the Government and main Opposition parties, and one each for the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers for every six members on committees. I asked the Library to research whether there was any record of the introduction of a 2:2:1:1 ratio. It found none; and it found only two specific references in Hansard to the ratio—both by me, as it happens, in recent weeks.
There have been variations in the allocations on a very few committees when Cross-Bench numbers have been better than the 2:2:1:1 ratio would allow. But the Cross-Bench share on those committees was not unreasonable or excessive for the number of Peers who sit on these Benches.
Noble Lords will recall that the latest totals are: 219 Conservative; 192 Labour; 65 Liberal Democrat; 26 Bishops; and 180 Cross-Benchers—almost three times the Liberal Democrat numbers, and now 24 per cent of the total House of 690 Peers, if the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are excluded.
Some will suggest that party/group representation on committees follows no more than a loose convention which is in many cases ignored. My experience in the two and a half years that I have been Convenor is that 2:2:1:1 is not ignored. It has almost invariably been the starting-point for discussion on forming any new committee and has not infrequently been the end result.
The make-up of many sessional and other long-standing committees was also settled some years ago. Rotation of members on these committees follows a tradition of replacing one for one from party or Cross-Bench group. So the shares of membership of these committees is little changed over many Sessions and has not kept pace with changes in the composition of the House.
My rationale for raising committee membership allocations is that, as Convenor of 180 Cross-Bench Peers, I should like to see—a view backed by noble Lords on these Benches—their numbers and expertise deployed to the benefit of the House and the country. With the considerable changes in your Lordships' House since the end of 1999—in its make-up; in the introduction of the independent appointments commission Peers; and in the widely acknowledged part that a strong independent element plays in the second Chamber—I felt that only two independent members on a Joint Committee of 24 on Lords reform was insufficient. I had to accept that it would not be possible to increase the total numbers on the committee, nor to press for the Labour share of 12 members of the Joint Committee to be reduced to make room for another Cross-Bench member. The Motion that I moved in the Committee of Selection was the only option available to me.
I have argued, and will continue to argue, in the usual channels and elsewhere for an approach that would allow for fairer Cross-Bench representation as well as, when appropriate, representation from the Bishops Benches or from non-grouped Peers—the so-termed "others".
I have drawn encouragement from expressions of greater willingness to be flexible in the sharing of membership of committees. Thus, I hopefully assume that the 2:2:1:1 ratio will not be the accepted norm from which departures are difficult or impossible to achieve, however well justified.
If that had been the case in settling the membership of the Leader's Group on Working Practices or in the make-up proposals for the Joint Committee on Lords Reform which are now before the House, I should not have had to trouble your Lordships today.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, those of us on these Benches are pleased that we have moved to form this committee to seek progress on the reform of this House. As I understand it, there is a desire, expressed in this process, to draw together our several voices to find, if possible, a way forward which wins widespread consent. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I am therefore disappointed that a mechanism has not been found for including someone from these Benches to contribute to the committee.
The composition of this House touches upon two crucial aspects of our constitution: the nature of our parliamentary democracy and the establishment of the Church. The noble and learned Lord the Lord
Chancellor made it very clear in this House on 22nd May that the Government have no desire to enter into the minefield of disestablishment. He said:
- "it would be an enormously complex undertaking to pull out the threads of the established status of the Church of England without damaging the tapestry of the constitution".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 812.]
The presence of Bishops in this House is part of that constitutional tapestry. We have sovereignty in this country vested in the Crown in Parliament under God. In our own particular history that is expressed in the structure of this House. Radical changes in these arrangements could lead to the unravelling of other aspects of the constitutional settlement.
In the contributions made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in the Wakeham Commission, and in all the speeches made from these Benches on the reform of this House, it has been made very clear that we wish to play a constructive part in achieving an acceptable and principled reform. We are wholly committed to finding a representative and credible shape for the future of this House.
The Bishops are here not primarily to speak for the Church of England, narrowly conceived as a denomination, but for the spiritual and moral needs of the whole community. That is why we have stood for holding on to the best of our inheritance as we seek a more representative and inclusive shape to the whole House, including its spiritual aspects.
Contributions have already been made which indicate that we might have some practical ideas about how this can be achieved. I therefore find it extraordinary in the light of this history that a mechanism has not been found for these Benches to be at the table and contributing throughout the whole discussion. I cannot see how the task can be done in our absence.
Yes, it will involve more work for one of our number, already busy in the Lord's vineyard. But if there is a desire and a way can be found, it can be done. Do we not have a collective responsibility in this House to ensure that all the aspects of our shared life are participating in questions concerning its future shape? The failure to include this perspective will make the task much harder; it risks the inadvertent opening up of issues that will lead us into difficulty; and it will mean that we are less likely to deliver a solution. Failure to find a solution which strengthens our parliamentary life in the 21st century would be very bad news for our people.
I regret having to speak in such strong terms. We have a duty on these Benches to seek to fulfil the role entrusted to us, and we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that the richness of what this means is not only preserved but shaped for the emerging needs of the people. I hope that we may hear some constructive responses to these concerns.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page