Lord Fowler
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the number of peers who are eligible to sit in the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, the scrutiny and challenge role of the House of Lords is important, but the House has grown in size as introductions have increased faster than departures. The Government’s manifesto outlines several measures that could have the effect of reducing the size of the House. The first is the removal of hereditary Peers; further measures include retirement age and participation requirements. I am grateful for the debate that we had last month and the engagement of colleagues from across the House on these issues. I am keen to continue this ongoing dialogue about how best to implement these commitments.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. If the aim of the Government is to reduce the size of the House, is not the most important action they can take to make an immediate commitment to follow a policy of restraint in making new appointments?
I agree with what I hope was the noble Baroness’s view that hereditary Peers make a big contribution to the work of this House. Against that, there are some appointed Peers who over the years have made little or no contribution to the House. They may be better candidates for removal than the hereditary Peers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who has been passionate on this issue for the same reason most of us are—we want an effective House that does the job it is charged with. His point about new appointments might have been better addressed to the last Government—I know he tried—because when the Labour Government left office after 12 years, we had 24 more Peers than the Opposition, but when the Conservatives left office they had 100 more Peers than the Labour Party. That difference between Government and Opposition, regardless of the parties, is too great. I am on record as saying that the House works better when the main party of government and of opposition have roughly equal numbers.
The noble Lord is absolutely right about participation, and I have been grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have suggested ways forward that we might look at. We will continue that dialogue on how we can have the most effective House possible, to ensure that it does the job it is here to do.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Can Ministers consider the transition arrangements I have called for? They are: a core of 500 salaried voting Members; a further non-voting but otherwise participating group, declining in membership, who are allowance remunerated with some flexibility on age; and an additional, fully participating voting tier of 100, declining in numbers, available for ministerial appointment but free, on loss of office, to move to non-voting status. That transitional reform avoids much difficulty, protects much of today’s membership and potentially reduces costs and numbers, paving the way to a more comprehensive reform. Could it at least be considered?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has clearly thought long and hard about this subject. I am not sure I followed entirely every proposal he made, but I am grateful to noble Lords who have come forward with suggestions. I think the House would like something straightforward. I must admit that I am not convinced we should have Members of the House with different status, if that is what he was suggesting. I would like to feel that all Members of the House were treated equally.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, why is the Minister bringing forward legislation to remove some of the hardest-working Members of the House, when over the last three years 157 Members have turned up less than 20% of the time and there are 21 on leave of absence, some for more than three years? Surely it would be better to take out people who make no contribution than to pick on those hereditaries who make a substantial contribution to this House.
On any day, even in the most controversial of circumstances, on average about 450 Members turn up, out of some 800. Is not the attempt to take out the hereditaries just a piece of gerrymandering by the Labour Party, which, we are told, already has a list of 30 would-be Peers coming to this House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord cannot resist it, can he? I do not think “taking people out” is quite the language we want to use in the House. As he knows, I have been trying to address across the House the point he makes on leave of absence. I previously proposed a limit on the number of leaves of absence a Member of this House can take without reference to the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence. That did not find favour with the party opposite, but I still think it is a good thing to look at and I will take that away and look at leave absence.
This is not about doing anything to harm the Official Opposition. The noble Lord pulls a face at me, but if he is saying that his party cannot be an effective Opposition without hereditary Peers in the House, it says a lot about the rest of his Members. I do not agree with him; I think the party opposite is fully able to mount effective opposition. Even after the removal of all the hereditaries, his party will still be the largest party in this House.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
The House of Lords badly needs radically updating if it is going to be a fit revising House for modern Britain. The Government seem to be starting with a piecemeal approach, so when the hereditaries are gone, would the next logical step not be to dispense with the Lords Spiritual, an equally anachronistic body who would otherwise stick out in this place like a sore thumb?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
This issue was raised in the House of Commons, and an amendment was tabled by a Conservative Member of Parliament to remove the Bishops. It got a very small vote in the Commons and was rejected; I have not detected an appetite for that in your Lordships’ House, either. On the noble Baroness’s more serious point about a piecemeal approach, we should have a proper discussion about moving forward. I am not one of those who wants a big bang reform—that is what led to inertia and no reform taking place. I think there is an appetite for gradual reform of this House.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would it be a good idea to ask the Opposition—the Tory party—to reduce their numbers by 75% of those who have been jammed in over the past few years, to make it a bit more equal?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sure the party opposite has heard my noble friend’s comments. I think 75% might be a bit harsh.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly sets store by her party’s manifesto. The Labour manifesto pledged:
“At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”
Full stop, end of paragraph. Will the Government implement this very specific manifesto promise in this Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, how and when we implement our manifesto is, as it is for every single party, a matter for the Government. One of the things I committed to this House is having discussions on how we implement 80; I said that in the first Answer. There is also the issue of participation. I think the House will want to have a view on those things, and I am happy to accept representations on how they are implemented.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I suggest that in future, Peers are appointed for a limited period, say 10 or 15 years?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that was not the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, but it has been raised with me by several noble Lords. There are different views across the House on that. I think the Burns report recommended 15 years, and another suggestion was 20 years. There is a choice for the House to make. I have not detected overall support for that. Partly, it has come about because much younger Peers have been appointed, and an appointment for life means that they are here for a very long time. The contrary to that is that hopefully, they will build up great expertise during their time here.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am over here on the right wing, for reasons I shall not go into. It is astonishing to hear the Opposition spokesman calling for retirement at 80: that means a whole swathe of the people opposite, as well as on this side, will go. Further to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth, whom I agree with, when I raised the question of participation in the debate last time, I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Botham, whom we never see. I was then immediately attacked in the press by his daughter, who said that it is difficult for him to come down from the north-east of England. Well, if it is difficult from the north-east of England, it is a lot more difficult from Scotland, I can tell you that. We have Members from Orkney, and that is even more difficult. Can the Minister confirm that once we get rid of the hereditaries—and that needs to be done quickly—she will convene all-party discussions to look at all these questions, including that of participation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I remain grateful to him. He talks about a retirement age of 80. He knows—he was one of the first to mention it—that it is not 80 but the end of the Parliament in which somebody turns 80. We have been having discussions around the House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have given me suggestions already. I do not want to dwell on individual Peers’ attendance, but we all want every Member to play a full role and be committed to the work of your Lordships’ House.