House of Lords: Reform Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Dubs Excerpts
Wednesday 1st December 2010

(13 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the increased membership of the House since the general election, and likely further increases, are consistent with their aim of Lords reform.

Lord McNally Portrait The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the new appointments since the general election are entirely consistent with the coalition’s programme for government, which set the objective of creating a second Chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election. The Government are committed to reform of this House. The cross-party Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform will come forward with a draft Bill early in the new year.

Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I want to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the many Members who have recently joined this House or are about to do so, but how can the Minister reconcile the Government’s reducing by 50 the number of MPs in the House of Commons with increasing by more than that the number of Members of this House? Is he not breaking the cross-party understanding that the Government should not have an overall majority, especially as this has an adverse effect on the Cross Benches? I have yet to find a single Member of this House who agrees with the Minister—and I have asked quite a few of them. One can look at the faces behind the Minister to see that they are nodding in agreement with me and not with him.

Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I had better not look behind me then. There is a dilemma which this House has partially created for itself. For as long as I have been involved in these matters, there has been an assumption that incoming Governments will freshen their Benches, partly for reasons of needing to man the government Benches. That is exactly what the Labour Party did, with Mr Blair creating more than 300 Peers during his term of office. The attempts to reform this House over the past 10 years have failed and we are left with a problem of a House that is too large. That is why I hope that the Benches opposite, when they get the opportunity in January, will enthusiastically embrace the reform programme which the Government will put forward.