House of Lords Reform Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord McNally Excerpts
Tuesday 17th May 2011

(13 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally Portrait The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
- Hansard - -

We have got 40 minutes. Let us show ourselves on our best behaviour. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, asks first, and then perhaps we can hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Lord Cunningham of Felling Portrait Lord Cunningham of Felling
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can I remind the Leader of the House that the Conventions of the UK Parliament report was unanimously approved by the committee, unanimously approved by your Lordships’ House and then unanimously approved in the other place—a unique record for any such report? That report, inter alia, said that if this House, or part of it, were to be elected, and people had a mandate, it would be bound to call into question the relationship and the conventions operating between the two Houses. Indeed, the report went further and said in paragraph 61,

“should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again”.

That was a decision of both Houses of Parliament. Does the Leader of the House not recognise that all the evidence underwrites these conclusions of the committee, and not only in our country, if we look at the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America or between the Japan Diet’s House of Representatives and House of Councillors? They moved to change their powers in the relationships just as this House with an elected mandate would seek to do, with the most profound consequences for the governance and the constitution of our country.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - -

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and then from the Cross Benches.

Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

First, I thank the noble Lord for his elucidation of the thoughts of the Deputy Prime Minister, which I am sure he has done to the best of his ability, but could he help us further? Since the Executive under our constitution—the Government —are so by virtue of their ability to command a majority in the House under the democratically elected system, and since it is obvious that the Deputy Prime Minister considers that the electoral system of proportional representation with which this House would be elected better represents the common will, why, under the reform programmes would the Executive—that is, the Government—be chosen on the basis of a majority under first past the post in the House of Commons rather than under a majority under proportional representation in this House? Was he briefed on the Deputy Prime Minister’s thoughts on this?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Kakkar Portrait Lord Kakkar
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords—

Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - -

Can we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and then from the Cross Benches?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on how he has dealt with this matter today. May I press him on the answer he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons? Throughout the Statement, he has been at pains to say that of course elected Members would change the relationship with the House of Commons. I have got only as far as page 7 of the White Paper, which says:

“We propose no change to the constitutional powers and privileges of the House once it is reformed, nor to the fundamental relationship with the House of Commons”.

Who should we believe? Should we believe what it says in the White Paper or what my noble friend has been telling us this afternoon?