| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
House of Commons: Reform
3.09 pm
Lord Hamilton of Epsom asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to possible reform of the composition of the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government have no such plans.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, why is it that the Government seem obsessed with reform of your Lordships' House, which works, while content to leave completely unreformed the House of Commons, which clearly does not work? For some time now, the House of Commons has been losing powers to the European Parliament and to various regional parliaments and assemblies, yet the numbers in England and Wales continue to rise every time the Boundary Commission reports. Should not the reform of Parliament start in the House of Commons, where it is most needed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process we have started is a Joint Committee looking at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. There will be a free vote in both Houses on composition of the Lords. We accept completely that if there is reform in the Lords, inevitably that will have an effect on the Commons. We think that this is the right approach.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, before moving further into reform of your Lordships' House, would it not be appropriate for the Government to issue a White Paper so that Parliament as a whole and the nation might be more clearly informed of their thinking on this important issue?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is hard to imagine another issue on which more White Papers, royal commissions and other documents have been produced. What we have proposed—and there is agreement in both Houses—is that a Joint Committee should look at the relationship between the two Houses, followed by a clear steer from both Houses on what is to happen next.
Lord Soley: My Lords, what I am about to say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not make me very popular in the House of Commons, so let me try my luck here. The biggest single reform we
17 May 2006 : Column 265
could make there would be to reduce the size of the House of Commons from 650 to about 450. We could enhance the status of MPs and councillors because it would prevent MPs doing councillors' work, thus enabling them to heighten their responsibilities. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might want to give me a slightly circumspect answer; I ask him just to bear this proposal in mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, from my own limited experience, I find that proposing to reduce the number of people in an institution does not tend to be popular in those institutions. I simply want to make it clear that we have no proposals to reduce the number in the House of Commons and, indeed, I hope that the number here is not reduced either.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the problem with the composition of the House of Commons is the method by which its Members are elected. How do the Government justify the fact that they have a majority of 60 in the Commons on the basis of 35 per cent of the popular vote, and is it not extraordinary that your Lordships' House is now more representative of public opinion as expressed in votes cast at the last election than is the elected House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think there is any groundswell of enthusiasm for a change in the electoral system for the House of Commons. However we get there, the House of Commons produces the government. By and large, the government produced is the one the people want.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness the Leader of this House thinks that the number in this place, which sits for longer hours and does more work than the House of Commons in scrutinising legislation, should be reduced to 300 Members who are largely elected, should not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take more seriously the idea of reducing the size of the House of Commons, perhaps to 300, so that the taxpayer would still have to pay for only 600 salaried, elected politicians?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I understand that the party of which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is a member suggests that the number of Members of the House of Commons should be reduced so that money could be made available for state funding of political parties. We do not favour the idea of reducing the number in the House of Commons. We think it is important that each constituency be properly represented and we think the process works well.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in answering the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, the noble and learned Lord prayed in aid the Joint Committee which is about to be set up. Is
17 May 2006 : Column 266
he suggesting that that Joint Committee will have powers to recommend alterations to the power or composition of the House of Commons?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I am not suggesting that, my Lords. However, the relationship between the two should be the starting point for consideration of whether there should be reform of this House. If there is reform of this House, inevitably that will have an effect on the House of Commons.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is that not plainly the point? If—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is that not the point? If the two Houses are complementary in the work that they do, and if one House and the nature of the work that it does are changed, does it not necessarily follow that the second House has to change too?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that the two Houses are complementary. I think there is widespread agreement about the role of this House but, although we may agree on the role, the question is: does it get changed in practice if you change its composition? If it does, inevitably there will be changes in the relationship between the two Houses.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is it not that the Government fear that by strengthening Parliament they will weaken government, and that is why this process is not going forward very fast?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process is going forward with real determination. This is an opportunity for reform if there is support for it. We are in favour of a strong Parliament and, as was said yesterday in a similar Starred Question, what makes Parliament strong is the way in which government Back-Benchers and oppositions function. That is what holds governments to account.
Benefits: Simplification
3.16pm
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first-ever Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what strategic steps they are taking to simplify the benefits system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are anxious to simplify the benefits system and have set up a benefits
17 May 2006 : Column 267
simplification unit within the department to support this. We have also set out a long-term vision of a simpler, single system of benefits for people of working age. We will report progress annually.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he acknowledge that there is a difference between managing complexity and eradicating it? Will he say more about what the new benefits simplification unit is being tasked to do? Can he assure the House that its annual activities and accomplishments will be published in a departmental report every year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's analysis. Clearly there are issues to do with the basic structure of benefits and the way in which the processing of claims is taken forward. A report on the simplification unit's activities will be in the next departmental report in a year's time. I expect it to reflect the progress made by the unit. It has already produced a guide to good practice, of which I will place a copy in the Library. There is lots of good sense in that guide, which, if followed, will make a big difference.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |