Lords Chamber

Monday 10th March 2025

(began 9 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord McCabe and Baroness Debbonaire
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and Territories King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come, greeting.

No ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, pursuant of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf as enabling, do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Stephen James McCabe, to the state, degree, style, dignity and title and honour of Baron McCabe of Sally oak in our city off Birmingham and Broadfield, in our county of Renfrewshire. And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant onto him the same name, state, degree, title and honour of Baron McCabe.

To have and to hold onto him for his life. Willing that by these presents granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the barons. And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminence is, immunities and advantages to the degree of a barren, duly and offer right belonging, which barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness our self at Westminster in the forenoon of 7 February, in the third year of our reign. By warrant, under the Kings reign. By warrant, under the Kings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Stephen Lord McCabe do swear by Almighty God that I will be by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come, greeting. these presents shall come, greeting.

Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling, do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Thank Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire, To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of of Baroness Debbonaire. And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Debbonaire.

To have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presents granting, for us, our heirs and successors that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons. And also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Seventh of February, in the third year of RA. -- Our rain. By warrant under the King's sign manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Thangham Debbonaire do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Thangham Debbonaire do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and true allegiance to His Majesty and true allegiance to His Majesty The King Charles. He says and The King Charles. He says and successes, according to law. -- His

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I would I would like I would like to I would like to make I would like to make a I would like to make a short statement for information concerning the parliamentary estate this
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
None Portrait Oral questions: People who have not met the entry requirements for the apprenticeship system
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitaker. I beg leave to ask the question
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
None Portrait Oral questions: Ratification of the High Seas Treaty agreed by the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
-

Second Oral Question, Baroness Boycott.
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
None Portrait Oral questions: Sexual violence against Sudanese women and girls
-

Third Oral Question, Baroness Brown of Silverton.
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:24
None Portrait Oral questions: UK Poverty 2025 report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
-

Fourth Oral Question. Paper. Paper.
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:36
15:36
15:37
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I Bektur move amendment 11 standing in my name which seeks to take full proposals very democratic mandate for the House of Lords. When we debated Lords reform last November I set out the reasons why I thought the Lords should be elected. I said then that it should be elected on the basis that in a democracy laws should be passed by people and chosen by people to act on their behalf. They should be elected because the unelected Lords leads to a geographic imbalance on membership, in which London and the south-east our own -- greatly over represented, and Scotland and North Wales are underrepresented.

It should be elected because it would be more representative of the ethnic diversity of the UK, and it should be elected because it would be more politically representative. It would contain members of the SNP and almost certainly more members from the smaller parties. And it would, by doing all these things, help restore the trust which the people have of Parliament. Currently at a low-level. We realise this bill isn't the place to introduce detailed proposals for an elected second chamber.

Instead, the amendment requires the government to start a process which would lead to the house having a democratic mandate. It requires the government to produce a consultation paper on methods for electing the Lords. It suggests who should be consulted, including the nations and regions of the UK, and it sets out a timetable for undertaking the consultation. And then for the production of a draft bill containing legislative proposals for reform. I don't intend to dwell on the current system of appointing people to your Lordship's House.

Suffice to say that if we had elections we wouldn't be worrying about many of the issues that will concern as later today, and on further consideration of the bill. We wouldn't be worrying about the Prime Minister overwriting the appointments commission in order to appoint cronies. We wouldn't be worrying about whether Piers did their jobs properly, or on the balance between different groups or types of people. It would, in short, cut through the gaudy and not of problems which bedevilled the current system.

I'm grateful to Lord Strathclyde and Baroness Jones for supporting this amendment. I remind the house that in 2012 the proposals for an elected House of Lords were approved in the Commons by a majority of 338 at Second Reading, with the support of both the Conservative and Labour frontbenches. And with only 46 Labour opponents and 89 Tories. Of the other amendments in this group I agree with the noble Lord Ling Kathryn -- Lord Blencathra, but I think we have to be rather careful that this exercise doesn't become a pretext for delaying the whole process.

I don't see the necessity for his proposal of a referendum. No referendum was envisaged in 2012, and public opinion for a very long time has been very strongly in favour of this house being elected. Again, such a move could be a pretext for delay. Baroness Smith's amendment, we obviously agree with the sentiments behind them. But we wanted to put a timetable on our amendment in order to ensure that, if passed, momentum towards reform wasn't unnecessarily delayed. Lord Brady would reduce the size of the Lords to 200, and elect people using the first past the post system.

I don't believe that the Lords could do its job of detailed scrutiny and the comprehensive range of select committees with such a small number of people. The Clegg reforms envisaged a house of 450, and I think that you do the work we expect of it this is probably about right. You won't be surprised to know that we also prefer a system of proportional representation for the Lords, as for the Commons, for reasons that House will be familiar with.

In summary, we see amendment 11 and the consequential amendment 115 is helping the government fulfil its manifesto and bring about the long-term future of the Lords on a largely elected basis, and I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it to the house. Amendment proposed, after clause 1 insert the new clause as printed 1 insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. Amendment 11 A, as an amendment to amendment 11,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Blencathra. I rise to move 11 A 11 B, to say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move 11 A 11 B, to say that we should first consult on the
15:42
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
role of the Lords if it were elected, and have a referendum to see if the public want an elected Lords. I completely oppose having a consultation on this and also having a referendum. My amendments and -- are a response to the usual deliberate attempts to advance a case for an elected house without first working out how the whole balance of powers between the Lords and Commons would change if this house were composed of elected members. This amendment seeks to deliver it, when the Lord said to the magazine on 4 July, in 2021, we have to be clear what are the powers of the Lords? What you want them to do and why are they there? Answer those questions then we can decide.

Wise words from the noble Lord. Even a commission chaired by Lord Wakeham avoided it by suggesting just 150 elected peers, so there membership was so small that the supremacy of the Commons would not be challenged. Then the ludicrous Gordon Brown proposals, suggesting an assembly of just 200 members from the regions which is just a regional talking shop. I can do no better than quote the words of our new noble ambassador to Washington, who described the Brown proposals as follows, "What I see as a multilayered cake with an assortment of ingredients in it, with a thin layer of icing on top which is called a new second chamber of the regional nations, which has barely been put in the oven yet let alone fully baked".

So raw, not even half baked. That's LibDem policy for you. I think there was one report that suggested 450 elected members, but most suggest just 300 elected Lords Senators. Thus we would have an elected Lords with about half the number of Lords Senators as MPs. Before looking at the new roles for elected chambers we need to consider who these new senators will be. First of all, they will all be party political people, exactly the same as the House of Commons. Just look around this chamber and see how many here would be selected to be candidates.

Will the crossbenchers form a party? Possibly, but highly unlikely. So we lose all those expertise. Look at the older hands here, those with 30 or 40 years experience in various professions, business or industry. Will they apply or be selected as political candidates? Then even we older politicians, who have the scars and experience of doing things in government in the past, we would be out to. Idolise predicted intent of 15 years tiny bunch of new MPs with no institutional memory will say let's invade Afghanistan and sort out the Taliban, what could possibly be wrong? The greatest error in politics is no institutional memory.

Those likely to offer themselves for an election selected by political parties would be the same sort of young political animals some of us may have been in the past. Some will be using it as a steppingstone to the Commons, others will fail to get into the Commons. Those 300 full- time political animals will more than anything else change what this House will do and how it interacts with the Commons. How many of us as new member's of the Commons had a clue about the Lords powers and conventions? Newly elected Lord Senators will not know nor have any regard for the conventions I have regard for the conventions I have Let's imagine that we are one of these young people, the moral authority to legislate.

Our constituents right to us asking us to vote against the national insurance in Greece and we say, we are with you but we cannot vote on that because there is this convention that we don't vote on money bills. Others want us to amend a vote down a Statutory Instrument and again we say, we are not permitted to amend it we could vote it down but you see the Commons will not like it and the last time that happened my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was called in to write a port on the constitutional crisis.

That's another convention up with which elected senators will not put. How long do you think, those Lords, though self-imposed restrictions, we have, will last with our constituents saying, our new elected Lords is a waste of space, if we won't vote on the things that matter They would demand equal power to the Commons, vote down the bill and could and would hold that legislation until they got the power. Then we have the Salisbury Convention which both parties, sometimes reluctantly, not if the elections to both houses were on the same day then there might be a possibility that the majority party formed a government might also have a majority in the Lords.

But if elections were a different time, then they could be a majority of elected politicians in the Lords posted those in the Commons. And if it is original PR system it is highly likely that the governing party in the Commons will never have a majority in the Lords. As you know, that does not matter so long as the Lords adheres to the Salisbury Convention as we currently do. But I suggest that a highly politically elected Lords will never endorse the Salisbury Convention and we will have US style Senate Congress deadlines.

If we have elected Lords senators then why should the Prime Minister come from Collins, it is only 60 years ago was Prime Minister. In the US 17 presents have come from the Senate and nine from Congress. Conservatives and Labour make a party rule that the leader will come to the MPs, but they will soon ditch that if polling suggested some charismatic youngster was an election winner. And our Lord Speaker gives presidents to Mr Speaker at the moment but that would have to change.

The Speaker of elected upper house would inevitably have superior status to the Speaker of elected lower house, the names are raised to crocodile. All the items in my amendment are things fanatical advocates do not about because they're considered that the public would reject them as well as the Commons would. My amendment 11 calls for a referendum on whether or not the public want an elected house. I do love the hypocrisy of the LibDem amendment 11. It is introduced at democratic minded and bring the public say who is sent to a new House of Lords.

The proposed consulting or political party in both houses, all territorial governments, 400 local authorities in the UK and goodness knows how many organisations which were supposed to be representative of local authorities in the UK. Everyone is to be consulted except the little group of people, 48,200,000 who are elected of year the UK. And we know why because once the public get the facts, the LibDem proposal will face the same fate as their PR plan, rejected in the referendum.

It will be rejected not only for the reasons advanced here but on cost grounds also. Last year, according to the figures produced by IPSO, MPs salaries cost over £64 million, staff costs over 133 million, and other costs over 34 million. The total cost for 650 Members of Parliament was 233 million was 233,138,000. We can assume that elected Lord Senators, will have the same salaries, staffing and accommodation and just 300 instead of 650 that would cost of £100 million for an elected Lords.

In a rather nasty position, with Electoral Reform Society which is... It seems the only time the public is allowed in the House of Lords is to pay the bill. The House of Lords isn't just an affront to voters is unacceptable burden on the public first. He is unable to claim £361 tax-free for every day they attend bus travel costs. It says a pharaoh, smaller and fair elected second chamber will be better for taxpayers. Really? That's the greatest lie from those who want to foist their ideas on us.

The total cost for peers in the House of Lords last year was a mere £22.1 million. So we are cheap at the price. Our current system is five times cheaper than any proposed new elected Lords chamber. And when the public are told that, as well as the consequences of what elected chamber will be, another bunch of party politicians no different from the Commons, will only deaf overwhelmingly vote down. As we will overwhelmingly vote down. As we will with amendment 11.

My Lords, I signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lord Newby but I must say I really enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Blencathra who
15:52
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
raised many sensible points during the course of his debate. And I think the noble Lord Lord Newby didn't quite give the case for a democratic House as much justice as I think it deserved. And I'm sorry I think it deserved. And I'm sorry to see that most of his venture seemed to be massively deserted and on the whole his party hasn't turned on the whole his party hasn't turned out to support him as ably as I will out to support him as ably as I will now try and do.

It is interesting that today will be very much turned into a new phase of discussion upon the bill. Last week, we discussed the issue of heredity and whether or not to fling out certain peers. Overwhelmingly, I think the House broadly agreed that heredity was no longer acceptable way of picking, of choosing a house in Parliament. But there will was substantial disagreement about transition ore arrangements or grandfather rights or creating Life Peers. And no doubt, we will return to that at length when and report those at report stage.

It was worth having a look at history, but my noble friend called the institutional memory. I don't think any of us can go back to 1911 but 1911 may not be the first time that democracy was discussed for this House but it is a key point because it is a statute of Parliament which fundamentally reassessed the relationship between the two houses. What's important about the 1911 act is its preamble. And in the preamble, I won't quote it exactly, but it said that we should substitute the House of Lords for a chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis.

That was in 1911. And here we are in 2025 and we are absolutely no further at all from getting that. The 1920s after the First World War, and the devastation that produced, there were several commissions looking at the case for an elected house, that came to nothing, the 1930s there were other matters, in the 1940s there was a World War I the extraordinary Parliament of 1945 when all those radical Labour policies under Attlee, which did so much, and with only a few handfuls of labour peers, that Labour government managed to pass everything it wanted to, through this house, which actually goes to the number five think my noble friend Lord Blencathra's argument that convention plays an important part in the relationship between these two Houses of Parliament.

I'm not entirely sure that my noble friend was quite so keen on those kind of conventions existing. But they were very powerful in the 1940s, they are still powerful now. In the 1950s, was the introduction of the Life Peers act which at a stroke change fundamentally how this House was viewed and injected a good deal of new blood into it, and that is what has kept us going ever since. But the dream of democracy didn't quite, the noble Lord Lord Longford introduced a bill in 1968.

That bill was talked out in the House of Commons by two MPs, Enoch Powell and Michael foot. And they decided that the reason why they could not be a democratic mandate for the House of Lords is that it would compete with the House of Lords, and that level of competition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was completely unacceptable to the House. The noble Baroness is trying to... Need to correct him, he said he couldn't have elected second couldn't have elected second chamber, because it would compete with House of Lords, I think you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with House of Lords, I think you meant the House of Commons. I thank her for putting me right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I hope she will continue... It shows I was listening. That took us to 1998 /99 and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That took us to 1998 /99 and the promise in the 1997 Blairite manifesto that they would be a manifesto that they would be a democratic reform and here we are 25 years after the, and there is no further movement at all. The beginning of the century we had various Law Commissions and white papers, which came up in favour of a more democratic House but none was pushed forward. And I think Mr Brown, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Brown, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, did have an attempt in 2009/10 for a Democratic House.

But it wasn't until the government of my noble friend Lord Cameron that we saw the introduction into Parliament of a introduction into Parliament of a real democratic mandate, and 80 /20 % elected house and the noble Lord Lord Newby explained very well what had happened to that. It's worth pointing out in this debate about the democratic mandate that the amendment which I have signed I think is not for an for an 80 1080/20 house, as for a 100% house.

Which would we lose the benefit of the frontbenchers. I think having 20% unelected is important because the crossbenchers and something to this House which no democratic mandate would be able to do. -- Bring something to this House. As an example, you just have to look at the crossbenchers, former judges, trade unionists, businesspeople, churchmen, archbishops and so on. Who would never dream of election cart bring their knowledge and experience to bear, to the workings of this House and legislation which is extremely effective.

Simon five which is extremely effective. Simon 580% elected house, not 100% elected house. Secondly, the noble Lord Lord Newby make the case for a directly elected house. I wonder if it's worth considering and I wonder if the noble Lord has considered that given the enormous changes in devolution over the last 25 years, in our major cities and of course in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, that they may not be a case to look at the capacity for this House to accept some form of indirectly elected members.

Which would perhaps go to stopping what my noble friend Lord Blencathra regarded as too strong a democratic mandate that would challenge the mandate that would challenge the Lord Blencathra in his amendment amendment A, -- 11 A, poses an important question about how the relationship between the two houses would work. I think in 2012 when we looked at this in detail before the buildout was published, we rather imagined the powers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons would remain the same.

And my noble friend was kind enough to refer to a study and report I published about secondary legislation, I presented it to the government. And I have to say that from that moment to this it has hardly been mentioned again, and it has sunk without trace. That doesn't mean it wasn't still relevant and important, I hope it would be taken up again. Finally, on the question of a referendum. There was no need for a referendum in the buildout was published in 2012.

-- The bail that was published. I think the change of enormity that is proposed in these amendments bubbly would need to seek some sort of popular mandate, whether that is a referendum or something else. I'm not sure, I think we would have to wait until then. The amendments suggest the government should come forward with some proposals over the course of the next couple of years. Perhaps we won't have too long to wait. Finally my noble friend, Lord Brady, he wants to reduce the house to a very small number of 200.

That would fundamentally change the role of the House of Lords. And it's clear we would be unable to continue to do the kind of scrutiny work which is currently required. But I can see which way my noble friend is thinking, and I think it should be taken seriously. And I hope it will be debated to an extent over the next short while.
16:02
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I have also signed Lord Newby's amendment, and I'm surprised and delighted to say I agree with every word he said. I think there are some real problems with Lord Blencathra's amendment. I always enjoy his speeches, but he made an awful lot of assumptions in that speech. While it was very entertaining I'm not sure it will hold up to close examination. Do you want to say anything? No? I personally am not against getting rid of hereditaries. I think it is a long overdue move.

I'm extremely fond of some of them, not all, some of them. And they do play the most incredible role in this house. Once they are gone we are going to see some really big gaps in all of our processes. So we will miss them. However, it is time. It is something that is way past Witsel by date. And quite honestly, my main objection to the bill is that it is so timid. Why not be braver and actually think seriously about Lord Newby's amendment? Actually do something that has real forwardthinking and constructive ideas.

Rather than just a rather mean minded blunt instrument of kicking out the hereditaries. I am not defending privilege, I don't like it at all. But in this case it like it at all. But in this case it With Lord Brady, he hasn't introduced his amendment yet we all have views on it. I think 200 is too small. If I can give a short history lesson, in 2015 I tabled a bill and so has Lady Bennett, the same bill, on redrawing the whole of the House of Lords.

And making it under PR, and also I think the figure we used for the number was 350. Essentially at least reducing this house by half, because we are a bloated undemocratic, archaic, ridiculously old-fashioned House. And it is time to move on. I'm trying not to make a second reading speech. But I'm not sure I'm succeeding. Also, the Labour government told us they were going to modernise the House, which is fair enough. If I could see that this was the first of many alterations, many different bills, then it would sit easier with me.

Because we heard that everybody over 80 was going to be kicked out. I personally don't mind that, but in fact the government has been putting people in who are over 80, so they won't have a long shelf life. I'm curious about that. I would argue that this amendment is a very good one, because it does cover the crucial aspect of this House being more representative. And certainly if we had it under PR there would obviously be a lot more greens, which I know would be very welcome to your Lordship's House.

On one final point, in the bill that I tabled there was an element of crossbenchers, it might have been around 100. And we can do that under a different form of election. Because we all agree that crossbenchers are extremely valuable, hereditary or not. So to lose their skills and expertise would be bad. I also think one of the first things this Labour government should do is stop this ridiculous appointment system by the Prime Minister, which brings in people who love having a title but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really don't love the work. In the interests of institutional

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the interests of institutional memory, can I just add more or less
16:06
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-
memory, can I just add more or less a footnote to that. I was surprised to see Lord Blencathra's amendment, knowing his passion for democracy in this house. And the way he has pursued it in the Delegated Powers Committee. His explanation was more than welcome. And it occurs to me that in the historical pounds that Lord Strathclyde offered the one thing he omitted was the report of the joint committee of both houses in 2011/12 on the coalition bill.

Had we had Lord Blencathra on that joint committee it would have taken two weeks rather than nearly 18 months, we would have had infinitely more fun, we would have come to conclusions that were infinitely crisper and more persuasive. But in fact, and I hope the noble Lord and Lady take comfort from this, in that report where we took exhaustive evidence including from the authors of the bill, from Ministers, from all the usual suspects and beyond, we came to exactly the same conclusions as Lord Blencathra about the dysfunctional relationship that would be setup automatically with the House of Commons.

And as we worked through our list of Ministers giving evidence it became perfectly clear that not of them had asked themselves those questions, about the implications it would have for the House of Commons, its legitimacy, its effectiveness, its relationship with the House of Lords, where they going to be constituents that would have competing notions of what would be competing notions of what would be right, there would be two different houses with two different houses in command. It was an exhaustive review, there were differences of opinion, but it was conclusive in its recommendations.

That the House of Commons must think again about the bill it had been presented. And it was the last time that either house actually looked at this issue in depth, with any sophistication. So my point is simply, just as Lord Strathclyde and Lord Blencathra have made, this is a constitution of massive significance, can hardly be dealt with an amendment where frankly these amendments have no place anyway because it is such a narrow bill on such a narrow point, it should be addressing the absolute substance of the bill.

But since the issue has been raised I think we are right to remember that we have had worked out proper views on the implications of this subject, certainly in 2012. My question is, I wonder what happened to that bill? Why was it ever withdrawn? Unfortunately the Prime Minister at the time is not in his place, otherwise we might have actually been able to get an answer after all these years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One assumption in Lord Newby's amendment which needs to be
16:10
16:11
Lord Brady of Altrincham Portrait Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
In speaking to and moving the amendment that stands in my name I want to reassure your Lordships that I neither seek nor anticipate achieving consensus on this point. Rather to help to stimulate the kind of debate and discussion which we are already starting to see in the chamber this afternoon. Two Lord Newby I would say my proposal of geographical constituencies would ensure the kind of geographical spread that he would like to see. Possibly more effective than a PR system.

On the point of membership, I'm not wedded to that, I think it's reasonable for the house to be smaller and I suspect it could be a lot smaller. To my noble friend, Lord Blencathra, surprisingly I agree with a great deal of what he had to say. -- Unsurprisingly. Perhaps my concern comes down to what really was his central point, what I think is the point that we usually fail to tackle and address sufficiently. Which is that this house does a very limited and specific job, and does it very well.

The point I made at Second Reading, that hereditaries are actually at the forefront of that and contribute more than Life Peers do on average. But given that the government is determined to change the composition of the House that works so well in that limited and specific function, shouldn't we take a moment to reflect on wider questions not just of how the House should be composed but whether our function should be so tightly confined. We might also pause to reflect for a moment on what the public thinks of this House.

I noted from a YouGov Paul a few months ago, 42% of the public has a negative view of the House of Lords. 49% think it isn't useful. By imagine of 62% to 16% there is support for having no hereditaries. Also interestingly, 50% of the public say they oppose a holy appointed chamber. -- Holy appointed chamber. So we are moving the composition of the house and I've no doubt this bill will become an act, but we are moving to something that is already disliked and disapproved of by the wider public.

Something which possibly has even less legitimacy than a House of Lords which is comprised jointly of Life Peers and elected hereditaries. The justification for the current composition, or indeed the justification from four moving to a holy appointed house, is a second one and important. It seemed essential that the house should lack legitimacy. The composition should be hard to defend, precisely and deliberate to ensure the primacy of a House of Commons which does have Having spent 27 years in the elected House, house which I found to be very largely controlled by the executive, in which the majority of members, were either ministers or should ministers, or seeking very hard to become those things, patronage exerts huge control.

My amendment 6 to prove the question of whether the Commons showed and could benefit from more challenge and whether governments could benefit from a greater capacity for Parliament to hold it to account. Crucially, avoiding the danger of moving to elected house, which increases the power of parameters, such as PR systems using a party list, which might lead to even more power of patronage in our Parliament. So my purpose fundamentally is simply to ask noble Lords to reflect on the question of whether the House of Commons does its job well enough to have earned an absolute assumption that it should have primacy in our Parliament.

I close with a quote from Tom hang when he said a long habit of not thinking anything wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. I fear that in this matter, the assumption was unchallenged that the other house should have primacy, we are falling into Thom pain's trap.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support amendment 11 in the
16:17
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
name of the noble Lord Lord Newby, supported by the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As I have said in earlier debates, the 1999 agreement always envisaged that the House would, as stage II of that agreement, adopt proposals for introducing elected members to the House of Lords. However, I'm not sure that all were firmly agreed that the elected members should be directly elected. And I believe that some kind of indirect election system, perhaps one representing the new estates of the realm, such as the CBI of the TUC, the bar Association is such a, should also be considered, as an alternative way to introduce the more democratic and representative elements of the house's composition.

The difficulty would have course be in agreeing which organisations should be entitled to. But the possibility should be explored. An alternative way to direct indirectly elected members of your Lordship's House might be by granting election or selection powers to devolved legislatures and principal councils. After the Second World War, and under pressure from the American occupation forces, the Japanese government introduced constitutional changes which replaced the House of peers with the directly elected house of councillors to which elections from large multimember constituencies are held.

This introduced an element of proportional representation. So Japan does have two elected houses. They do sometimes clash. The new upper houses powers are restricted I'm not supporting moving directly to an elected alternative second chamber. But the Japanese example is one that should be closely looked at. Although I support the outcome which could flow from this amendment, I think it is wrong to make changes to the Bishop of the House before shaking the sand out of the chute. To let the bill go through with this amendment alone will not guarantee that it would definitely lead to any enactment of a draft bills which would be laid before your Lordship's House in another place.

It is clear that the 1999 agreement was that the 92 Hereditary Peers would remain until the enactment of proposals incorporating a democratic element. I nevertheless will support this amendment but believe the hell should also adopt something similar to amendment six is previously debated. I will support noble Lord noble friend Lord Lucas if he brings back a report in amendment that would retain an elected and independent element within your Lordship's House which would keep the sand in the shoe.

A combination of amendment six and this amendment could well be developed to a level where I believe the programme of change could enjoy a broad level of support across your Lordship's House. I also support amendments 11, A, and to be, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Both of which seek to ensure that referenda will be held to make certain that proposals for an elected house would ever be enacted with popular support. As Lord Strathclyde said, some sort of popular support should be sought in making a constitutional change of this nature.

I cannot support amendment 70 in the name of noble Lady Baroness Smith and the noble Lord Lord Wigley because a review which I believe would most probably conclude that a house composed of only appointed peers and bishops would lack appropriateness appropriateness, and I think that is an understatement. Such a review would just be kicked into the long grass. I like amendment 72, but again I think that the 92 should remain should remain, 88, until the end of the session prior to the new house being convened following an election under a new electrical model.

I'm not sure about amendment 90, D, and the name of my noble friend Lord Brady 90, D, and the name of my noble friend Lord Brady, although I agree with much of what he said in his most thought- provoking speech. Failure house comprising only 200 members would have no for people retaining activities outside the House. And would lack the capacity to scrutinise legislation as it does at present. Or to operate a number of Select Committees which it does today. It would be a very different kind of House.

However, I'm certainly attracted by my noble friend's proposal by my noble friend's proposal, the selection should be held one year later than general elections, and I think that should be considered as a part of any move to a partially elected House. Lastly of course amendment 115 amendment 100 and $0.15, but this bill should not be enacted without the adoption of a least a partial democratic mandate at the same time -- amendment and 15 makes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sense. Basically amendment 11 which I thoroughly support Basically amendment 11 which I thoroughly support, people have tried picking support, people have tried picking holes in it but it doesn't actually say that all has got to be elected, it says introducing directly elected members to the House of Lords. So the proposals which were thought
16:23
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
the proposals which were thought through and were brought with a bill within, is it 16? Within 18 months, can contain all sorts of different proposals which I know we will devote the moment, some very good ideas in there. The whole point about a left and is that it voice to them promised that the Privy Council was given from the two front benches there would be further reform of the House of Lords front benches there would be further reform of the House of Lords, democratic reform.

That's the thing front benches there would be further reform of the House of Lords, democratic reform. That's the thing, it gives a time limit on it and therefore the Secretary of State has to do something about it, not just kick it into the long grass, we won't be here, but those who follow us will be here, to see proper further reform of the Lords, introducing a democratic bit to it. Without that democratic element, as I said before, it will eventually have all its powers moves, because it will have no democratic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legitimacy. My Lords, my noble friend Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brady eloquently spoke, but he did Brady eloquently spoke, but he did not refer to his amendment 90, C, a person can only be member of the House of Lords if they are not a House of Lords if they are not a Minister of the Crown. I do not know why he didn't refer to that but does why he didn't refer to that but does seem that is a very bad idea because one of the most striking features of one of the most striking features of politics in the 50 years politics in the 50 years, more than 50 years, since I was elected to the House of Commons, is that as the diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity has widened, which is a good thing, the diversity in terms of life experience has narrowed very considerably.

And we now, when I was a member And we now, when I was a member, when I was elected to the House of Commons, there were people who had a lot of business experience, people who had an active in trade unions, an active in trade unions,... Order. Apologies. Just to let you know that the amendment you are speaking to actually in group 18 the amendment you are speaking to actually in group 18, whereas we spot We will be debating that later.
16:26
Lord Tugendhat Portrait Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
-
-
I moved to the other amendment which I was to speak to which I was to speak to, which was to take issue with Lord Newby. Of course, we are we are, democracy is a central feature of our governing system. And the House of Commons must always be the House of Commons must always be the superior house. But precisely because the experience of MPs has narrowed to the extent that it has, we have seen that House of Commons increasingly increasingly, or over a period of time increasingly, or over a period of time, has given up on its scrutiny function.

When I was first elected, guillotines were very rare When I was first elected, guillotines were very rare, they are now very common. Handbills, up to this House which have barely been scrutinised. -- Handbills come up to this House which have rarely My question is whether an elected house would be interested in the scrutiny function. We have the House of Commons, has its represented functions, it does a great deal of useful work in all kinds of different areas. But in terms of scrutiny it has rather given up the goosed.

That has been left increasingly into the House of Lords. I don't think that's a desirable situation but it is the situation that exists. And I wonder whether an elected House would have the interest in scrutiny that we need. If we didn't have the scrutiny and the second chamber, we wouldn't have enough scrutiny at all. So do think that it would be wise to consider that democratically elected second chamber is not the only weight forward. It may well be better to look at some alternatives, to look at the function first in the form in the form, and at the moment, we are all talking about the composition talking about the composition, and the form of the House, but not the function of the House.

And if one looks at the functions of the house, what system of elections of elections, selection, appointment whatever, would be most appropriate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No doubt there are two different ways of furthering a democratic mandate for the House of Lords, one mandate for the House of Lords, one is as we have heard, through a directory election house, maybe following a referendum on that principle, as mentioned by noble principle, as mentioned by noble Lord Lord Blencathra, in amendment 11, B, perhaps a partially or fully elected house of 200 years, constituencies as proposed, as my noble friend mentioned in his amendment 90, D.

The other solution is that advocated in later amendment, number 75, at which the
16:29
16:30
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
My amendment 70 and 72 are included in this group. An festival I would like to just comment on the recent comments in relation to function of the House. And I actually tried to table some amendments at the function of the House that is out of the scope of this bill, therefore it is not part of what the debate is part of the bill, so I will first speak to amendment 70 which calls on his majesties Government to review the appropriateness of an unelected chamber.

While I am a member of this place, it is my mission to see this House abolished and replaced with an elected chamber. One that better represents the needs, diversity, background, and lived experiences of people across all four nations. As the late Earl of Sandwich pointed out in his valedictory speech, I will do my duty right up to abolition. My position on unelected chamber has been clear for Maite Maiden speech. In this place right up until today. An unelected chamber is an appropriate, outdated, and obviously undemocratic.

Why is it that the UK promotes democracy at home and abroad, yet fails miserably in ensuring that our ordinations are governed by a democratic mandate? With record low levels of trust in politics and a Government that has pledged to restore public confidence in the political system, surely now is the time to radically transform this place. A recent full by the electoral reform Society found that just 2% of the British public have lost confidence in the House of Lords.

As they only have confidence in the House of Lords. 2%. We must ask ourselves why that is. May I suggest that an element of distress stems from the fact that this chamber is removed from the lives of people that we make decisions on behalf of rather than it could not be further removed given that the public has no influence over who gets to become a member of this place. In fact, the Prime Minister's hold over appointments to this House was even challenged by the noble Earl Lord Ashley who said on our first committee day on this bill I will simply not be able to get a life peerage.

We have come a gated community of more than 800 members without the public having a say on who those members are. Democracy is built upon the principle that people get to choose. They have a say in how their lives are governed. It seems contradictory that a body with no direct mandate from the electorate should have influence over matters that deeply affect people's day-to-day lives. If I may, as it is committee day, we will all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have an opportunity to contribute. Very sensible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may. Thank you. And unelected chamber is at best an assault on democracy. I ask your Lordships house to reflect on whether an unelected chamber is whether an unelected chamber is appropriate in 2025. Amendment 70 calls on his majesties Government to do just that. The Prime Minister himself has previously stated it was indefensible and it is time for his majesties Government to act. I now moved my Second Amendment in this group, amendment 72. That flushes out how we could.

If I may, as it is committee day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why should she? As it is committee day, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As it is committee day, if possible, I would like to complete my remarks. Go on. That is fine. And I moved my Second Amendment in this group, amendment 72, the flushes out how we could have an flushes out how we could have an elected chamber. There are currently elected chamber. There are currently 78 Royal Parliament globally was 35% of those largely being wholly elected. We are an exception to that rule. The UK is one of only two rule. The UK is one of only two Chambers.

The other being Lizzie to, without any elected element. Another poll by the electoral society found that an elected secretary is the most popular option, with 47% of the British public saying that they should have the power to choose from elections. Does this figure not clearly highlight the public's desire to see a second chamber that reflects their needs and values? We are not here to serve our own interest. We are here to represent the people across our nations. If we believe that, which I hope everyone here does, then we have no problem in accepting and, indeed, promoting the abolition of unelected Chambers in today's world.

It has been reassuring to see several members of your Lordships house tabling amendments to grow the establishment of a democratic house. I will briefly speak to these amendments before moving onto my own proposal on behalf of how we might wish to achieve this through amendment 72. Amendment 11 and 115 tabled by the Noble Lord newbie function as good starting points to reforming the position of this House which I support. However, I do not believe they go far enough in outlining the model and might bring about a chamber that best represents the people of these nations.

However, they do have most in regressing and securing a move to a democratic mandate for this House. Amendment 7260 address these gaps and offer a further fleshed out solution. The country believes the proportional representation should be the bank and is -- mechanism used to elect representatives, the single vote electoral system, the system allows voters to have a real choice on who represents them by reducing the pressure to vote tactically. I believe this system would establish a second chamber that is truly elected by the people, creating a balanced chamber where everyone is represented.

Adopting this system also results in a greater diversity of candidates, when multiple candidates are selected by a party. It cannot be argued that a second chamber in the UK desperately needs more diversity. If we are tipsy representative legislative body. And this is not wishful thinking. Far from it. Northern Ireland, there of Ireland, Malta and Scotland, already use this system in some of their elections and some of the noble Lords have noted other examples also earlier. Australia second chamber also adopts this very system and it works.

In Australia, this has ensured that the Government is much less likely to control the Senate, meaning that the Senate is always swayed by changing political tides and that the chamber more accurately reflects the voting preference of the electorate. While I feminine believe that STV would be a good and preferable choice, there are multiple ways that this could be implemented and as mentioned by a number of noble Lords both from my own amendment and amendment of the Noble Lord newbie, does not specify it being 100% elected, and there could be space for a prospective to be represented as part of that model.

It is crucial to consult a broad range of stakeholders to ensure that such a constitutional change follows a fully democratic process. That is why in subjection to amendment 72 I specify that the Secretary of State must consult various bodies, including devolved Governments, political parties, and representative organisations. If we are to establish a chamber that genuinely serves the people and these nations, constitutional decisions must not be confined to the remit of Westminster alone. I call on his majesties Government as well as everyone in this place to reconsider the appropriateness of an unelected chamber in the 21st- century and joint meeting my mission.

Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies, my Lord. I just think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies, my Lord. I just think it would help just to confirm the normal courtesies of the House. This is a debate and members can take interventions but it is also to -- interventions but it is also to -- up to them if they choose not to. Section 4.29 to the companion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Section 4.29 to the companion. She has given a very passionate speech in favour of democratic speech in favour of democratic accountability, so why then does she not stand in the House of Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

instead of coming here? Do not think the Noble Lady wishes to and said the noble Lords question and she has got every right to do that. I rise very briefly to support my Noble Friend Lord Newby. This is a very straightforward and simple amendment which seeks to face a duty on the Government to do something after this bill has passed. Those of us who have spent a great deal of time on the Lords reform and I started just under 30 years ago, this place had 27 years between the two places.

One of the things in that time that I observed is that the chances to do something for this place to not come along too often. And legislation comes along very rarely. I greatly enjoyed the eloquence and oratory of the Noble Lord Glen Catherine. I have to say to him he has once again convinced me that the more eloquent he is more incorrect his arguments are. And I very much appreciated the way in which Lord Strathclyde with grace and gentleness reported it, but the key point in all of that and I am desperately trying not to do a history lesson is that when we did the joint draft committee of both houses in 2011 and 12, so ably chaired by the late Lord Richards, we came to a compromised position which addressed every single one of the points he has put forward, and they would address to the point at which it became or it went into the draft bills that went before the Commons.

That bill got a second reading, and if it had not been for
16:40
16:41
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I would like to, if I may, I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness Smith on the elements of her speech. But I think that she put forward a point of view which is in fact mistaken about what this houses when she said that it is supposed to be representative of the people. It absolutely is not, and it never has been felt it has other purposes, for better or for worse. And we all sit here as representatives of nobody but ourselves.

Some of us, it is also particularly true, actually it is true of all party members as well. And there are important reasons for this and what we are well placed to do is to bring to bear across the proceedings of Parliament as a whole. The disinterested point of view in the proper sense of the word disinterested. In other words, not representing an interest, but just trying to think as hard as we can but what is right and hear the speech by the Noble Lord was very important because if we think about the function of the houses we come to realise that its current composition is not so idiotic, its function is to scrutinise and the type of people that want to scrutinise another type of people that want to get on in life.

The people that want to get on in life, the people in The Other Place, as has been pointed out by other people are trying to get the next position and get higher marks on social media and more likes and so forth. And jolts. And most of us go beyond that stage of life, of course that is not true of the noble Baroness Lady Smith because she is very young and she sits and kindly sits here to impart wisdom. And I think we must come back and we are not thinking about function, we are running on about position.

And as long as we think that it is a good thing to have a powerful House of Commons that forms most of the Government of the day, it is perfectly reasonable the day, it is perfectly reasonable to have a not very strong House of Lords which tries to scrutinise and everything that is perfectly reasonable we might consider that perhaps we should not be mucking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around with our composition. We have already had more than our
16:44
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
on this and I do not intend to spend more than 23 minutes but I getting a bit alarmed by the birth of this discussion we are having. Because I do want to remind the House and maybe that Procedure Committee needs some of this that this is called the House of Lords Hereditary Peers bill. And it seems to me from looking at the amendments which this is a particularly bad example, not the quality of the argument, but the dangers it presents for anyone looking for reform in the future, apparently we can have absolutely any amendment whatsoever, so long as it conceivably, by some long stretched argument, has some effect on the future composition of the Lords.

And it therefore means that anyone who, for example, there same we need to do more things when this bill has become an act, I have been put off thinking it is a good idea having listened to today's debate because on any one of the others, whether it is the age of the child, whether it is on the length of service, whether it is in the number of bishops, anyone of those apparently could lead to precisely the debate we have had today as an amendment to this bill.

And I have to say properly anyone could say that about me but it is very unusual you hear any new arguments in these debates and we have had many in the past. But if it does mean, if I was advising the Government, which I am not, and they were thinking of bringing in a narrow bill that say about the age of the House or the bishops or no doubt they will, but if they did, they would be well advised not to.

Because it would lay itself open to a whole series of amendments just as we see here today amendments just as we see here today And I really baffled as to why the House authorities here and in the Commons as well thought this was absolutely in order to have this huge debate on a very, very narrow proposition. And at the very least, I know the horse has bolted and we are having these discussions now, but I do hope the procedure commission -- Procedure Committee will look at this because it will be a massive deterrent to any future very, very, very narrow debates about a bill on this, a bill on the scope of Lord Newby's, a bill which would take a lifetime to discuss.

That is my simple proposition. Please, let's get over all this stuff which is not directly related to the bill itself. Maybe the Procedure Committee should have a look at it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My first point is that the bill will pass. The noble Lord doesn't will pass. The noble Lord doesn't need to worry about that. My second point is that simple, constitutional point is that simple, constitutional changes have a very serious changes have a very serious consequences. You only have to think about a simple change which Lord Cameron introduced which created a Cameron introduced which created a disaster. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if the helpful to the Committee if the noble Lord Lord Willoughby would tell us what he thinks the role of the House of Lords is now and what he thinks it will be in the future, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra touched on that.

He said there was mistrust in the public, from the
16:47
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
public. I think that largely rises from extremely misleading reporting from the media, which little is done from the media, which little is done to counter. I will be asking the to counter. I will be asking the same question about this to the Noble Baronesses but I suspect she will be cautious, especially with regards to the future. I do intend regards to the future. I do intend to retire so I am very neutral. I think that many noble Lords and others inside and outside the house full into the trap of proposing to alter the composition of the House of Lords without first considering this -- its role both now and in the future.

And I thought that the Labour government had already studied this matter very carefully by means of the commission which the noble Lord referred to and other noble Lords. There was a solution very carefully worked out by Lord Wakeham and his commission. I have always believed that the role of the House of Lords is to revise legislation and I mean revise, not just scrutinise, and in the last Parliament, the house revised the Rwanda bill. It did not just scrutinise it.

Be an additional check on the executive but not determine who the Prime Minister is or financial matters. And most importantly, be a source of expertise. The noble Lord Lord Newby pointed out that we are having difficulty, that we are hideously London-centric but getting rid of the hereditary peers who are chained to their castles and estates up and down the country will actually make the situation worse. And it's not clear to me how being elected either in whole or in part will make us any better at performing our role.

Of course, it might make us much less willing to give way to the elected House. Many advocates of and I could house suggest -- many advocates of an elected house suggested we would be much more legitimate. I would suggest being elected might be a disadvantage. For instance, about two years ago, I was dealing with a problem with a high street bank. Noble Lords will recall that recently the secretary of defence was raising this issue in public.

I needed to have a meeting with senior executives of the bank in circumstances where a member of another place would be blanked by the bank. They would get nowhere. Why was I able to secure the meeting? How was I able to understand what the problem was? The answer is that the bank trusted me. They could be sure I was not getting involved in order to burnish my local credentials, my media profile or anything else. I have a question for the noble Lord proposing a change to the role of the house.

In their proposed reforms house, would it be intended that the government of the day could still easily be defeated and if it was, Shirley, the house would claim democratic credentials and be far more challenging to the House of Commons -- surely. But if the new house could only very rarely defeat the government, than in the case of something like the Rwanda Will, the courts would step in to fill the vacuum -- Rwanda Bill. And could the noble Lady say if she agrees with me on my view of the power of the House of Lords.

I appreciate you cannot comment about the future role of the House of Lords, which is a much more difficult question. In the 2010 Parliament, the Conservative then government tried to reform the house and I gleefully went around the House of Commons saying I was looking forward to being Senator Attlee of South Hampshire. They obviously got the message.
16:52
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, when we debated the role of the House of Lords last November and again on every occasion that we have debated the subject, to which I have contributed, I have started by saying, as I say again today, that in a modern 21st century democracy, there must be a case that the legislature should be elected, and although it puts me therefore to some extent at odds with my friends, friends of mine on different sides of the house, I have to say that I'm generally in support, not necessarily of every detail, but generally in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Newby.

If that was all I had to say, I probably wouldn't have bothered saying it's because I think the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal must have grasped there is support for the noble Lord's amendment from different parts of the house. I would be doing is adding my name to that. I wanted to go a little bit further into the noble Lord Lord Newby's amendment and point out it is very clever and has a lot in it that should attract noble Lords.

Because although it sets a clear destination, it is very non-specific about the details of how we should end up, what the new House of Lords would look like in its selected form. What he is doing in his amendment instead is putting . Now, I know, I think we all know what a process looks like. It has the sort of things that we find in this amendment. It has steps that need to be taken and dates by which those steps should ideally be taken in a certain order.

It's the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal who seems to have some difficulty with the word process. She used the word process in Committee last week when we talked about various matters to do with the future of this house beyond this bill. When she said that we were in a process. About the noble Baroness, she is not actually in a process. She may think she is in a process but she is not in a process because if she were in a process, she would be able to tell us those things, the steps, the milestones, the dates, the target dates that we find in the amendment from the noble Lord Lord Newby.

The only thing we know about the process in which the Labour government is engaged, the process that is so important, not only to this house but to anyone who takes an interest in our constitutional balance, the only thing we know for certain is that her door is always open. That is the process as far as the Labour frontbench is concerned. There is no timetable, there are no milestones, there are no commitments as to what is going to happen, in what order or when.

So while I think it is perfectly legitimate for the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal to say she does not support the process proposed by the noble Lord Lord Newby, I think it now becomes almost impossible for her, given what she has said before, to oppose -- both to oppose the noble Lord Lord Newby and two failed to come forward with the process of her own, which is what so many noble Lords in this house would like to hear. Otherwise, she will show that she is really not being entirely candid with us in a way that we would hope.

Now, the essential point about Labour's sense essential point about Labour's sense of direction is that they came forward in their Manifesto with a package of measures, and obtained a Band-Aid for a package of measures. Some of those measures were to be taken at an early stage. The noble Baroness and I have had this argument about the way to the full stop. One at least was going to be taken later. It was going to be a consultation involving the democratic character of the house and the representation of the and the representation of the It also explains to the noble Lord Grocott why this appears to be a very narrow bill.

It is because that very narrow bill sits in a context of a Manifesto commitment and a mandate which is very much broader and it cannot be separated out. Those threads cannot be pulled apart without having an effect on the rest of the fabric. Now, I will come to a close very quickly. If I tremble to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord Lord Newby, I tremble even more to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Glenn Catherine.

Because while it is absolutely the case that any new , the notion, as I have said before, that this is impossible, that two democratic chambers cannot work together, are simply belied. If one looks around the rest of the democratic world where it does work with crunching of gears and not always ideally and sometimes with surprises and unexpected turns of events. But, of course, it is possible to have two democratic chambers. But I will agree with my chambers. But I will agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra on this.

I think these matters are so weighty that there is a strong case for a referendum. I'm rather more sympathetic to referendums than many people here and in the other place. I find myself rather out on the extreme wing on this. I certainly think there is a strong case for a referendum on constitutional future of Your Lordships' House. I very much hope, coming back to my original point, that the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal will stop now hiding behind her open door, if that is not too much of a mixed metaphor.

Will stop hiding behind her open door, will come out into the Western corridor, if not in the chamber today, and tell us if she does not like the process proposed by the noble Lord Lord Newby, what process does she have to I would like to focus on section 3 of amendment 11 just in what should be on the consultation paper method of introducing elected members of
17:00
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-
the House. This has been unfinished business now for well over a century. As emphasised in the Parliament after 1911. I believe the Parliament after 1911. I believe the bill provides an opportunity for looking at several different ways of looking at several different ways of reforms for the House, elected or appointed or a mixture of both. The electoral reform Society produced an interesting paper elected house in interesting paper elected house in December 2023. I will firstly December 2023. I will firstly explore how other countries have selected the amendments of the upper house to give comparison for an elected house of lords here.

The majority of Chambers choose their members by election either direct or indirect. It is a national polisher union in the IPU that categorises 55 second Chambers that will not be chosen by either direct or indirect election, making 22 Chambers predominantly by appointment. Many Chambers do, however, combine to direct or indirect election was a small element of point. For example, whilst the Italian Senate is the directed electorate, there are a handful of live seats held by ex- official members, formerly presidents, and up to five citizens appointed by the president for outstanding service.

In Ireland, of the 60 members of the Senate, 43 are elected by panels representing different vocations. Six are chosen by graduates from two major universities and the members are nominated creating a mix of direct and indirect election for some appointments. In Spain, the Senate combines direct and indirect election based on different territories. The majority of senators are directly elected in multimember constituencies based on the 50 provinces and around 1/5 or appointed by the legislatures of the autonomous communist switch are themselves elected by the proportional representation.

Concerns are often raised about the potential conflict arising from having to directly elected Chambers. Only direct elected Chambers can be found in Australia can't result, the Czech Republic, Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Switzerland and the UK and within the group there are significant differences in the electoral system which in turn affects their core position. Which is generally agreed that one party should not have a majority in both Chambers and because of this few parliaments with direct elections for both Chambers choose similar electoral systems for both Chambers, two notable exceptions are Italy and the United States.

Italy employs a similar mixed system between the mid and lower house with both Chambers also election on that same day. Because of this, while there may be some differences, the party balanced tends to be the same in both Chambers. The United States is the only country to use a majoritarian system for both Chambers, whilst the same system to the USA Chambers have different compositions because of the difference in the size of their constituencies and the length of term. However, with party competition to a two-party shape, due to the nature of the electoral system, opportunity for gridlock is high, in both Italy and the USA similar electoral systems are also matched by similar powers.

The majority of parliaments have wholly directed elected Chambers use different electoral systems and that chamber. So, the Czech Republic, Poland and Switzerland have here elected primary Chambers whose majoritarian systems are used for the secretary Chambers. Australia has a majoritarian elected lower house and PR elected upper house which Japan and Mexico use mixed systems for both Chambers, using different electoral systems for both Chambers tends to produce different electoral outcomes, which is also supported by arrangement such as the different term lengths and staggered elections.

For wholly on part the elected chamber the question remains as to which system election, if direct election is chosen there are many options. The type of electoral system that would be used. Previous suggestions from the Lords reform look for different options, including versions of parties and single transferable vote. This option was recommended in the cross-party breaking the deadlock proposals in 2007 and the draft House of Lords of 2011. As the Liberal Democrats will know the preferential proportional system which voters get to choose their choice of candidate constituencies are multimember returning usually around three to five candidates, although constituencies can be larger, and voters can put number two as many or as few candidates as they like.

Candidate are elected and any votes are redistributed to the preferences and so on until the places are filled. The 2011 House of Lords Reform Bill selected STV to ensure that those elected have greater personal mandate in the electorate distinct from their party STV is a candidate-based system which means independence are placed on equal footing with party political candidates. In addition, according to the candidate system voters are able to choose between candidates of the same party, putting an emphasis on which party candidate they think will be most suitable in the candidate such as community leaders have a party leaning on independence are able to do so without harming their parties chance, for example the Scottish local elections from 2017 between the third and fifth of voters give a second preference to candidates of different party to their first choice and while many voters belong to their party noble choices are available to their first party choice, according to the electoral reform commission the majority go on to give no preference to candidates of other parties and an opportunity for them to make more choices would likely result in HMO that has different political character.

SUVs could also help to collect a more diverse chamber because it is a multimember constituency system and encourages parties to put forward candidates who differ from each other in order to maximise their vote. District magnitude and the number of people being elected has a diversity on the number being elected, so the larger districts are more likely to create a representative chamber without needing the additional measures. The electoral reform commission leaves STV would likely go further to fulfilling the goals of the independently minded chamber and voters would be able to select candidates according to their expertise and experience as well as ensuring representation across the region for nations of the UK which I believe the Labour Party wished for in their manifesto from the Lords.

Another form of ranking the preference is the AV system, whilst STGs considered to be informal representation using multiple other constituencies they would operate in a single level constituency and is not, there are of course other forms and this is recommended by the commission and the white paper into thousand and one. The House of Lords Reform Bill of 2010 and 11 put forward semi openly, the systems can be open and close or semi open. With apologies to the Lib Dems I will briefly go through the three.

Firstly, there is the closest PR. Secondly, the open SPR, and thirdly that semiopen list. There are of course a range of these types and finally we must not forget the first post system. 2008 white paper model the options for election to the House of Lords on the basis of 80% to 100% of the gym and between 420 and 400. Using the four different systems I have outlined the first post produced results close to those in the House of Commons this body took a proportion to other parties and those no single party gaining an overall majority and highlight the problem, independence first problem, independence first
17:08
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
-
-
With all due respect to my Noble Friend who has just spoken there is no point in going into all of those details about methods of election, interesting as they are, because amendment 11 is wrong, I rise to oppose it because it would undermine the very basis of our democracy which actually works very well, Bernie Sanders referred to the Joint committees report published in 2012. I have the pleasure I think of the duty to sit on that committee with Baroness Anderson and others for eight months whilst we went into these matters in very great detail and I recommend that report to noble Lords who the report itself was critical other than the government's plan to introduce the direct elected second chamber.

The minority report which was signed by 12 of the 25 members of the committee was even more critical of the Government and I especially recommend that to noble Lords. If we had a direct election to this of the House it would not only upset the delicate balance of our constitutional sentiment but it would also totally undermine the delicate relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords. I seem to recall on this matter in I seem to recall on this matter in 2012 I said something like Mr Speaker I do not care about the House of Lords, I care about the House of Commons.

If I met correct myself I do now care passionately about the House of Lords. And it is for that very reason that I hope that amendment 11 does not have support here. The great volume of your Lordships is that the majority of your Lordships are not politicians, as you most particularly said if you moments ago. If we had direct election the moment anybody stands for election or put their head above did become a politician.

I can be critical of politicians as I am one to my fingertips and I have been a full- time one for more than 30 years, so I appreciate, as a new member of this House, just how valuable your lodge chips are who are not politicians are in the work you do and the scrutiny that this House brings to holding the Government to account. My second point is that if the upper house were to be elected that undermines the position of the House of Commons.

It undermines the authority and it undermines the accountability of the House of Commons. The electorate have to know where the book stops. There is a direct relationship between the voter and the elected person which is a -- embodied in our House of Commons which is one of the best democratic institutions anywhere in the world. If the upper house were to have democratic accountability and democratic authority, that would challenge the House of Commons, and then the electorate does not know where this stops.

And as Tony then used to say, if you do not know how to get rid of the people who elect you, then you do not have accountability and you do not have true democracy. I found myself agreeing, yet again. My third point is very simply that a well- functioning democracy is not just about elections and our democracy works because of the balances of civic society and that includes the work of your Lordships house as a revising chamber.

Not as a representative chamber. I beg your lodge chips not to support amendment 11.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure from my Noble Friend for two reasons. First up, I served with her on the joint House of Lords and secondly I intend to follow her in actually referring to the text of the amendment 11 to the text of the amendment 11 which makes me somewhat exceptional in this debate because the debate
17:13
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
in this debate because the debate has been about an elected chamber. The amendment does not actually stipulate that. Let me begin with one or two quick points. First, it is not self-evident the case that an appointed secretary chamber is undemocratic. I have developed this case before their is democratic regard for an appointed position in the chamber. Second, it is not self-evident the case that the elected second chamber is that benefit the political system, certainly not in case of facilitating good luck.

Following what the Noble Lord said this chamber is defined by its relationship with other Chambers. This is a complimentary second chamber. It adds value by believing in the functions of The Other Place does not have the time or the general will to carry out. That renders it distinct. It adds value. And I would argue that common law is a public good. That deserves to be preserved. I turn to the actual amendment because it does not actually stipulate that it should be elected but it refers to a democratic mandate.

They made no reference to this, the mandate is an assertive carry out of eight assertive carry out of eight assertive carry out of eight A mandate is something not only confirm on the party that is seeking confirm on the party that is seeking election. But there would not necessarily be a symmetry between the two which could invite conflict. The problem is when you have got to elected chambers. Who determines the outcome of public policy? Quite often, it's the result of deals done between the chambers, a process that is opaque and with results that are not accountable to the electors.

And our system, by having one elected chamber, the government makes accountable for electors. Having an appointed second chamber does not challenge that core capability. We have value but we work within what the comments -- comments stipulated. We improve it but we do not challenge that accountability. That is the value of the system. -- Commons. I finish my making the point that I accept we have a problem in terms of public perception. We have to work hard on that.

At the same time, we need to be aware that the public can be persuaded. I remind your Lordships of a survey carried out in which several statements were quoted and people were asked if they agreed. One statement was : at least half of the members have democratic legitimacy. 72% agreed with that. Another statement was : at the House of Lords should remain an appointed house because it gives it independence from the electorate and allows for expertise.

75% agreed with that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Grocott and I both grew up in the post-war era. I have to say that
17:17
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
post-war era. I have to say that when as a little boy I sat in front of our coal fire, I used to love pulling at the threads of my woolly jumper and holes appeared elsewhere. My mother who had knitted it, was furious and pointed out those holes. So, it is with this bill to create an all appointed house, holes appear elsewhere. It is perfectly reasonable for Your Lordships' House, which is uniquely affected to address some of the consequences.

The noble Lord Lord Newby and advocating work on democratisation of the house, and he is doing just this thing, he followed a position long taken by his party, the preamble to the Parliament Act was referred to come out said that the House of Lords should be supplanted by a house constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis. It so happened that Asquith and Lloyd George who believed in strong government were not that keen on PR. In fact Commodore George, I think famously, told CP Scott that PR was a device for defeating democracy, the principle of which was that the majority should grow.

He said that PR would be for bringing five tests -- Fadists of all kinds in. I wise -- Fadists of all kinds in. I wise man there. Asquith's government did not take the organisation forward -- My noble friend Lord Cameron did go for reform in 2010 and at the time, the Liberal Democrats so that as part of a programme to entrench a LibDem hold on future governments with a PR wedge in both houses. That did not succeed but I think that potential LibDem look is why many here on both sides would regard the Lords elected by PR as a less than enticing prospect.

Beyond, the principled arguments we find in this debate put forward by the noble Lord Lord Newby, and it is a legitimate principle in argument, and others like Baroness Smith, there are two reasons why calls for democratisation might intensify under -- after this bill. The first is potential overreach by an unelected chamber. Now, I remember when most hereditary peers left in 1999 when it was declared that the house stripped of hereditary peers would be more legitimate.

With a new house created by this bill, free of the drag of a legitimate hereditary peers, be more assertive? Will interview itself as the more expert house, one with more wisdom and authority then an experienced House of Commons were 335 members are new and only one in 10 remembers more than 15 years ago? I would sincerely hope not. Will the new house be more confident in pressing its arguments? In the absence of sensible working arrangements such as I have suggested, that is possible.

The current campaign in the Guardian shows that Life Peers and hereditary peers alike faced with challenge, elected government might see merit in pressing forward with reform. Which takes me to a second plausible scenario. That is where successive governments simply tear groups out of Your Lordships' House to adjust and pursue to the party political convenience. I've spoken about this before. When I did, the noble Lord Lord Newby challenged me on what other groups might be taken out of the house, and I cited an example of peers who served over 15 years.

I checked with the effect would be if term limits came in in 2029 without grandfather rights, as this bill plans for hereditary peers. Removing in 2029 peers who have served over 15 years and denying them grandfather rights would deliver the Conservatives a significant net gain of nearly 70 over the opposition parties and some 190 against groups in the house. It would remove 59 Liberal Democrat peers, throwing out over 75% of all Liberal Democrat peers. What about that as a prospect? Before anyone says the threat, that is not, it is a fact.

There are grave dangers, really grave dangers and deep unfairness in this game of removing a chunk of peers here and there and grandfather rights denied. I don't think any unelected house could survive such unelected house could survive such manipulation -- any elected house. So, like it or not, the debate about democratisation posed by Lord Newby will not be shooed away by simply removing hereditary peers. After the 1999 act and the challenge to the two-state house, my peer Lord Strathclyde reminded us of an idea from elected Senate of 300 members with 60 seats reserved for unelected crossbenchers to damp the electoral mandate.

Arm and a first oh in 20 -- 2005 and 2010 maintained that. As we have heard, that attempt was have heard, that attempt was frustrated. But what is the Labour position? They are the party in power. They are the party proposing in their Manifesto replacing Your Lordships' House. The Gracious Speech for the 1998 to 1990 in -- 1999 session proposed a first stage of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. Sounds familiar, my Lords.

Is that not the line we keep being spun by the party opposite on this bill, this package of reforms? I didn't believe it then, and respectable -- I'm sceptical now. How will, I must ask, Noble Baronesses respond? I hope she will. For indeed, after succeeding Tony Blair, who had been actively advocating a democratically elected house for years, Gordon Brown tried to revive the idea of a representative house. In 2000 and, he looked to end the entry of new hereditary peers.

He did include grandfather rights provision that all existing peers should say. That was a different Labour Party then. But instead of backing plans for election put forward by the coalition and our proposals, labour allied with rebels in the Commons to frustrate progress. Given the track record of the party opposite, I'm a little sceptical as to the future. In conclusion, can I ask the noble Baroness to set out her plans for in detail when she responds and if not, place a letter in the library of the house.

The absence of a stage II destination overshadows the whole debate on this bill and indeed provokes many of the questions that are being asked. Winsor Keir Starmer became leader in 2020, he pledged abolition of this house in his first term in office and the creation of like the chamber -- when Sir Keir like the chamber -- when Sir Keir Starmer. It was about rebuilding trust by replacing the unelected House of Lords with a newcomer smaller, democratically elected chamber.

Yet labour's 2024 manifesto merely said that Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. The word democracy was not there. Were in the long grass is it now? So, in conclusion, can I ask the noble Baroness some specific questions. Can do Noble Baronesses confirm labour's alternative second chamber will be entirely or partly elected by the people? The manifesto said there will be public consultation on this chamber.

You can't have meaningful consultation without a proposition upon which to consult. When will consultation start? My noble friend Lord Lancaster -- Lord Blencathra asked about a referendum. Can she publish guidance to inform your Lordships as we move towards consideration on the report? What is the current timetable envisaged for replacing your Lordships as the manifesto pledge? This is causing concern and confusion on all sides. So, I do ask the noble Baroness who is leader of the whole house, responsibility she carries out in my judgement with a high sense of responsibility, to set out a clear distinction, clear direction as to the chamber that will replace us before we come to report?
17:28
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful for what has been a long and interesting discussion. Thank you to Lord Newby and others for this opportunity for discussion. As with most debates we've had on this bill, they tend to go wider than the precise amendments in front than the precise amendments in front of us. I have to say I welcome there is a real focus on other issues beyond this bill but that is not what is before us now, but they are all worthy of longer term consideration.

So, the amendments in this group raised the issue of introducing democratic element to the house. Amendment 11 by Lord Newby, amendment 72 by the noble Baroness Lady Smith, amendment 90 D by Lord Brady. We are taking forward proposals to ensure democratic element of Your Lordships' House. Amendments 11 and 72 require the government to consult specified persons and bodies, including from this house and the other place on proposals for introducing elected members, whereas amendment 90D doesn't require consultation and focuses on proposals for a far smaller House of Lords elected under a first-past-the-post system.

I'm not sure if elected under any system, would be a House of Lords. It certainly would not be House of Lords of that was the proposal. Now, very similar amendments to this was very similar amendments to this was placed in the other place, which was objected by a majority of 262. I just wanted to comment on some of To say to him that I think many it would be wise and create more diversity and it certainly would give more geographical balance.

I do not think I really accept that this was the geographical balance that House of Lords could have. I am sure he was paraphrasing. Did not take it seriously. Where I would dispute his comments is that he would have greater public support. A number of noble Lords, this is something we touched upon the importance of having public opinion polls and I remember having this discussion with my own party colleagues where they talk about opinion polls showing how the House of Lords is perceived and I think a number of house members said we are very low down in the opinion polls.

In the elected house does not do too well on the opinion polls either. And I think that publicly probably did do not like what additions much., So I am not your mother elected or not would gain greater support. And certainly it is the case that there are more attacks on members for being unelected and I think it comes back to my comments widely because in his parties I think the Noble Lady said parties I think the Noble Lady said the same, I am interested that Lord Strathclyde and other noble Lords have been enthusiastic supporters now, have transferred the readers to an elected second chamber that may put them on their party but I am sure they welcome their support for that.

I have listened to everybody throughout the whole debate and the Noble Lord let me and so the questions and does not mind. If I take one short adventure I am sure the Noble Lord would not want to take the House any longer than is necessary. Wye suffices to see I have been a long supporter of elected houses, as many noble Lords in this House are well aware of certainly since 1997 and on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public record bill in 2012. I and happy to be corrected on that and I sure they will welcome his support. Can I say that the his support. Can I say that the Noble Lord gun catheters amendment A&P I found really interesting. Here is the amendment which is six during is the amendment which is six during the consultation the implications of securing a democratic mandate from securing a democratic mandate from the House of Lords. In terms of its powers and conventions.

Think the interesting thing about his amendment as it was the first in the amendment as it was the first in the debate talk about the functions of a second chamber rather than the full second chamber and the comments afterwards he was the first to do that and did so but ever since my starting point it has almost been what is it do, how does it do it? Why does it do it and how do we best fulfil that role? I think I was pleased on the crossbenchers you can see that and I think that is welcomed by the public if they were asked as well.

And he would also require a referendum on the principle of an elected section chamber and if that is endorsed if I stand corrected that would have to be followed by a further referendum on the methods of a referendum for a second chamber. The Noble Lady Baroness Smith spoke to amendments or quite significantly wider than her amendments which seeks to place a duty on the government's lead before Parliament to review the implications of the act resulting from the bill for the appropriate chamber.

I have to say she complained and I think she could not get the functions into her amendment and I think the Noble Lord was quite surprised at how white amendments could go on that in terms of the bill sought narrow but that is the ruling that we have, that anything to do with that membership of the House is seen to be an order which could have quite a broad approach. Underlining all of those arguments is the argue movement further reform of the House is required.

And I welcome that because although this welcome that because although this bill is narrow and noble Lords have commented on the next steps I think that manifesto of the Labour Party was very clear and I suppose that Noble Lord seem surprised by that. It talks about the steps and the point about how to replace in the chamber we have at the moment it says it is committed and I think that Noble Lord himself the Noble Lord forget this out with the alternative second chamber it is more representative of the nations and regions that they would consult on proposals seeking the view of the public.

That noble Lords expected me to have a ready-made proposal to bring forward., Do not have that. It is a longer term proposal and I thought the noble Lords would welcome the opportunity to have an input into that which they obviously do so and a range of proposals. We have heard today already that if those that supported the elected second year but have a range of ways they would do it. So the idea there is a ready-made input, no post other a lot of thought a lot of suggestions and we have put suggestions forward in the past but we do want some more widely on that.

And that manifesto commitment. But as the Noble Lord himself said during his comments I think that this bill is the right vehicle for delivering that proposal moment. After we would not accept those amendments because it is a very focused bill. Next to deliver the manifesto commitment in the first part of manifesto by removing the remaining peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I would remind you the principle of that was established 25 years ago. The principal has been established.

This is the final part of that. And when a friend seems surprised that it takes so long and why we are making such interventions among a range of other issues but it is very focused and that is the immediate reform following on from the established principle 25 years ago. I think that we heard a lot of history of different parts of the legislation going forward. The proposals at that moment, those in the manifesto on this bill, but that Government is committed to more fundamental reform, as I have already said, more geographic representation is clear.

Can I say I would actually like to come back to the Noble Lord plant catheters amendments and also the Noble Lord radio thought made it very thoughtful speech. I do think that the key issue about the second year but he was not proposing an elected second year but I know the privacy of the first chamber is about the selected status. And they are accountable to the electorate. The Noble Lord said I think the Noble Lord if I understood correctly, this chamber, not having more at hands roll because we have been here longer and have expertise.

Also unelected chamber is more in touch with the electorate that have more recently elected than which is a very important principle. But I think that the point, he raised a number of points for consideration number of points for consideration to a consultation and it is one of course in privacy and I think I am very intrigued by the idea that there would be a Prime Minister in the second chamber. I would not be applying for any such role. It is also I think an important point he made about the conventions that apply to an unelected second chamber.

Those conventions have stood the test of time through many changes and they serve this House well, they serve the primary chamber well. And they serve democracy well and I see no change in those and I would not anticipate that. I think it would be a different kind of chamber who did not abide by the conventions. Whether it is an issue in 1999 to not alter the preventions now either. It is those conventions that protect the privacy of the Commons and that is extremely important.

These issues are not a matter for your Lordships house today. For this bill, the Government is making an immediate start to perform this House with this bill. Part of the reason why there has been no progress over the last 25 years is the argument that nothing can be done until everything is done. And no one can agree, even on what we have had today, on what everything is and the result is that we do nothing. And I think that completing this part of the form shows good faith and good intentions.

The Noble Lord attempted me on a number of points. He said about, and I want to challenge him on this, he talks about the exit of some peers and hereditary colleagues as being some kind of political attack because it affects the numbers. Can I ask him if he felt that same as his party racked up appointment after appointment after appointment that created a much larger disparity between the two main parties than we have ever seen before that they would have in this bill, so that is not the intention and I think it is very clear to this House and the Select Committee in The Other Place as well.I think this House looks better with roughly equal numbers between Government and opposition parties and that is not a party political point at all.

It is just that think the work we do we should be a more deliberate chamber, more engaged chamber. The noble Lords are laughing at me and I not sure why. I am making quite a serious point about how the House works best and I think it is important that we do our best work and work out how we can do our best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. We believe. The noble Baroness did challenge me on one thing that perhaps I could me on one thing that perhaps I could make clear for the record I am certainly not laughing at her, certainly not if other people were. And I hope that you acknowledges that from The Chair. She said was I that from The Chair. She said was I concerned about those things and I do not particularly like it when Sir Tony Blair created the largest Tony Blair created the largest number of Life Peers ever known, that was his prerogative.

The point that was his prerogative. The point I am trying to make, and this is a house point, not a party political point, is that I think there is a really dangerous precedent that opens up when it is felt a group can be dismissed from the House. That has never happened in this way, the Conservative party has never removed people from other parties and I believe and I said in my remarks I believe this is a profoundly dangerous precedent and I believe we dangerous precedent and I believe we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should find ways of avoiding that risk. It is a party political point and I was just trying to make a very nonparty political point about the nonparty political point about the way in which the House operates best, with roughly equal numbers. best, with roughly equal numbers. And this has taken 25 years together. To get the principle established when the PS left in established when the PS left in 1999. There was, and I have to say, any trade union was snapped up in a any trade union was snapped up in a moment.

92 of the numbers remained moment. 92 of the numbers remained in perpetuity, in effect. That was the arrangements then. This ends those amendments and the House can move forward. We talked about that which I know that some noble lords put amendments down later on, that would have two be discussed and debated by this House. That is not one of the proposals were put in forward, but if someone wants to put that forward into the consultation we have in the second chamber they are at leave to do so.

I think it would probably be quite lengthy arguments about the term of it but that is not the proposals for us today. And the proposals here and I think it is right that perhaps for 25 years it is quite a long time to move forward but I think it is likely to take time to consider these issues. I am grateful to the noble Lords for the points they have made, certainly going forward for the future, this really useful point to take up from that on how you may constitute an alternative second chamber, for us today, but we will in due course be able to come forward and we will consult quite widely.

I would at this stage ask the noble Lords and Baronesses to really take their amendments back and consider them and I beg leave that they will withdraw them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I think everybody who has spoken in the debate this afternoon? I apologise slightly for initiating such a long debate and I am particularly grateful for the people who have supported what we are supporting a Dublin grateful for people supporting me who have never people supporting me who have never supported me in anything I have ever done before, so thank you very much. I obviously cannot deal with all of I obviously cannot deal with all of the points made.

I will try to be very brief. The Noble Lord Glen
17:44
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
very brief. The Noble Lord Glen Catherine made the classic argument for not having an elected House of Lords, of which that knob relates to the primacy of the Commons. The only thing I would say is the House of Commons in 2012 voted by a majority of 338 to have an elected House of Lords, so they, presumably, did not think that position was being fatefully undermined. At that point. Noble Lord Glen Casper was the first person to raise the issue of the possibility of crossbenchers under our proposals and the could be there absolutely, there was a provision for crossbenchers in the 2012 proposals and crossbenchers were perfectly possible under the proposals before us today.

On the question of functions and looking at those, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is no bar to that happening during the period of the happening during the period of the At worst, we are most likely to get a crunching of gears rather than that. Obviously, I'm extremely pleased for the support I got from the noble Lord Strathclyde and I was grateful for his description of the history of this proposal.

My only criticism is that he did not go back far enough and he forgot to refer to the very cogent arguments made by the Parliament. He was the first person to raise the possibility of having indirectly elected members of a reformed House of Lords. I think that my problem with this is if they combine an intermediate elected house then members of those bodies, in which case they don't have the time to do the job as well as doing that, or they are appointed by those bodies in which case, they are in the same position we are in now, a political patronage deciding on the make up of Your Lordships' House, which is not a good.

Baroness Andrews asked why the 2012 bill was withdrawn. I'm afraid it wasn't because people had seen the light. It was because of a bit of straightforward political skulduggery. So I don't think that she gets anywhere by asking that question. The noble Lord Lord Grade he objected to the possibility of a party list on the basis it would possibly make patronage, it would bring about more patronage. Afraid, my Lords, that's impossible because we have 100% patronage now for the party political people and whatever system we have, the degree of patronage won't be reduced.

-- Will be reduced. Once they had come I felt it was incumbent on me to set out what I would do. The noble Lord Lord Ashley said -- Lord Attlee, it would depend on the elections. It would depend on this chamber being elected. But likely, yes, it would. Baroness Laing, the house would be composed principally of people who are politicians. Let's not be fooled about who we are. She is now less of a politician now then when she was in the Commons.

We are politicians arriving by a direct, rather than indirect move. Frankly, to think we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not politicians is strange. I think I just proved the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I just proved the point there. My point was not that I am there. My point was not that I am not a politician but I am a lesser person for being a politician. The great thing about this chamber is great thing about this chamber is that it has a very large number of people who are not politicians and that's what gives it its value.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's what gives it its value. I disagree that the majority of people who take a party whip can legitimately not call themselves politicians. The crossbenchers are not politicians, although they are very political. But under my proposal, they will be abolished anyway. And finally, I was intrigued by the noble Lords reference to Lloyd George. I think that Lloyd George doesn't come with a totally unblemished record when it comes to discussing matters relating to the House of Lords.

As I said at the start, this amendment is to set up a process, it is not a blueprint. We, on these benches, believe this is a process that should be commenced. We believe it is very come a very long overdue and we will be returning to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment with that in view. To the best of my knowledge, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the best of my knowledge, we are presently debating amendment are presently debating amendment My Lords, amendment 11A My Lords, amendment 11A was My Lords, amendment 11A was an amendment to amendment 11, we are therefore debating amendment 11A. therefore debating amendment 11A.
17:50
17:51
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Newby, not moved. Amendment welcome other be, not moved. -- Amendment 12, Lord Newby, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope and trust that this debate will be marginally shorter. will be marginally shorter. Amendment 12 and its consequential amendment 116 related to the power amendment 116 related to the power of the house of Lords appointment commission. When it is very modest. It simply says that the Prime Minister should not be able to override a recommendation not to award a period to an individual on award a period to an individual on the basis that they were not a proper person to hold a period.

-- Peerage. Surely, one would have thought that no Prime Minister would wish to overrule on a matter of propriety full stop sadly, that's exactly what has happened in recent times so this amendment will prevent it from happening again. I understand that not least from the evidence which he gave to the public administration and constitutional affairs committee in the other place, Baroness Deech, as chair, supports this amendment. The amendment in the name of the Earl of Dundee, Viscount Hailsham and Lord Grade would prevent the Prime Minister by giving the commission so powerfully making recommendations for peerages to the king.

I think in reality the difference between this and our amendment is not one of substance but the form. It would, however, I think be odd, to put it however, I think be odd, to put it mildly, if there are such a power without being already constituted on a statutory basis. But I think it is a valid criticism of our amendment that it does not go far enough. And the position should be placed on a statutory basis and it should be able to assess candidates for a peerage on the basis of suitability as well as propriety.

Other amendments in this group by the noble Lords auntie Anne Hailsham made provisions in these areas. We support these amendments in principle. We believe that this limited bill is not an appropriate vehicle for a more fundamental vehicle for a more fundamental reform of the institution. Lord Hendy raises issues of the composition of the statutory appointments commission which clearly need more detailed discussion than is possible in the context of this bill. -- Lord context of this bill. -- Lord Dundee.

Our amendment is a stand- alone provision which can be done easily now and I hope that between now and report stage, the government will give further consideration to bringing forward the very limited and uncontentious change covered by this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assume the noble Lord would like to move his amendment? Insert the new clause is printed on the the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. Amendment 12A is an amendment to Lord 12.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment to Lord 12. My Lords, this country is being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this country is being slowly and inexorably paralysed. Departmental public bodies, you name
17:55
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
Departmental public bodies, you name it. New ones are being created on a regular basis and every single one of them, new and old, is doing their best to expand their remit, thereby increasing their power and frequency their budgets. The result, more often than not, is that Ministers are unable to take decisions. There are obliged to speak -- seek the advice of this committee or that. If something goes wrong, however, it is the Minister who is held responsible and has to take the blame, well these unelected bodies, populated by people who know best, remain unaccountable.

Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consult with the Office of Budget Responsibility. This is an organisation that more often gets things wrong than right. What is wrong with our own vast department, the Treasury? Or even the Bank of England, which has been known to get things wrong but when it comes to misjudgment, it is but an amateur compared to the OBR? May I draw your attention to one organisation, which could be got rid of with no loss.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission. And non- departmental public body. If his Majesty the King on the advice of the prime minister wishes to appoint someone to the House of Lords, what is the commission needed for? When exactly the same advice which the commission calls on it to make its decision is available to the Arm Mr? -- Prime Minister? What is the point of having organisation to collect information from government departments in order to present it to the Prime Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the issues is that we don't always trust the Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He can already get this information. I regret having to say this but on more than one occasion, the institution has taken a decision or made a recommendation which has or made a recommendation which has been biased and not as an arm's- length appraisal, resulting in length appraisal, resulting in rejection of candidates of the highest calibre. This is not what the commission should be doing. I hope that the noble Baroness needed each for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration -- lady Deitch will stop them from doing this.

At this very time, this chamber is coming under increasing scrutiny. We need to welcome into our ranks individuals of talent, vision and extraordinary achievement. HOLAC, I strongly believe is damaging the future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. With the noble Lord like to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the noble Lord like to move his amendment? Amendment 12A is an amendment to amendment 12. Leave out amendment to amendment 12. Leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the second quote, not unquote. I rise to speak to move my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to move my amendment 51 in my name, to which the noble Lords Lord Anderson and The Earl of Dundee have added their
17:59
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-
The Earl of Dundee have added their names. I look forward to the contributions and appreciate their support. This amendment, along with others and this will, focuses on HOLAC. The appointees largely sit here on these benches. I firmly believe we are all equal once your. My amendment seeks to increase the number of HOLAC appointments accordingly. While the amendments of Lord Newby... I want to support HOLAC given the excellent work of lady Deitch among others.

20 further members are appointed with the passage of this bill. Unlike the party political benches which can organise themselves to share the prime ministerial patronage to recharge the benches following the removal of the hereditary peers, the crossbenchers as an independent body of individual peers acting independently are not in a position to push collectively for new membership. They will lose out due to this legislation and the house undoubtedly will be more political This amendment has the benefit of diluting the ministerial patronage that will remove from the PS.

This must be a good thing. As I have previously noted, I do not think Hereditary Peers, of which I am one, should be converted into Life Peers unlocking any number and the training towards such an outcome is regrettable. Consistent with my long held ambition that the removal of the hereditary should leave this House in a better and not a worse, as the legislative body, amendment 51 will replenish the House with a more representative and varied membership. We should take the opportunity to present by this L2 encourage greater diversity of Outlook in this House by appointments.

Which will lead and add to its wisdom and increase its standing in the eyes of the public that it serves. There will be 34 Crossbench Convenor but after the Hereditary Peers depart your Lordships house, a full 18% of our membership. Shrinking crossbench members -- numbers far more as a proportion of the House when compared to Labour and the Democrats in particular. Legislating now to encourage the addition of 20 new crossbench members over five years will allow us at least in part to mentee in crossbench numbers as a proportion of the House which is important.

It will also do so without risking an undue increase in the size of the House and therefore remain sensitive to those who have a concern about overall numbers. I should note here personally I do not have the same reservations as some including the Noble Lord burns at the House is too large in its current format. I think this House benefits from amateur expertise and is able to call upon, although reasonable participation is to be encouraged over a time and at a certain age it may be advisable we should avoid our membership becoming too professionalised as full-time politicians and legislatures and I admired voice to the opposition to Amendment 11 on those grounds.

The additional benefit of amendment 51 will be to increase the beneficial impacts upon your lodge ships house of the appointment process. I do not mean to embarrass my fellow crossbenchers but many of the most able and committed of our number are intros of whole and it is regrettable that the number of appointments has tailed off so dramatically over recent years. The achievements are many and if anyone once a primer on the role of the House I would refer them their briefing published in January 2025 which states that their nominations to the House and recommends nonparty political members while its advice is usually followed it is not a statutory body that the Prime Minister could choose to disregard its advice.

Established in the year 2,000 as part of Prime Minister Tony Blair's major constitutional reforms, they have recommended a total of 76 individuals for appointment to your Lordships house since then and are highly selective in so doing and the noble Baroness has noted that just over 1% of those that have applied have been members over those 25 years. However, of particular concern is the fact that Polak is drying up as a route to entry to this House. There were 57 members appointed across 2,000 and 2010 with only 19 since then of the nearly 15 years of that six since 2018.

Or one per yeah. Despite having a non-partisan highly qualified appointments commission about which we are all very proud, we are simply not making use of HOLAC as we should. Amendment 51 six to ensure that at least for the crossbenchers HOLAC will have a consistent and lasting contribution to the nonpolitical composition of your Lordships house. By pressing this amendment we will at least ensure that a fair number in the years ahead will be free of patronage and will have endured that rigorous approval process and on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that basis I beg to move. With the demise of the good chaps theory of Government articulated by theory of Government articulated by the Noble Lord Hennessy I think the amendment in the name of the Noble amendment in the name of the Noble Lord of Hailsham that give statutory powers in terms of the capability powers in terms of the capability and experience to HOLAC are essential and we should legislate essential and we should legislate them at the first opportunity. I also do not agree with my Noble Friend Lord Howard in his amendment Friend Lord Howard in his amendment but I absolutely understand some of his analysis.

Turning to the amendment in the neighbour of the Noble Lord Dundee and Devon, the crossbenchers have a great selection of hereditary here which they have carefully selected and elected and are providing great experiences to Parliament. For instance, we want to get to net zero, so they have a senior engineer. We have a problem with shipping, including the Russian shadow fleet, the M4 certain ships to go around the activity, so we have a format chairman of the
18:05
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
exchange. International aid is always important which is whether always important which is whether crossbenchers have one of the two people in parliament with any operational experience of international aid in place today. I international aid in place today. I could go on. I does anyone want to get rid of that experience on the crossbenchers? I do have some concern about the selections that concern about the selections that HOLAC makes. There is no doubt that noble Lords appointed by HOLAC are noble Lords appointed by HOLAC are exceptionally good as the noble Earl said.

But, of course, first of all their art to few of them. The problem is that, and I gently make this point, that they tend to be public sector oriented, although there are obvious exceptions. Looking generally I think that we have too many experts at spending other people's money. Our debates are nearly always about spending more money and increased resources and never less. I think that shortly we are going to have to make some very tough decisions about that. I surprised that no noble Lords have thought to put a duty on HOLAC regarding where noble Lords are based and I am sorry to say that house is London centric, a point house is London centric, a point which already by the Noble Lord.

This problem will get even worse with the advisers who do tend to come from far and wide. Overall, I think that we need to have a greater involvement but limit its selection powers to the crossbenchers. I think that we need some better informal mechanisms to work out what experience expertise we lack and perhaps they should have some mechanism to deal with or advise on London centricity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this grouping there are two connected proposals in my name, connected proposals in my name, Amendment 43 does not prevent political patronage from creating political patronage from creating none parliamentary, yet it abolishes the right of Parliamentary trim edge the right of Parliamentary trim edge to these numbers to this House, replacing their practice as
18:08
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
replacing their practice as advocated by amendment 45 with the statutory appointments commission responsible for appointing 200 independent crossbenchers with our informed house of 600 temporal numbers with a balance, political members indirectly elected by an electoral college representative of the different parts of the United Kingdom. These amendments also indicate three background considerations. Firstly, how they align in appointing 200 nonpolitical members, the new statutory commission. The largest group with the reformed house of 600, certainly the purpose of doing that.

And then thirdly the way in which membership within a total of 20 appointment commissioners reflects the proportions of different benches sitting in the reformed house and the political and temporal members the Government opposition parties have exactly 150 each while other political parties including the Liberal Democrats have 100 with 200 independent cross benches therefore have 50 more members than either of the Government opposition parties. The purpose of this is not composition, instead it is continuity of quality function, so many of your Lordships have eloquently stressed their point today, including the Noble Lord, my Noble Friends, Baroness Lady Laing, this quality function is not just a current high standard legislative scrutiny, it is my Noble Friend that pointed out it is our achievements as a sole stone of the quality of that evidence.

This would be undermined if the party of any Government would also have one here. Within the reformed members. That is why they ought to have equal numbers of the nonpolitical crossbenchers should be the majority instead. Within its total of 20 commissioners pointing to nonpolitical members section 5 amendment 45 gives the ratios allocated to the temporal benches, five commissioners each for the Government and opposition parties. Seven further crossbenchers, three for the Democrats as the third largest.

In his amendment 46 referring to section 5 and for proposing the additional words and I quote from the party political group in the House of Lords not otherwise identified at this table, I a full for my Noble Friend as I also have convocation is his amendment 44 referring to amendment 43 that with appointments to this House the statutory appointments commission can only apply to people who are properly reliable and independently minded. In addition, I therefore propose to him as well as the Noble Lord for their proposed amendments 47 and 12, respectfully.

In the period of time for the statutory commission replacing the patronage that they can still not be confirmed against the recommendations of HOLAC or the present non-statutory appointments commission. In Amendment 51 the strengthening of HOLAC is also urged by the noble Earl who has spoken to that and supported his years by the Noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich. As outlined the aims should be for HOLAC statutory replacing political patronage and appointing one third were 200 nonpolitical members of a reformed house, temporal membership with 400 political members.

This arrangement to protect our present very high standard of legislation to the advantage of the United Kingdom in what you see here and by example to the national democracies elsewhere.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much support what Noble Friends have seeing and what he has said it has enabled me very significantly to abbreviate my
18:13
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
significantly to abbreviate my remarks and I have indeed put down forum members which I want to say something to briefly, 43, 46 and 47. And I am going to comment ruefully on Amendment 45. So far with amendment 43 I agree very much for the recent advance by the noble Earl that HOLAC should be the sole source of recommended actions for appointments. It is substance. There is too great a risk that individuals will be appointed by party or a Prime Minister, in circumstances that will affect the party, the that will affect the party, the public since.

Unfettered discretion of part of the Minister which raises serious questions as to suitability and propriety of additional appointments. That risk will be diminished by giving the right of nomination. In response to the point made by Mike Noble Friend recruited that the positions of Prime Ministers cannot always be trusted and we have seen some pretty rough events over the last few years which give thoughts to that. I would prefer the approach set out the amendment that has been moved to the negative approach suggested by the Noble Lord newbie.

Think that he himself would accept that his amendment does not go far enough. That takes me to amendment 45 which puts HOLAC on a statutory basis. I do think that it is highly desirable that the existence composition is part of HOLAC and should be enshrined in action and I have come to this conclusion very much for the reasons advanced by the noble Earl. And also for the reasons that were advanced by my Noble Friend that Lord Strathclyde in the debate on Monday.

I think it is very important that the role and powers of HOLAC should be a statutory one and there is indeed a very good model for this. It is in the buildup was introduced in the 2022/23 session by the Noble Lord. And it may well be going through those points in the debate on Friday when he has the debate on Friday when he has the debate on Friday when he has the I now come to amendment 44A. The phrase fit and proper is one frequently used in law.

All of the seven criteria presently used by HOLAC when determining the propriety of an appointment would fall within the frame, and establishing a statutory rather than nonstatutory test, means that most public and HOLAC itself will have a clearer and properly expressed understanding of properly expressed understanding of what HOLAC's task is. And the test expressed in statute would constitute a clearer and stronger barrier to undesirable nominations which might be unsupported by statute and could be changed at the direction of the Prime Minister.

I now come to the second element of this amendment, which is an extension to the post that I suggested members should take at the commencement of Parliament and at the start of every new session. I emphasise that what I am talking about is an extension as well, not a substitution for the oath of loyalty that members presently take. The language in my amendment reflects the language of the oath of a privy councillor which the privy councillor takes on appointment. I have to acknowledge that I took the privy Council oath so many years ago that I cannot fully recall its text so I had to rely on published material.

But I believe that the test is correctly set out in my amendment. In any event, however arcane they are, those words accurately reflect how members of this house should conceive their duties. The oath reads, in all things to be moved, treated and debated, faithfully and truly declare your mind and opinion, according to your heart and conscience. And the purpose of that oath is to first remind the size of what their primary obligation is, to take a point made by the noble Lord in the previous debate, we need disinterested, not party based contribution to this house.

I recognise of course that there are many subjects on which members of Your Lordships' House cannot have a clear and decided opinion. And it is entirely understandable that in those circumstances, they should seek guidance from the frontbench. But when a member has a clear and decided few, it is the duty of that member to assert his or her conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that it may be contrary to the views of the frontbench. This was touched on by the noble Lord and it is something I am passionately committed to.

Let me give some examples. I acknowledge that I am and was entirely opposed to Brexit. I recall with deep dismay how Boris Johnson withdrew the whip from many of his own benches, people who would not support some of his Brexit- related policies. Mr Johnson effectively ended their parliamentary careers. He was wrong and they were right. Let's take a less controversial examples of the must be many Republican legislators in America who are appalled by the words of Mr Trump.

Or another example. This from Israel. There must be many members of the Parliament who are deeply opposed to Mr Netanyahu's policy in the West Bank and Gaza. Should they speak out? Of course they should. And the additional oath I suggest member should take reminds the member of the fundamental duty that he or she has to this house, and it has another advantage, my Lords. There are members of this house that were members in the House of Commons who are even more sensitive the night to the views of their frontbench colleagues.

And should such members come under unwelcome pressure, my Lords, as a former Whip and a member of Parliament for 40 years, I know that happens frequently. The post I would propose would enable members to respond to such unwelcome pressure by asserting the primacy of pressure by asserting the primacy of -- and I therefore suggest that this amendment has merit. To final, brief point. Amendment 46, my Lords, this would extend the eligibility criteria for members of HOLAC to party political groups not otherwise identified in the noble Earl's table.

And I have in mind members of this house affiliated to the DOP or as they happen sometimes in the future, members affiliated to the S&P, Sinn Fein or Reform. They clearly should not be excluded from eligibility. And finally, I come to . . If . If HOLAC . If HOLAC recommends . If HOLAC recommends an . If HOLAC recommends an appointment should not be made, it is likely that recommendation will leak. Such leaking will inevitably cause serious damage to the reputation of the person involved.

More over, we can all of us agree that rejection per se is damaging and one has to concede that it is at least possible that HOLAC will come to a mistaken conclusion, especially if HOLAC is relying on press reports. And my suggestion to address that is that before coming to a final recommendation, HOLAC should give to the person effective notice of the reasons and giving that person the opportunity to respond, and if appropriate, to put the record straight.

Those are my amendment, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Thank you very much indeed. HOLAC is 25 years old and
18:23
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
indeed. HOLAC is 25 years old and may and looking at its report card, one could say it has been a success. Of its two jobs, the production of Of its two jobs, the production of the 76 members into the crossbench has been a success. I can say I'm not one of them but they are one of our most regular attendees and contributors. On the other side, its business has also been a success because otherwise we would have noticed standards slipping in the House.

It is a delicate's child, it was born of a white paper and it lacks the permanence that it deserves. It's now a non- departmental government body. -- Delegate's child. I think should be given the prominence it deserves. Secondly, its scope should be brought in. Thirdly, it would be to increase its powers. Will rather, give it powers because right now it doesn't have powers at all. I do feel the time has come after 25 years of success to try and find a way of making HOLAC more permanent, not just having it is something that appeared in a white paper.

Turning to broadening its scope, it is clear that the exercise that HOLAC actually undertakes when it looks at new members includes enough data, enough information and enough deliberation for it to make determination not just to propriety but also suitability. Given it as an advisory body, in this would be interesting to me. Should be asked to provide that guidance as well to the Prime Minister. I would have that element as well. Were I do have a difficulty, though, is with his -- is with increasing its powers.

It something that would be hugely complex. We would have to sort out who is going to be a member. Today, it is quite a relaxed process. It is looking at the moment, actually, to fill two slots. It would be interesting to a lot of people to become a member. That is something that will take some time and certainly the timetable for this bill would not allow that. I don't feel like this bill could possibly be that vehicle for increasing its powers but I do feel it could be a vehicle for making it something permanent and for giving it some breadth.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak briefly to amendment 45 and the other amendment
18:25
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 45 and the other amendment in this group which would make HOLAC a statutory body. I was a member of the commission for a number of years and I think despite the fact that I hold the proposers of these are men's -- amendments in very high regard, it would be a mistake to put regard, it would be a mistake to put it in statutory basis. I agree with the statement given by my noble friend on the 20 November.

International, making HOLAC a statutory body would make it subject to judicial review. This would mean that someone who was unsuccessful in the application to become a member of Your Lordships' House could challenge that decision in the courts. It would mean that an appointment which had been announced and indeed confirmed could be challenged in the courts, so the courts would be drawn into deciding who should and who should not be a member of Your Lordships' House, a member of this chamber of Parliament, a flagrant breach of what we have always understood by the separation of powers.

Now, it may be suggested that the legislation, which is contemplated by these amendments, to make HOLAC statutory, could in some way circumscribe the power of the courts to intervene. I'm afraid that history demonstrates that in the history demonstrates that in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That, the courts usually went. Of course, I will give a. My noble friend is making a very serious point. And he perhaps serious point. And he perhaps consider this. The judicial review would be deduced if HOLAC was obliged before making a public statement to give the person

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement to give the person affected the opportunity to respond? On the contrary, if reasons were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the contrary, if reasons were given, those reasons would be the basis of a challenge to the court. I basis of a challenge to the court. I entirely, I fear, disagree with the entirely, I fear, disagree with the last point my noble friend made in his speech when he suggested reasons should be given. If reasons are given, they can form another, stronger in particular basis for challenging the courts. Before I sit down, I shall consent myself -- content myself with one example.

When I was Home Secretary, a decision was made, though not by me, to refuse British nationality for someone I won't name. The relevant statute says that in such cases, the Home Office is not obliged to give reasons for its position. The High Court decided that these words meant what most people thought they meant which was that the Home Office did not have to give any reasons. The Court of Appeal, however, decided that because the statute gave the Home Office discretion as to whether or not it could give reasons, it was wrong not to give the reasons, so your Lordships will see what I mean when I say it is extremely difficult to circumscribe the determination of the courts to intervene.

I do not think the courts should have a vote in determining the membership of Your Lordships' House. I think that would be a consequence of these amendments and I urge your Lordships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to reject them. With regret, I can't support any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With regret, I can't support any of the amendments in this group and I say with regret because there are
18:30
Lord Butler of Brockwell Portrait Lord Butler of Brockwell (Crossbench)
-
-
aspects of them that I like very much. I do like the proposal to extend the scope of HOLAC to consider competence as well as I am tempted by wishing to put it on the statutory basis, but I think that the objections raised by the noble Lord Howard are very powerful so I would go as far as agreeing with my noble friends to say that I would favour it being put on a more permanent basis if a way could be found for dealing with the objections raised by Lord Howard.

But one thing that runs in common through these amendments is that I think the power of it being extended runs against a fatal flaw, and that is that in one case, it is given a veto on nominations to your Lordships house, and in the other case, it is given the sole right to make recommendations. Those aspects are constitutionally wrong. The sovereign, the King creates members of your Lordships house, and there must be somebody to advise him and there must be a democratically elected person, and that has to be the Prime Minister.

It cannot be the role of a body, however adverb or its work and however admirably it is composed to give that advice. The advice to the sovereign must come to the Prime Minister. So the advisory role is very important, but they we may not like it, in the end, the prime minister has to take the responsibility. That means the Prime Minister must, if he wishes, to reject the advice, but the right challenge is the Prime Minister advises the king, and the King points.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendments for the reason given by the convener which I
18:32
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
reason given by the convener which I shan't weary your House of Lords by repeating. If the procedures are fair, and if the courts are wise, which I believe they are, they will steer well clear. But the reason I rise is to speak to amendment 51 in the name of the early and, to which I have put my name. This is an amendment that is not for the long- term but for the here and now. Though the crossbenchers still lack a hairdresser, we owed to the People's Pearce schema decent share of the expertise which distinctions your Lordships house.

Without it, we would not have the noble Baronesses. None of them are what is described as public sector experts, they we have some of those too. We would not have had Lord Ramsbotham but whose detailed knowledge of the prison system no current backbencher and no part of this house can equal. None of those people, and they are only illustrative and from a shortlist were acted in politics would have thought for standing for election. None qualified automatically by virtue of a previous job.

None were proposed political leader. But each has bought qualities of the various highest ordered public life. Whether political peers arrive here by appointment, I hope they will continue to be joined by a modest stream of experts, ideally for a fixed term, experts who have ministerial patronage. How modest is the stream that the noble Lord has given some figures. Between the start of the scheme in 2001 and the 2010 general election, the website records that 55 People's peers were appointed, around six a year.

More recently, only 21 People's peers have been appointed, balanced between 11 women and 10 men. I would be wary of any suggestion that might tend to increase the numbers of this house or the proportion of peers who sit on the crossbenchers. But we do have a problem. The removal of 34 have entries for not only leave a large gap on the crossbenchers, it will leave gaps in the collective expertise of the house. How would we have navigated the issue without the Al Anna substitute for the energies of Lord of Harrington.

Such gaps will not all be filled by the current trickle of People's peers. That is where amendment 51 comes in. It would operate independently on any special arrangement of which there might be support from others. It would increase the flow for five years. But the increase will be modest and well within the bounds of president. Four-year summer between the current rate and the rate where it was under the last Labour government. The noble Lord has honourably made it clear that the purpose of this amendment is not to provide a route back to the house for hereditary members who have been expelled.

But equally, there is no reason why such members could not apply. Surely a track record of superlatives contributions to the work of the house could only be of assistance to those who want to wish assistance to those who want to wish their try again. We are right to focus on these debates on the qualities of those who are already here, including the hereditary Peers who contribute so greatly to our work. But let us not neglect the policies and the potential contributions of those candidates who have already applied or might be encouraged to do so.

The chair cannot speak on this issue, but I suspect she would agree that among those applicants are some of our very brightest and best. Their expertise valuable and current. Let us give them a real chance, however small, to join this house. The People's peers scheme has shown that the reputation and effectiveness of this place is capable of being enhanced by those who do not come from noble families, who do not benefit from patronage, and who are not members of a political party.

I hope the Minister will agree that an immediate revival of the People's peers, to which she could commit without accepting this amendment could help replace the crossbench wisdom that will sadly be lost when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the hereditary Peers leave us. I rise to speak on all the amendments in this group. They do raise some very serious questions.
18:37
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
raise some very serious questions. The most obvious being how it will work and how it will conduct its business under these proposals. And why would the public be happy for peers who are legislators to be appointed by a group of people, most of whom they have never heard of. And frankly, to be regarded as members of the same elite club. This is a political chamber where the prime minister of the day needs his ideas turned into law, and the oppositions need to challenge this respectfully.

The leaders of the opposition must be able to choose their own team. The team needn't be political people or people with political experience, but they must be people who the opposition will regard as being helpful to what they want to achieve. A while ago, the Labour Party went down the route of the Cabinet being selected by someone other than their leader, and it was an absolute disaster. So, as it was an absolute disaster. So, as it has been said, it has a very useful role, but one can see that under these proposals, it could overreach itself, decide who to pose to feel good for them, and of course, the very minimum is that such people appointed are fit and proper, but that is not enough by any stretch of the imagination.

So we don't know on what grounds under these proposals people will be selected. Though in previous bills that we try to address this issue, there has been discussion of conspicuous merit, and I agree with those that were said this afternoon. We spoke about can specialist merit, so how does one find that? I'm not sure I could say I have any specialist merit. I ask you if you have that. His non-service can specialist merit? We see some sports people put on can specialist merit.

I don't thing that has gone particularly well, and this bill has got to focus on the hereditary got to focus on the hereditary peers, and I was taken by the remarks about the point being that people should be in this house to contribute to make it more effective to deliver, which is a function of what they have done in the past but what they will do in the future. Personally, one of the reasons I was keen on hereditary Peers is because they don't come here to get a title, as many people do.

They come here knowing with eyes wide open that there is work to do. And by and large, they do the work. So, their argument is being made at every person coming here must be affected to be vetted by that, and that betting is to be binding. Amendment 47 one does allow representations to be made, but as ever, Lord Howard addressed the problem with those representations needing to judicial review, but there is no right of appeal as far as I can see in this legislation, so that can't be right, and of course, if we do go down the judicial review, the judicial review would happen.

I would suggest that very few people want to sit on a committee knowing that they want to be submitted to the judicial review. And if it was to be made all- powerful, much more powerful, that committee needs to be investigated very carefully. Will it be balanced in gender, and age, angiography, and politics, religion, diversity. We can see a real mess developing. Why would this committee be given so much power when it seems we appoint a PM as we trust him or her judgement and we must let them get on with it.

We elect our MPs, and like it or not, I respect the will of the people, so we must allow them to get on with their jobs. If it is to be on statutory basis, then surely we will need much greater access to their deliberations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does it work effectively, clearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does it work effectively, clearly not. I was told on 12 August that I not. I was told on 12 August that I would be elevated to the house, but it didn't actually happen till the it didn't actually happen till the following December. So there was a huge gap waiting, and I was told huge gap waiting, and I was told that the reason for that was due to deliberations. So the idea of deliberations. So the idea of getting more power seems to be inappropriate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly. While I can understand the appointment, I understand the appointment, I believe we are not totally infallible. I examine the issue of Lord Cruddas's rejection by the committee and to summarise the committee and to summarise the matter, he was involved in a sting with a Sunday Times journalist. He with a Sunday Times journalist. He was then cleared by the electoral
18:43
18:44
18:44
18:44
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
this particular bill for two reasons. I agree with Lord Grocott about scope. This is essentially a one clause bill with a very specific purpose, and secondly, the amendments themselves, although I have agreement with a number of them, are discreet and disparate, so it is not difficult to embody them inability sought. They need to be drawn together. If there is to be change, it needs to be in a coherent bill that addresses the concerns we bill that addresses the concerns we Noble friend for the Noble friend for the trailer Noble friend for the trailer he Noble friend for the trailer he has provided.

I have my Private Member's Bill been discussed on Friday that actually discusses these points and also responds to the criticisms we have heard, such as those from the noble Lord. It addresses those particular problems that will establish the appointments commission on a statutory basis and not extend its powers extensively in the way that some of these amendments adjust. Ultimately it is a matter for the Prime Minister to make the nominations to the Crown, to have constraints and limits, but I think there is a case for complying and fulfilling the very point that the noble Earl has made.

For those who wish to pursue the argument or understand the arguments against the points made by my noble friend and others, turn up on Friday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not want to detain you long.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not want to detain you long. I feel I also have to swim against the current, as my noble friend was doing. Is there not something
18:46
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
doing. Is there not something intrinsically wrong with a committee of the great and the good getting to a point, one of our two legislative chambers. Why bother to get elected to another place when you can be appointed to a committee that will in turn appoint a huge chunk of one of the two legislative chambers? Is that not the very definition of oligarchy? I am conscious that I am saying will be unpopular. We are all beneficiaries of the current system.

It will be unpopular beyond this place. As a politician I have found that the most popular thing you can say about any subject is it's too important to be a political football. Why don't we get the elected politicians out of the way and let the experts get on with it. Everybody loves the idea of an expert. Everyone loves the idea of a disinterested Patriot edge can raise his eyes and decried the true national interest. But no such person exists.

We all have our prejudices and assumptions. The expert more than anybody, if I expertly mean someone who has spent his entire career in one field. And an idea of people appointing jolly good chaps like themselves is the antithesis of elected government. I antithesis of elected government. I have heard all the arguments about concentrating the powers into the Solhan's of the Prime Minister. If this was to happen in China or Russia we will say it is an affront to democracy.

If we are not happy to have the Prime Minister doing it all and we don't want a committee replicating itself, like some Baroness Bull in Star Trek, we do Baroness Bull in Star Trek, we do have two, with -- like some robot in Star Trek, we do have to come up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with an alternative. My Lords, I think we can all
18:49
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think we can all agree that we want the same thing. A House that serves with integrity. The second chamber that commands public trust and an appointments process that preserves the best of our traditions whilst adult teen the demands of modern democracy. The House of Lords Appointment Commission provides a nonstatutory safeguard within the process of appointments to your Lordships House. It has a clear but limited role. To recommend nonpolitical members for the crossbenches to make sure that there is independent expertise and to provide vetting advice on life peerages.

Its recommendations are advisory and do not bind Prime Minister. Many of the amendments in this group seek to place the power of nominations to this unelected chamber in the hands of an unelected committee, as Mike noble friend Lord Hannan has said. While I deeply respect the noble Lord's intentions in tabling these amendments, I must express my concerns, concerns echoed by several noble Lord, including Lord Hurley, Lord Leigh of Hurley, regarding the direction of travel that most of these proposals suggest.

I appreciate the amendment 45 and the clarification Lord Hailsham has suggested in Amendment 46. These amendments, which establish HOLAC on a statutory basis and establish a cross-party board to oversee its work. They have received support from Lord Attlee and other noble lords. The aim is to secure to legitimacy and transparency for HOLAC is honourable. They reflect however would -- their effect however would be disastrous. Placing HOLAC on a statutory footing would not clarify its role.

It would alter it. Legislation will create a legal framework against which her lack's decisions could be formally challenged in court, opening the door for the malicious and litigious to claim it had failed to fulfil its legal duties. Candidates not recommended for appointment as Crossbench Peers can contest basis on which they were excluded. Those Test could argue it had been misapplied. Instead of providing independent advice to the Prime Minister, HOLAC will become a body subject to judiciary for, full to justify itself and will be in the narrow confines of justify ability.

It will be second-guessed in the courts and this point was made so brilliantly by my noble friend Lord Howarth. The process will become slower, more contested and more uncertain, exposing every process to delay and dysfunction. Making HOLAC statutory would not reinforce its authority, but undermine it. It would not enhance trust, but erode it. It will not improve the system but intense its weaknesses. Amendment 43 in the name of Lord In the dissolution calling of Parliament Bill, we included a clause.

I cannot -- why can that not be included in this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because of the way the ousted clause would be interpreted in the clause would be interpreted in the court. Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee takes a step further by transferring the responsibility of proposing peerages to HOLAC and away from the Prime to HOLAC and away from the Prime Minister. This amendment would strip the Prime Minister of the power to propose life peerages and handed to propose life peerages and handed to an unelected body.

That would be a well-intentioned mistake. The Prime Minister does not act alone. HOLAC already plays an important advisory role, scrutinising importance and applying the propriety test, but crucially it is a Prime Minister who makes the final decision. If her lack gets it wrong, applies the propriety test too narrowly or too loosely, the Prime Minister can correct it. If the Prime Minister gets it wrong, he or she faces scrutiny, challenge and ultimately the judgement of the electorate. If the Prime Minister is stripped of that role, her lack's decisions become final.

There's no backstop and no democratic accountability. And more than that, and this point was made eloquently by Butler, it breaks a fundamental constitutional principle. The Prime Minister is demonic chief adviser. It is not for an unelected commission to take on that role. And white prints -- we all want higher standards but high standards must be upheld in a way that strengthens our democracy and reinforces the legitimacy of this House, not undermines it. Amendment 40 4M from Lord Hailsham six to add an additional test that nominees must be fit and proper and independent minded.

While I entirely understand the intention behind this I struggle to see how one could determine legally whether a potential appointee is independent minded. It is a subjective judgement and in a democracy, such judgements should ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the people, rather than those who are accountable to no one. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord seeks life peerages been conferred. Amendment 12 establishes this power as absolute, but amendment 47 concedes that HOLAC must give an explanation and allow representations before decisions are final.

These amendments to not simply tweak the appointments process, it recasts the role of the House of Lords appointments commission. HOLAC is meant to advise, not to command. To make its recommendations binding is to transform it from a source of counsel into the ultimate arbiter of membership in your Lordships House. It will no longer be a cheque, but gatekeeper. It is a profound shift in constitutional authority. At present the system has expert scrutiny. Her leg advises, the Prime Minister decides.

If a Prime Minister presses ahead, the commission ensures transparency. Crucially, it is the Prime Minister, not an unelected committee who must justify their judgement to the country. We do not strengthen the country stripping discretion from country stripping discretion from It's the system we have, it works. These amendments would replace it with something far more rigid, less democratic and more dangerous. This brings me to amendment 12 A in the name of Lord Howarth. This amendment proposes the opposite to what the rest of this group does.

While some sympathetic to my noble friend's position, especially on the growth of committees and quangos, HOLAC has some role to fulfil. It plays an important role in safeguarding propriety and ensuring this House retains and is seen to retain its reputation for expertise and integrity. I am sure the Prime Minister will continue to place great weight on the commission's careful and considerate advice. The House of Lords Appointment Commission has an independent and important advisory role, but it must remain advisory.

It has a clear remit that must remain clear. Was a suggestion that HOLAC might seek to obtain the timing or a peerage list. It's not part of its remit and illustrates the tendency of the committee to succumb to the temptations of overreach. Finally, I tend to amendment 51 in the name of the noble Earl the Earl of Devon and the Lord of Anderson and the Lord of the Lord of Anderson and the Lord of Dundee that seeks to confer life peerages for up to 25 peers.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, the amendment does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, the amendment does not seek to apply 20 life peerages to seek to apply 20 life peerages to peers, it is to fulfil the crossbenches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crossbenches. I apologise to the noble Lord. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to the noble Lord. As Lord True set eloquently last week, we believe Hereditary Peers serving we believe Hereditary Peers serving in our House should be allowed to stay as they are. HOLAC offers judgement, not infallibility and by expanding its powers a system will be created that is untenable. The balance we have is not perfect, but it preserves scrutiny and responsibility. To abandon that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she join me in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she join me in congratulating the Chief Whip, because apart from the wonderful because apart from the wonderful Baroness Andrews, representing the dinosaurs, I don't think a single dinosaurs, I don't think a single backbencher has spoken in support of the government's bill today and they have even bought in ministers to sit have even bought in ministers to sit behind the Frontbench so that everyone on cameras think that the government is being supported. I government is being supported. I don't think this is the sort of management of business we expect to see in your Lordships house.

see in your Lordships house.
19:00
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
What is unfortunate as I was about to welcome and celebrate the tone of the debate that we had just had. So, I will move on with the tone of the debate and celebrate the contributions the noble Lords have made which have been in overwhelming numbers thoughtful and considered, and I am grateful for that. I think all noble Lords as has been highlighted want the same thing for this house. Colleagues who meet the highest standards of public service who are dedicated to our country and want to ensure that our government is fit for purpose.

The noble Lord allows it to veto the nominations to the House of Lords. The noble girls amendment also specifies the composition and purpose in statute. The government is grateful for the discussions today. We committed in our manifesto to reform the appointments process but we cannot accept these amendments which fundamentally alter the rules and responsibility of the appointments in the system. Constitutionally, it is on the advice of the Prime Minister that the sovereign appoints new peers but it is not just the prime minister who makes these nominations.

Prime minister invites nominations from other political parties as was pointed out in Committee stage. It is the responsibility of party leaders to consider who is best placed to consider their party. It is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other leaders are democratically enabled to the electorate for nominations made to the House of Lords. The House of Lords that's all nominations for peerages to ensure the highest standards of propriety in this house. The noble Lord would seek to make the device defunct.

If we recommended a nominee, the prime minister would be unable to proceed with the appointment. I hope it is obvious why we cannot accept this, the prime minister advises the sovereign on life peerages and considers it carefully. The government is very grateful for the work led by the noble Baroness with this advice. This advice forms part of the process that will show democratic accountability in the appointment process. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their appointment.

We cannot and should not expect them to take on this responsibility. Handing an unelected body with the role of new life peerages directly to the sovereign or giving them the power to veto the prime ministers recommendations as in the amendment put forward today would undermine that accountability. The government does not believe that nominating parties should be properly held to account for nominations to the House of Lords. My noble friend set out on the first My noble friend set out on the first day of this committee that we have already taken a straightforward but important step to introduce a requirement on all nominating parties to provide public citations that clearly set out why individuals were nominated and I was placing the first set of citations were published following the recent period list in December of last year.

In relation to the noble Viscount which seeks to introduce new peers, and requires us to be satisfied that we will participate, this is a thoughtful suggestion, but as a reminder, new peers already sign our code of conduct when they take their seat. And as we have said during the passage of this bill, we are working on developing a participation requirement to ensure that we become more active chamber. It matters less what his say they will do them what they actually do when they have come here.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their suggestions on how this could work and ways to take it forward. More widely, as the prime minister has made clear, he takes the advice of all ethics bodies seriously. The government is committed to keeping things under review, and we unnecessarily ensuring standards are high. We have a willingness to strengthen protections with the standards landscape. We have significantly strengthen the remit of the independent ministerial standards ensuring they have the ability to initiate investigations into ministerial standards without requiring the premises consent.

But as I have made clear, the amendments proposed today would undermine the manifesto commitment to look at the current system and the democratic minds of accountability that currently exist in the process. I now turn to the amendment to give the power of 20 individuals for nonparty political life peerages over the next five years. The cross benches ring diverse perspectives to the house of which I welcome and thoroughly enjoy welcome with many of your noble Lords. Their members make valuable contributions. Retirements and other departures mean new peers will need to be appointed to ensure the Lords have appropriate expertise, and I acknowledge that this bill will have an impact on the number of crossbenchers.

As my noble friend said last week to the committee, she has committed to discuss this with relevant parties. As it stands, new peers can be supported through nominations through the commission. Her lack can select peers and the prime minister passes nominations to the sovereign. Many excellent peers have come to your Lordships house this way. The number of peers that we are able to nominate is decided by the Prime Minister, and in doing so, he takes into account the political balance of your Lordships house.

Prime ministers can also recommend a limited number of appointments over the course of Parliament for those with a record of public services. As with all new peers, they are subject to proprietary vetting. I note that the noble Lords amendment allows it rather than the prime minister the role of recommending 20 Life Peers to the sovereign. As I addressed earlier, it is for the Prime Minister as principal adviser to the sovereign to recommend new Life Peers. I appreciate the purpose of this is to make sure that crossbenchers remain a significant presence in your Lordships house, to give an unelected body the role of providing advice to the sovereign in this limited way we should be a clear break from constitutional arrangements, one that would require careful thought as today's debate has demonstrated, and one which the government does not support or think necessary.

As we have repeatedly stated, reforming this place, ensuring the quality of no appointments, and to seek to improve the balance so that it better reflects the country that it serves. We have heard interesting proposals from across the house, and we welcome the discussion on appointments, but it is right that we take time to properly consider how to take forward the opportunity as part of the wider standards landscape in a way that reflects the importance of those lines of democratic accountability.

It is also not a debate for this bill which is a focused bill as has been stated that delivers the manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships house. It is not the vehicle to consider all reforms to the House of Lords. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It might be better if we hear
19:09
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
from Lord Howard first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not move. It is an interesting debate. As I said, we were not seeking to have a said, we were not seeking to have a fundamental reform of the way that fundamental reform of the way that we operate. We were seeking to do something which I thought was completely uncontroversial and nobody could possibly disagree with. I have only been in your Lordships I have only been in your Lordships house for 27 years, so what do I know, but what I would say, our amendment does not break the link between the Prime Minister and the monarch.

The premise to still make the recommendations in our case and I am sure that there are many other areas in which to give advice to the monarch with which that advice is constrained by various outside bodies. So, I am not persuaded of the argument. And the problem was set out when it was said that the prime minister does not act alone. The fact is he did act alone in this case. That is why we have the amendment. There was no constraint on the Prime Minister in making some proposals.

We can then do anything about it. I'm not saying it was a winner of the Prime Minister or done without thought, but it was his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision and his decision alone. Am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The prime minister could not recommend somebody if it was not recommend somebody if it was said that he should not. Isn't that giving him a veto and constraining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the prime ministers powers? Yes, that is what I want to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, that is what I want to do. He is acted on rare occasions in a He is acted on rare occasions in a manner which has allowed people who we thought were improper to become members of your Lordships house, to become members of your Lordships house, and that is what I want to stop.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Isn't this interesting that he is recommending the power of appointed recommending the power of appointed people over elected people whereas people over elected people whereas We have seen done with this issue We have seen done with this issue today, and I will withdraw my amendment and I will be coming back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to it. Lord Howard of Rising has moved his amendment, so is he withdrawing his amendment, so is he withdrawing that? It is withdrawn. Amendment 12, is it your Lordships pleasure this be withdrawn? The amendment is be withdrawn? The amendment is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Amendment 13. The most important point to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The most important point to make about this amendment is that it was
19:12
Lord Harries of Pentregarth Portrait Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-
-
about this amendment is that it was not dreamt up by me. It is one of the key recommendations of the Royal Commission on House of Lords reform, and this Royal Commission from 2000 which I was privileged to be a member was chaired by the noble Lord and it had representatives on it of all political parties and came to unanimous conclusions. The commission argued for elected elements, and this 15 year term was designed for both kinds of member.

The point made by the commission was that members of the House of Lords should not be driven by short-term considerations or looming elections but should take the long view. And 15 years was considered appropriate. But as clause 2 of the amendment indicates, this term could be extended in the case of a particular daily independent appointments commission. When a 15 year term was coming to an end, appear might find themselves a minister or a chair of the key committee, or deeply involved in important piece of legislation, or in some other work which is deeply appreciated by the house.

So, the term could be renewed in the first instance for a further five years, and such instances would perhaps become the exception. Most would expect to serve 15 years. Like other Lordships, I am very disappointed that this bill has set out to deal with Hereditary Peers and not with the right issue of reform. I accept the good faith of the government that it wants to bring forward some further reforms, but I have to say I am deeply sceptical as to whether the government will actually ever be able to get around to doing it.

This is because, first of all, as was stressed earlier on, Parliament is still deeply divided as to what major reforms should be, and furthermore, since the Royal Commission, other ideas about reform have come forward from Gordon Brown for a second chamber representing the nations and regions. Building a consensus for that or any major For those who would like to see something more radical it is frustrating, but that is where we are and where we are likely to be for some time.

So it is incremental reform or nothing. My amendment is one element in this incremental reform, which could be brought in without jeopardising more ambitious longer term plans for reform. I know we are going to debate age limits in another group of amendments, but just to give an example, the age limit of 80 has been floated and sunk with the realisation that it would hold the good ship Labour behind the waterline by culling them disproportionate. Besides which, such an idea was always open to the charge of ageism.

My amendment, a 15 year term, is not open to the charge of ageism. This amendment is one element in the continuing process of incremental reform. It would I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe in the long run help to bring our numbers down and would enhance the credibility of the chamber. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause 1 insert the new clause printed on 1 insert the new clause printed on
19:16
19:17
19:19
Viscount Thurso Portrait Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment, amendment 66, which has been grouped with these amendments. I would like to briefly explain what the amendment does and then make a valiant, though likely unsuccessful attempt to persuade Lord Grocott that it would be worth accepting, but we will try. The amendment that I have put forward six to address the fact that there is I think broad agreement across the whole House that in some way, shape or form, the length of time that people sit in the House should not be indefinite and the concept of a seat for life has no more validity than a seat for life you have inherited.

So it seeks to address that. In the report of the noble Lord Lord Burns there was a suggestion of 15 years and that has been referred to in the amendment that has just been put forward. I have chosen a term of 20 years precisely to avoid the fact that 15 years does sound like something I can imagine. Whereas 20 years does sound somewhat more gentle, so it is very much chosen as the number as it were not to frighten the horses.

I have chosen to insert this amendment by means of an amendment to the Life Peerages Act. It would do is to amend the Life Peerages Act, such that the right to receive a writ of summons will be limited to 20 years from the moment upon which someone took their seat in the House. Now, it would mean statistically that if somebody just happened to be under the 20 years when an election was called, they would get a writ of summons and they could get up to 24 years.

And if they were lucky or unlucky to have set for 20 years when the election was called, that will be the lot, but there is the merit of referring to the writ of summons. Anyone who was limited get to the end of the Parliament they were sitting in, so if they were sitting on a committee or running a bill, they would be able to complete their work. It is deliberately designed to affect peerages granted after the passage of this act because I recognise that there is quite a lot of feeling about the concept of changing the terms of employment for people who are already here.

This is deliberately bear for design, so that people who might be given a peerage in the future would know precisely what it is that they were actually going to be doing and the length of time that they would serve. An alternative for terms of reference, which will be debated later is retirement ages. I do not favour retirement ages because it has been my experience of meeting people of considerable age with great faculty sensibility and some people with not great age with not faculties and abilities.

I would rather have, as indeed happens in the other place, a term limit that focuses on the moment of arrival and the moment of departure rather than an arbitrary one based on age. The key difference between this amendment and virtually any other amendment that is going to be put to this bill is that it does not effect anybody who is currently sitting in the House. Why therefore have I brought it forward? This is where I hope to try and persuade the leader of the House that it may be worth considering this amendment is a possibility to actually accepting this bill.

That is, as I mentioned in the last group, I have been around the houses on Lords reform for the best part of 30 years across two houses. Apart from the fact that anybody who engages in that requires a certain degree of stamina, I have noticed that progress is remarkably small and very often barely incremental. Therefore what this incremental. Therefore what this seeks to do is to put in, as it were, a long stop. If this is accepted, it changes nothing at the moment.

If the government goes ahead, as promised, and you bring something forward in the remainder of this Parliament, then nothing has changed and this is perfectly reversible and whatever changes might be thought to be appropriate by the government can go ahead. It has no impact on anything that might be discussed. But if the circumstances arises, and I have to say that the odds are probably in favour of this circumstance, that for one reason or another, and it might be because of international.

It might be because of all sorts of different reasons, time is not found in this Parliament for any further reform and it is possible that electoral maths changes, so the next term might be different. Then we are back into that situation and it is another 10 or 15 years before something happens. If therefore we are really interested in seeing the size of the House come down, which I think we all wish to see happen, and if we think that some form of limited term as appropriate, this amendment puts out into the distance, rather like that crown Bowling Green where you put one ball right at the back just in case, this is exactly that.

It means that in the circumstance where nothing happens, there will be a long stop, which would start to see a reduction in the numbers. I would like to think what I have done has been done in a way that has some elegance and some grace in it and I would like to think it was something that will solve a problem that hopefully we will not have and therefore could be disregarded. In the case it turns out it is a problem we do have, it is a mechanism planted into the future, which would have some control over the size of your lotion's House.

And for those reasons I hope the government might consider this or something very like it as a workable proposition going forward and use this bill for this very tiny addition, which would have no impact on the fast bulk of what the government is seeking to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

achieve. A brief comment if I may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A brief comment if I may. Instinctively I like limited terms.
19:26
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Instinctively I like limited terms. You know who is leaving, you know when they are living, you know what skills they have a new recruit to replace them in an orderly way rather than relying on the Grim Reaper to do it for you you. It's five years to learn the job, five years to be effective in five years to be out of date. I fear I might offend some in the chamber by making that mathematical assertion, but in practice there's one point we need to consider with limited terms it is the what then.

If you have spent your peak earning peak career years in this House and then leave at 50 or 60, with no pension by the way from this employer, are we in danger of putting people off from joining us because they do not have anything to look forward to as a support beyond the time they spend here? I worry that it will become more attractive to people of independent means and less attractive to people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who are not in that lucky position. If you look at the average age at which people come into this House, it is at the end of their careers. It is just below or just above 60 It is just below or just above 60 and therefore 20 years takes most people who come into this House from people who come into this House from mid 50s to 70s, or early 60s to mid 50s to 70s, or early 60s to early 80s, tether it might be.

Under early 80s, tether it might be. Under the current arrangements there are relatively few people who come into the House as a full-time occupation, the House as a full-time occupation, who are in their primary working years. I know that there are exception to that and exceptions always prove the rule, however what I will say to the noble Lord is if you wish to have some long stop, this is one that takes care of most of the points he has made. Obviously if people know in advance that they are being offered something for 20 years, they have got the choice of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declining. I have many things to declare.
19:28
Lord Desai Portrait Lord Desai (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have many things to declare. One of them is that I came here when I was appointed by John Major who I was appointed by John Major who conspired with connect to get me here. Secondly, I have been here for here. Secondly, I have been here for 34 years. I obviously don't qualify to be a sane and sensible person to be a sane and sensible person because I'm 85. At 85, after 34 years, I am clearly not qualified to years, I am clearly not qualified to be here at all.

So I have to fight for my life because I actually like for my life because I actually like this place stop when I came here, not being a believer, I didn't swear an oath, I affirmed an oath to serve Her Majesty the Queen and her heirs and successors. I didn't say to do and successors. I didn't say to do us part. I definitely came on the promise that I was appointed for life and I was not appointed, whether I qualify or not, whether I am saying or solvent or anything like that.

If I break the rules of conduct, I may get thrown out. I don't see however, given the logic of your Lordships House, to have age limits and term limits retrospectively. Yes, to have a bill which is not to do with Hereditary Peers, but to do with the House of Lords Reform Act. If you want to reduce the number of people and so on, yes, say at such and such a you will be qualified. I don't know how many noble Lords would remember Lord McGrath.

He was here until he was 94. Whenever he rose up to speak, we all listened very carefully because he really was a very, very sound and If the government wants to reduce the number of peers, they should throughout anyone who doesn't come. Anyone who doesn't come more than once a week, say, or once a term, whatever it is. There are lots of people like that. Then, you disqualify people on other grounds. But I do think it is ageist and ageism will not do any more, to have people going out at 85 or whatever people going out at 85 or whatever it is.

So, I think we really ought to not mix up this bill with other problems just because some people don't like this bill. Just because don't like this bill. Just because people don't like its being thrown out, we ought not to mix it up because the government ought to be allowed to think of how to reduce numbers and come to us with a good bill and then we should look at that, but right now, it is arbitrary years that will not do.

I think we ought to think again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to draw noble Lords attention to what is coming up for debate and remind people to try to stick to the subjects of the groups.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stick to the subjects of the groups. The noble Baronesses completely correct and I strongly support her. correct and I strongly support her. The issue of memberships at the The issue of memberships at the house is very closely related to the issue of age limits, so I do have some sympathy to what is being said. I think that the overall answer to both issues is a retirement age that is agreed or understood at the time of appointment for new peers, and I hope that give some comfort to the noble Lord.

Once the hereditary Peers have gone, I think that the
19:33
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
remaining peers who are over 70 now will come under considerable media pressure and it is no use avoiding pressure and it is no use avoiding this point. To an even greater this point. To an even greater extent the younger peers, older peers are not very responsive to peers are not very responsive to what the media think, or what the media want them to do. Rather, they media want them to do. Rather, they do what they believe to be in the public interest, and in accordance public interest, and in accordance with the Nolan principles.

I'm not sure that that is what the media wants. And I think that having 80- year-old peers will be seen as just as indefensible as hereditaries are incorrectly claiming to be today. I would not underestimate the value to the House of Lords of some peers who go back a long way. For instance, I advise the crossbenchers who was faced with an assisted dying bill that she erroneously believes that she cannot try to kill the bill at second reading.

I advised her that she could kill the bill at second reading, and I had seen it done sometime before. And sure enough, she succeeded in her endeavours. Unfortunately, when drafting this, I could not avoid the word skill, euthanasia or put out of its misery when talking about the assisted dying bill. I am not opposed to this provided that those who oppose them are clear about what they want the house to do. However, the report identified a danger in a limits that could deter potential new members, appoint very well made by Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cromwell. If I could comment on points
19:35
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I could comment on points being made, the committee which I being made, the committee which I chaired did indeed make the proposal that there should be term limits. We looked at both of them and came in favour of term limits. It was favour of term limits. It was against the background not of this bill but of where we were also promoting the idea of a ceiling on the site of the House of Lords, and the great argument in favour of time limits is that it generates a predictable number of levers and a predictable flow of levers which then work alongside a limit on the side of the house because then it provides the scope to have refreshments of the house and for a change in the political balance over a period of time.

Which of course is also very important. And it can all be done in an orderly way, but the proposal being made was with several other things which were suggested, rather than something which was standing on its own. The proposal said that it should begin then, and it was a long-term proposal that was an attempt, and only real mechanism where you could stabilise the numbers over a period of time and have this capacity to make changes. And after all, there are term limits for most people in the electorate and by what happens to people when they meet the voting, so there is nothing new about this.

It is a useful mechanism, but it is not really a mechanism for another day, but in terms of what is about it, it is in terms of a more balanced and wider group of changes that were going to be made. This is a very important mechanism which I would be very supportive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment is in this group, supported by my noble friend and
19:37
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
supported by my noble friend and Lady Jones and I thank them for their support. Most of you will be aware that my goal is to see this place abolished and replaced with a democratic second chamber, however, in the meantime, I am determined to push forward small steps which can have a meaningful impact. Amendment 73 is a simple step on meeting reform. I am asking his match to government to have this captain no more than 10 years. While I commend the tabling of other amendments by the noble Lords proposing term limits, the shortest among them is 15 years.

By international standards, 15 years is extremely long for an appointed chamber. In fact, it is three times longer than the most common time length of five years, with the next most common being five years. Based on this evidence, we can see that 10 years is abnormal. However, we seek to establish a ceiling and not a target. I have drafted this amendment with a ceiling to allow his match to government to investigate the various ranges of term limits before bringing forward a final proposal.

A table this amendment because I firmly oppose the prospect that anyone should have a job for life. It is absurd in most settings but is completely appropriate for an establishment that is supposed to be accountable to the people of these nations. We cannot believe that somebody can be forever representative of others. Others have tabled amendments that set out an age that we are covering in the next group, although this could be a good practice to introduce. I fear that setting a retirement age would fail to address the imbalance composition of this chamber.

This approach would not solve the issues of this bill and what the amendments are aiming to address, the number of members and diversity of this chamber. Following my advocacy for term limits at second reading, I was asked by a member of this house where would I get a job after my term was up and would I not struggle with the loss of power and influence after being a member of this place. I have reflected on this question. I cannot escape the question that it reveals a deeply flawed perception of what this institution should represent.

It is precisely this kind of thinking that underscores the urgent need for term limits. No one in our position should see this as a source of power. It is and must always be a responsibility, a duty to serve, not a privilege to cling to. If we ever lose sight of that, then reform is not just desirable but essential. Therefore, I stand by my time-limit this is the best way of adjusting this, guaranteeing that the chamber undergoes regular renewal and revitalisation with members carrying out their duty with a strong sense of responsibility and commitment to their role, knowing that their time in office is limited and impactful.

Some argue that continuous changes to the second chamber might be disruptive. However, this does not propose changes that results in members being unable to stand for re-election. I propose that we counter the issue of turbulence by following the example of the Australian Senate. Here, term limits six years with half the limit every six years. This provides an approach that means that a proportion of the echo chamber is lower than the other chamber. It means that we are less affected by changes in the political mood.

Implement in a term limit can also prove as an effective way to ensure the members of this chamber do not exceed a certain number, and that representatives better reflects the voices of the public. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could share with us some of her thinking in terms of term limits. Would she see this as a possible reform that the government would consider as part of this bill or as a short new bill, and what is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appointments. I will attempt to be brief, but I
19:42
Lord Remnant Portrait Lord Remnant (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will attempt to be brief, but I would like to speak on the thrust of the amendments proposed in this the amendments proposed in this group. And I do say in the context of the government's wider manifesto commitment that I don't want to trespass upon the next group of amendments which cover retirement, but if the government's objectives are to reduce the size of this house and to refresh the skills and experience of members of this House, and retirement based on term rather than age is a viable thing, and a preferable alternative.

Indeed, given that the manifesto commitments is missing from this bill and that within a year if this commitment being formally made new peers above the proposed mandatory retirement age have already been appointed, one might objectively conclude that the government may reconsider the method which retirement can best be achieved. Why is it that I favour the principle of term limits which is illegal in many walks of life, including in the workplace. In the corporate world which I am most familiar, moving towards terms, as far back as 2007, the Companies Act sets the time limit for directors of sets the time limit for directors of public repeal.

This stipulates that non-executive directors should appoint for terms subject to real action. This will serve stakeholders well. And it is rare that anyone will seek to contravene it. So what should that term be? These amendments ban a range of 10 to 30 years from a series of five Fury appointments. Again, I take as my starting point the corporate governance code. This provides that any non-executive director beyond six years should be subject to rigorous review and should take into account the need for progressive refreshing of the board.

All directors will be asked to serve at least six years and most up to 9 years. That naturally leads me towards the lower end of the range is proposed. I do believe there are members serving for parliamentary terms, so 10 years, and that the flexibility of allowing the extension is sensible. Beyond that, it may be that the balance on the one hand of continually refreshing the skills and experience of members of the house and retaining the wisdom of contribution of existing members starts to become too skewed members starts to become too skewed Most unhelpfully my views do not conform with any of the amendments, but they most align with amendment 13 in the name of Lloyd Harris, as amended by Lord Hailsham in his amendment 50.

However, I believe the significance of such a change, it must be right for transitional arrangements to be put in place for existing peers and Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Viscount does distinguish in this regard between existing peerages and peerages it to be created. Proposal which has much merit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just very briefly, I support the
19:46
19:47
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This and the next three groups are about related issues and we cannot avoid moving from one to the other. They are about limiting how people become a member of this House. Previously this was meant to be a part-time job. I continue to be a full-time professor at the LSE for nine years. Now we have a House which is more professional. We are expected to commit ourselves to working hard while we are here and life expectancy he has risen and more of us have some expectation of living well into our 90s.

I am told that my life expectancy given my parents and my sisters is around 98. So I can perhaps look for many many years to come. Clearly we need to take on board and the government needs to give us some indication of how it is going to moderate the lifetime rights to sit in this House. As we have become a professional second chamber, do we think retirement or life terms or participation, attendance are the relevant, most useful ways to do it.

I agree with Lord Hogan-Howe. Term limits are the easiest way to do so. The 2012 bill proposed for the elected members 15 years, a single term elected in thirds and a 15 year term for those who are appointed. That at the time commanded a widespread support. I suggest that the government looks back at this. We have been around this circuit before. Can I just also say briefly we do have to remember the context in which we are discussing this.

Popular disillusionment with politics in Britain is high. Respect for both the Commons and the Lords is low. We have outside Britain much that we dislike about populist politics, antidemocratic tendencies, belief that strongmen make politics easier, and we see the problems of systems where checks and balances built into their constitutions are being ignored. We can't entirely ignore that as limited outside opinion looks at the way we as a second chamber behaves. If the government is going to push this limited through, it has also to respond to that for the longer term and the sort of second chamber to which we perhaps might slowly shuffle is one in which perhaps term limits are one of the ways in which one limits the life-cycle of members.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I take this opportunity to rise
19:50
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
in support of this group of amendments and those that follow. I take this opportunity to say again that I am not opposed to clause 1 of this bill as a hereditary peer, but take the opportunity, having opportunity to being elected to the House of Lords is not about selecting those to sit in the House of Lords in the 21st-century. It's a simple bill, with one purpose to remove Life Peers. It's a great privilege to be a member of this House.

This bill does achieve some reform and possibly the easiest one is a simple one and one for an outdated process. If the bill is so simple, why have so many amendments being put down. That concerns me and others, like Lord Harries. The fair is there will be no further reform of this will has received Lord consent. The Lord Privy Seal has said that further Lords reform is a consultation process, but the track record says otherwise. This group of amendments suggests a length of term Lord can serve in the House.

Having only been in the House for just over a year, the ways of the House are quite challenging at times and if you are not used to the way of government, a bit of time is needed to understand how the House works. I to understand how the House works. I feel strongly that the majority of cases, a term of 15 years is appropriate. Have ears have many skills and experiences that they bring during their term, they can contribute to the whole workings of the House.

When they come to the end of the term, there are many outside the chamber who have similar skills and experience is to bring to the House in Lord Anderson clearly stated this in the previous amendments. There are many jobs for life, with no formal review or appraisal. Privilege and the privilege of the role can be maintained with just half a days work every year. I agree that a consultation on this matter is appropriate and I agree with Viscount Thurso's amendment which has great progress.

Therefore I'm a green it should only apply to peers that enter the House at this stage. that enter the House at this stage. I note the noble Baroness the leader of the House regarding the consultation process that is ongoing. When will the noble Baroness bring reform to the House on one or two of the areas we are about to discuss in the next few minutes.
19:54
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Very much agree with Lord Clifford that we are extremely unlikely to see any further opportunity of the Lords reform in the lifetime of this government. It will be the first government that will be able to achieve that in my 35 years in this House and I do not see why the rules should have been changed again. It's really important we get the discussion done now and will move things forward a bit. I like the noble Lord's amendment very much.

It has the virtue of creating a big change at the end of the Parliament, just when you need one to alter the balance of the House and bring in ministers. I think 20 years in my experience of this place is the right time. 15 years feels too short. It takes a long while to embed yourself and then one has a decent useful life after that. 20 feels better to me. I agree with the noble Lord that we should go for a proper way of remuneration people in this House.

Pensionable, taxable remuneration. There is no excuse for remuneration. There is no excuse for the current system I can comfort the noble Baroness Lady Smith, if she ever feels powerful in this place, she will be immensely lucky. We are like waves breaking on the rocks of the seashore. We normally bounce off, occasionally we shift a grain of sand and sometimes we come together and shuffle a rock down the slope and into the deep. Like the unlamented Schools Bill in the last Parliament, or as Lady Owen has achieved with her ambitions in this Parliament.
19:56
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
The problem with all debates on House of Lords reform is that the quickly descends into self interest. As a relatively youthful member of the House, it may not surprise your Lordships that I am not especially attracted to this idea. By contrast, I'm sure that some of the octogenarian colleagues on the government benches, some but not all in their places today, are perhaps keener on this potential reform then they would be about implementing that part of the government's manifesto which relates to a retirement age.

It has been worthy of separate consideration. My noble friend was speaking and I was struck by age being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Length of tenure is about good governance. I would say to the noble Baroness, I've asked one of my later amendment to be group with the others in the next group, as I'm keen to make good progress. I note that both the Minister responding and I are what would be called those in their primary working years.

I would like to see her in her place responding. I was struck by the noble Lord Lord Cromwell's question what then? Noble Lords have raised pertinent points about the way active members of your Lordships House are remunerated, but more from the question of if we were to be ushered out at the end of a term, those who have come in at a younger age will be thinking about what next. In government we have put in place a sensible mechanism through the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments to make sure ministers are not abusing their position to line up their next gig.

I would worry slightly if we were to have limited terms here, people looking to serve in your Lordships House and then leave and do something else in the next chapter of their career will be thinking about what next and will be lining up lucrative opportunities. Whether in financial ways or political ones. My noble friend Lord Akleh rightly drew attention to the fact that we have less interest in the coverage, or the clips that we might put on social media.

I often say when talking to friends outside the House about our work here is that we don't play to the gallery, that is mostly because there are very few people in the gallery watching the debates in your Lordships House. But I think that dispassionate sense that we bring by virtue of the fact we have taken an oath, as the noble Lord Lord Desai reminded us, to sit here, to give our dispassionate views for the rest of our service here, it is something worth holding onto.

I'm grateful to the noble and Right Reverend for bringing this forward and highlighting the origins in the role commission chair Lord Wakeham under the last Labour government. It is worth in this debate and all those that follow thinking about whom we might lose under this proposal for slimming down the House. If we remove those who will have served for 15 years or more by the end of this Parliament, by July 2029 to assume a five year term, we would lose 129 Labour peers, 121 Conservative peers and 120 Crossbench Peers.

A comparable figure on those three benches, along with 59 Liberal Democrat peers and 23 nonaffiliated. We would lose the leader and deputy of your Lordships House perhaps for they have been able to move on to the second and third stages of the reforms that they set out to reform in your Lordships House in their manifesto. We would all be disappointed not to see them finish that job by the end We want to wonder them against repeating mistakes being made in the past.

I have seen this myself and my short-term in your Lordships house when I took the online test, I was glad to hear from Lord McNally who is a veteran of 30 years. He came here in 1995 and he spoke powerfully during the passage of that act. Taking through the Communications act of 2003 with some very useful points of comparison. We benefited from what was sat in the Joint committees that debated that bill and is extremely good in the committee that looked at it.

And I agreed working with Baroness Kidron who is any just getting started. So, I think many of the objections that we see based on tenure are the same that I'm sure will be made when we look at the age limit. When we look at child refugees, we are all humble to remember that we came to this country as a child on the Kindle transport. When we speak in defence matters, he does so not just as a former Marshal of the Royal Air Force of 40 years distinguished service in uniform, but as someone who is almost as old as the RAF who is almost as old as the RAF itself.

We got 43 years of respective service in your Lordships house, and I am mindful that some of the most powerful speeches uttered in this chamber are those that have been grounded in the wisdom of long experience, not just from people who are relics of the past age who are stuck in their ways, but often, those who surprise us and themselves by admitting that they have changed their minds, those whose broad campuses bring us out by pointing out how much has changed in the world around us.

Harold Macmillan was just beginning his service in your Lordships house when he used his Maiden speech as the first out of Stockton to defend the miners then striking against the Thatcher government. He was speaking with the benefit of a political career which had begun 60 years earlier as a Member of Parliament for Stockton- on-Tees. He represented that town during a general strike, fought in the trenches alongside miners in the great War, and that is what he knew that the striking miners were the best men in the world.

They beat the Kaiser's army and Hitler's army and never gave in. So I think we should be seeking to encourage not discourage such a tradition of long public service and speaking candidly from the benefit of that experience. I think that speeches like Lord Stockton's are worth waiting for, even if the price is listening to 1 or two others from those who may have gone slightly off the boil. So, that is why, despite many excellent speeches, that is why many excellent speeches of various vintages, I have not been convinced of the case made for these amendments.

I found myself struck by the noble Lord comment saying that we could do with a few more professors and fewer politicians, one we have not taken consciously. He is right to the point that we are sleepwalking into it. But I am pleased to say that we are not at the moment house of professional politicians. I hope we don't become one but I look forward to hearing the view on the amendments being put forward. amendments being put forward.
20:04
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
It has been a very interesting debate to listen to. I was brought up to not discuss the woman's age, but in the context of the debate today, it does feel slightly relevant given my own as noble Lord Parkinson's in the primer of Parkinson's in the primer of economic earning. In terms of conflict, it is 37.5 years, and the average age on appointment in the last Parliament was 56 which meant that I will be 57 if we get to 15 years of service in terms of time, so I would be leaving very quickly and would still be a very young member of your Lordships house.

With regards to the substance of the debate today, these amendments can send the imposition of time limits as we have discussed. And I think it may be useful to summarise what the themes of the amendment have been, not least because they demonstrate that there is not yet consensus in terms of next. Amendment 13 tabled by the Lord provides Life Peers. It is a possibility of applying for appointment were providing that no member can sit for more than 30 years in total.

We have lived to propose that member's can only apply for reappointment during the parliament in which this bill passes and not beyond this. His amendments seek to limit the appointment of five years therefore reducing the original limit proposed from 30 to 20 years. Amendment 66 tabled by the noble Viscount which was an excellent speech goes for 20 years but also for life peerages after the end of this year. Amendment three seeks to require the Secretary of State to the day before Parliament a draft bills with proposals for 10 years.

The underlying intent for the majority of these amendments is to reduce the size of your Lordships house, and aspiration which the Lordships shares. Some made clear that they are motivated by the principle that none should be a member of this place. Both he and I have experienced that at the other end, making it happen here seems appropriate. The smattering of amendments suggests the things that could be introduced. There is not a central view on the arrangements of introducing a term limit.

But more importantly, the bill before this house today is not solely focused on the right for hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this house. These amendments are not the central issue of this bill. Furthermore, the government's view is that the introduction of retirement age as promised in our manifesto is a more effective way of reducing numbers rather than the introduction of the term limit. As your Lordships are aware, my noble friend, the leader of the house, has been having an ongoing dialogue with the house on how the manifesto commitment on introducing a retirement age can be best implanted.

The leader has already had in excess of 60 meetings, and she is keen for that dialogue to continue. With respect, these amendments would cut across those conversations. With this in mind, I ask noble Lords to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment standing in my name. The amendment is a amendment 15.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is a amendment 15.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. Not moved. Amendment 13. Very briefly, I thank everyone
20:09
20:10
20:11
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I I begin I begin by I begin by welcoming I begin by welcoming the I begin by welcoming the statement on the government's plans for on the government's plans for neighbourhoods. Whilst we echo the government's desires for the growth and renewal of our neighbourhoods and renewal of our neighbourhoods and high streets, we must be clear that this bill is on the work in that this bill is on the work in progress made by the previous Conservative government. In fact, it seems apparent that this statement seems apparent that this statement is merely a rewrite of the scheme progressed under the previous government, so does the noble Lord agreed that on funding, allocation and time periods, this scheme is a rehash of the administration by the government that levelling up was indeed working? The cohesion funds were subject to accountability to both the UK government and local representatives.

The previous government's levelling up strategy aims to address the very challenges highlighted in the statement by mobilising a broad range of national resources. We understood that local leaders were seeking investment and acted on this by allocating £2.6 billion fund for the regeneration of our communities. A 4.8 billion Levelling Up Fund to support vital assets like pubs and theatres. And a 1.5 billion long-term plan for tax reform. If my maths is correct, that is 8.9 billion compared with the 1.5 billion over 10 years that this government is suggesting.

We should acknowledge that the government delivered the statement while their own financial choices made in the October budget are damaging local communities. This modest announcement is inconsequential when considering the jobs tax, the increase in business rates on hospitality and retail sector, the changes to the business property relief and the multi-million pound funding gap that appeared in council budgets as a result of the October budget. This is before we address the impact of the loss of rural service grant and the community ownership fund which sought to provide support to communities who need it most.

So will the noble Lord the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of the impact of the Chancellor's tax hikes on the local economies like those in his match government which is about to fund. We do have reservations and concerns about the statement made last week, so I look to the noble Lord the Minister to provide some clarity. I must ask the noble Lord the Minister to confirm what measures will be imposed to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability of the proposed neighbourhood boards.

It is essential that the boards include representatives of those communities and we are concerned about the role that trade unions represent, and could the noble Lord the Minister confirm exactly what roles those trade union representatives will play on those community boards. Local democracy is vital if these boards are to work effectively. Next, what exactly is the purpose of these resources? Well these funds go primarily towards making up the shortcomings that the budget created in other areas of government spending? And finally, I echo the worries expressed in the other place looking at the waiter reflects the needs and circumstances of communities by widening the criteria and choosing to use broad national statistics, the unique and local understanding of the communities understanding of the communities Local authorities are in the unique position to be able to identify the specific requirements of their communities and a bidding process allows them to present a plan to the government.

If the government proceeds with the process of allocation as suggested, those who can do the most to regenerate our high streets and communities may lose out in favour of those who are lose out in favour of those who are able to meet government's criteria. I am looking forward to receiving a clear, but also a positive response from the noble Lord the Minister. from the noble Lord the Minister.
20:16
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I have relevant interest as a councillor in Kirklees that includes Dewsbury, one of the towns on the list. I am also a Vice President of the local government associations. Of course, I welcome investment in towns across the country which have higher than average levels of deprivation. What I hope the noble Lord the Minister will recall that regeneration in so many terms is a reflection on the years of neglect of previous governments funding and supporting governments funding and supporting regeneration programmes, long-term regeneration programmes by local councils for their areas.

I have a number of questions for the noble Lord the Minister. The first one is can he confirm, as the noble Baroness Scott has asked, that this program is a continuation of the long-term plan for Towns Fund, which was introduced by the previous government. As far as I can tell, the list of towns is precisely the same. Can the Minister provide details of the selection criteria, given that the towns on the list, it says in the statement, were all in the bottom 20% of the index of multiple deprivation.

The course that is not all of them, it's not an inclusive list, so which towns in that deprivation criteria have been rejected and why? If the noble Lord the Minister does not have an answer to that particular question which I accept is quite detailed, I will be quite happy for him to give me a quite happy for him to give me a written response. Of course it is positive that the government has extended the list of potential uses of the funding, as compared with the previous iteration of it.

However, each town is to get £2 million a year for the next 10 years. Does the Minister agree with me that making a sea change in a town will require more than that level of funding? That is not to decry the funding, which is going to be helpful, but simply to note that this will not make a strategic and long-term difference for those towns as a whole. There will be improvements, given the money that there is, but the level of funding is inadequate for a major uplift.

I will give the noble Lord Minister an example. Dewsbury in Kirklees in this list. The swimming and sports centre that serves the town, run by the local council, has had to be closed because of RAAC. The council has said it will not rebuild or further provide either a sports centre, or and a swimming. So there will be no other provision of swimming pools or sports centres in that town of 80,000 people, which suffers from considerable deprivation.

Now, replacing this will be a major investment in the health and future of young people. Yet the funding that is provided in this plan is for neighbourhoods will not go anywhere near to meeting that. So the question I have for the Minister is this really. Can the funding that is available be used as match funding, or provision towards capital spending, or revenue spending for such long-term investment? The funding available is split 75% for capital and 25% for revenue.

Is their flexibility within that? So maybe the first five years could be capital and then revenue at the back end of the scheme, or some flexibility. That will be worth knowing from the Minister as well. Finally, of course it is good that each town has to create a town board to make funding decisions. And those who serve on that board are committed to the future of the town. However, can the Minister explain the reasoning for excluding local councillors elected to represent the town in making those decisions? And can the noble Lord the Minister say what accountability mechanism there will be four all the funding and will there be a reports to the House on progress being made? So good, but more to do.
20:21
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I first of all appreciate support from both front benches. I speak for us all when I say that promises made to people of this country should be met. We have this country should be met. We have a duty to men the broken social infrastructure of this country. We need to rebuild trust in our democracy. That is why the Plan for Neighbourhoods the government has made good on what the 75 places were promised by the previous administration, but they have no idea how it would be followed through.

Communities can breathe a sigh of relief before rolling up their sleeves and getting on with their sleeves and getting on with the job at hand. Through our three objectives the decade-long Plan for Neighbourhoods will both drive down deprivation and kickstart growth. The Deputy Prime Minister's for word The Deputy Prime Minister's for word within the is noted that deprivation has been dealt with with a sticking plaster approach. It has been underscored by the points raised today. Last week the Minister for growth and that's the plan for neighbourhoods in the other place and first made the statement we are discussing today.

I think the officials for the hard work that has ensured we can make good on the promises made to these places, while launching a new program aligned to the mission of this government. Places will not be left in the dark on any level. We will shortly also publish further technical guidance outlined in -- outlining the board arrangements. Government's Plan for Neighbourhoods marks a major step in delivering its wider plan for change with a focus on economic growth to raise living standards.

The government will work in partnership with residents, partnerships and grassroot campaigners alongside local authorities to deliver for local people. If we are serious about rebalancing the economy, no place can be left behind. As the Prime Minister wrote, everyone has a role to play in our national asperity. No more sticking plasters or short-term fixes. This government will fulfil its promise of change and a decade of national renewal. As to the specific points raised by noble Baroness Scott, this is a new program that puts communities at the heart of making these changes.

Money will be spent on a broad set of interventions. The locations of funding remain the same because we are delivering on what places have been previously promised. It is the repeated breaking of promises that undermines trust in our democracy. We are focusing on three long-term aims, building thriving places, strengthening communities and empowering people to take back control in of sticker plaster politics. We are giving local people their say by strengthening our consultations. It's not misleading to claim this is not new money.

The long term plan for towns was an unfunded commitment. Our plan for neighbourhood program delivers on the Chancellor's confirmation of funding in the budget. The government is going to make good on what was previously promised. The noble Baroness talked about levelling up. Levelling up failed because it was communities to beg for funding and then try to micro manage how it was meant. This is about the transfer of power so that communities can drive change themselves.

The noble Baroness talked about economic growth in relation to the issues that she raised about the tax changes. I can't talk about the tax changes, it's outside my remit, but we are putting power in the hands of local people to address deprivation and regenerate the local area, unleashing the full potential of places that have been overlooked. Bringing together neighbourhoods and businesses. Plans will be drawn up on how they will spend up to £20 on how they will spend up to £20 million.

On the issue of accountability the relevant local authority will act as the accountable body for the funds, responsible for making sure public funds are distributed fairly. There will be a framework in the summer for accountability. To the point of match funding and other issues, there are opportunities for the neighbourhood boards to make that decision. There is no more top-down approach. This is bottom up with local authorities leading the way and what local people want for their communities.

In particular, the places that will get funding, all 75 towns across the UK will receive the Plan for Neighbourhoods package. The previous plans were not funded. We are making good on previous commitments. Those 75 places will receive up to £20 million over the next decade.
20:28
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Portrait Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour)
-
-
I want to thank the noble Minister for insuring that we get the chance to speak to this statement and to ask questions. I am name checked in the statement because in my previous life as a minister I actually introduce the New Deal for communities, along with my boss John Prescott. It has been evaluated neighbourhood and regeneration programme in the last regeneration programme in the last 45 years I think it is. So I am now, my Lords, chairing the Independent Commission neighbourhoods.

I am sort of reliving all of that. We are changing what we are looking at, but it does involve how do we actually ensure that the poorest neighbourhoods in our country get the opportunity to develop, to find opportunities for the most disadvantaged, and to really build effective partnerships with government, local government, civil society, very importantly local people, but also the public services in those neighbourhoods. I hope, and I am asking the Minister if he sees this as the first step? We have identified in the Independent Commission 613 neighbourhoods across the country, which are the most deprived and where we know change can happen.

They are the areas that most need the five missions of the government and they will be able then with the right support and development to actually bring real growth because they will be able to link economic and structural development with social development and the building of social capital. These are the essential elements to make sure that neighbourhood policy works right across the board, and I understand why the government have made sure that the commitments made to the 75 towns have been respected.

However, we can do much more by investing and working with the neighbourhoods that I am talking neighbourhoods that I am talking
20:30
20:31
20:33
20:34
20:35
20:36
20:36
20:37
20:38
20:38
20:39
20:40
20:41
20:42
20:43
20:43
20:44
20:46
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure until 20.50pm
-

20:50
20:51
20:51
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
and because appointments are for life the second chamber has become life the second chamber has become too big. The next Labour government will remove the right for Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. There will be a mandatory retirement age at the end of Parliament of which are member Parliament of which are member reaches 80 years of age. I will introduce a new participation introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed.

I have also tabled amendments in the next group which tackle those last two issues as well. The noble Lord Croker is not in his place at the moment. I do enjoy his speeches. He did complain today that there were too many amendments which are not specifically about Hereditary Peers. The government manifesto promised six things in constitutional things. The Lords is to be, Hereditary Peers are indefensible, retirement age of 80, remove disgraced peers and the one thing to keep further into the long grass's consultation on having national and regional bounds.

On retirement age I have table 3 options for discussion. Retirement age of 80, 85 or 19. At the end I will move amendment 16 and 18. Viscount Hailsham will move amendment 17. I don't necessarily believe that retirement age is necessary, but if the government believes what it said in its own manifesto that the Lords is too large, even though only about 450 peers regularly attends, then a retirement age at some appropriate age and removing inactive peers is a far better way to reduce numbers than kicking out the hereditaries who actually do attend and to work hard.

We can all guess where the government government isn't taking forward that we can all guess what will not be taking taken will not be taken forward. After the election I suspect the leader and her team looked at the numbers and said, oh, my god. An 80 retirement age. That means getting read of 327 peers by 2029. Further numbercrunching showed it would include 94 Labour MPs, Labour peers being thrown out with only 90 Conservative peers. That is not what was intended, so the retirement age of age 80 is to be dropped, and rightly so since removing 300 since removing 327 peers -- since removing 327 peers in one Parliament would be excessive.

There was an excuse that they will be a consultation. Consult who exactly on a retirement age for peers? Who will they consult? Age concern, Martin Lewis, Saga holidays? There is only one organisation with a legitimate opinion on this and that is the government. But there is only one body of experts who would know all about potential retirement ages for peers and they are in this House and some of them are sitting here tonight. So over the next hour let us do the consultation for the government.

We might just get a consensus on the way forward for the report stage. Before reports can I suggest noble Lords who have not seen it yet asked the library for the spreadsheets, particularly the one titled filtering laws attendance one titled filtering laws attendance by age and presence. It includes our ages and attendance record in the last Parliament which will be relevant to the next debate. There are a few errors. One of my noble friends is not included in another noble friend said it got his age wrong, but Excel spreadsheets do give a clear indication of who will need to be removed.

Being an Excel spreadsheet, you can enter any criteria. The lab we have circulated that spreadsheet, but they won't do a mass mailshot everywhere. I do not have the capacity or skill to do it for every member of the Lords, but it is highly constructive. As well as giving endless hours of fun picking random retirement ages. A retirement age of 80 is just not on. So what about 90? First of all the figures I have put in the explanatory notes, I apologise for 85 and 19.

They are wrong. The correct figure would be a retirement age of 90 by 2029 would retire only 16 peers, but it includes nine who attend more than 50% of the time and some are still active. I leave it to noble Lord to conclude, but we will be open to ridicule if we set a retirement age of 90. It leaves another of my suggested options, retiring at 85. A retirement age of 85 would mean retirement of 185 peers. That does include highly active members, including 40 who have attended 70% of our sittings.

Some are deputy speakers. 25 attended less than 50% and 12 who attended less than 30% of sittings. It's my personal opinion that the retirement of -- the retirement age of 85 would be equitable. It would be the highest retirement age of any group in this country, apart from farmers. If we coupled that with peers who really attends then we can increase the numbers. This retirement age of 85 will remove the jibe that we carry on with members 30 years longer than the state pension age or 20 years longer than judges, we can justify a retirement age 10 years later than the judge.

I intend to provoke debate with these probing amendments. Mike get a hint of consensus for the report stage. I see other noble Lords have table similar amendments, some have different ages. My amendment -- some have suggested retiring at the end of a Parliament. There are three other amendments that tweet my three options. That is to give more control and flexibility to the House. It -- if any of the options were passed, our hands will be tied on timing.

I think we would want more time to organise ourselves and introduce the retirement requirement. These amendments are not essential and nobles might think that would give us an excuse not to do it. That could happen, but I don't think the House will tolerate that. Leader, do not be afraid to support a retirement age that the support a retirement age that the House will support and wants. I think by the time of the next election the electorate will be making judgements on far more broken Labour promises than breaking the retirement age of 80 promise.

I beg retirement age of 80 promise. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the following clause as set out in the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

set out in the Marshall list. In moving the amendment I will be very brief. My Noble Friend Glenn -- MacNaughton Catherine articulated MacNaughton Catherine articulated the argument in favour of the argument in favour of retirement, with which I agree. And I have suggested in my amendment at the age of 85 and by moving this I
21:00
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
the age of 85 and by moving this I do accept, as I say to be very brief, I wish to make three general points and to specific ones. The general points are these. Firstly, we do need to get the numbers in this House down and retirement age is one way of doing it. And coupled with that is that need to refresh the membership and that too is important in retirement age and the third general point, we have got one, two, 12, in a long political career goes in the car and in politics I have seen an awful lot of people who have reached the age of 85 who should have retired, both judges, Members of Parliament, and, indeed, members of this House, so we do need to focus on that.

If I may make to specific points, we touched on and I forget the Noble Lord who touched on this, in fact our expertise does decay. There was a time when I knew an awful lot about criminal law and practice. I have not practised as a criminal barrister since 2010 and I would hesitate to express any really important view as to the practice of procedures of the courts today. That is an example of the expertise decay. And, similar to that, as one gets older one has to recognise that one's expertise on many current subjects is not what the House would wish to have.

For example, we are going to be regulating an Artificial Intelligence. If you ask me what I know about Artificial Intelligence the answer is nothing and the same is true, really, on social media. I do not about social media at all, but when asked to regulate about that, the truth is there does come a point in one's life where one's expertise is not such that the electorate would want us to regulate electorate would want us to regulate any kind of way, so to be brief I am in favour of the retirement age and because argue sensibly whether it should be 80, 85, 90 or 75.

The truth is that we could properly go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to any of those figures. My Lords I am grateful. I rise
21:03
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I am grateful. I rise briefly to speak to amendment 65 in my name which is the further variation in the introduction of the retirement age and I agree with the Noble Lord duds. I would also like to thank the Noble Lord who discuss this amendment with me and has addressed the topic so wisely in his speech and the other members in the group amendment 625 looks at Labour manifesto commitment, however country to the other retirement age commitments this introduces an importantly way for those that drink your Lordships after the age of 70 as it provides the retirement is 80 or the 10th anniversary of the members introduction to the House, whichever is later.

This is an important distinction as it does away with the opportunity your old age limit, having noted that number of recent appointments of members over the age of 70 this amendment would permit such member to enjoy at least a full decade of activity within your Lordships house, irrespective of the age that they are appointed. I should perhaps note in the spirit of full disclosure that I am not in octogenarian. Indeed as a hereditary peer in his late 40s I will likely be removed from this House before I turn 50, let alone 80.

I have no dog in the fight. However, I have usually appreciated the wise contributions of PR's and consider the tenacity of our membership to be one of the houses most valuable features. I remember vividly the crossbench discussion on the constitutional crisis arising from Boris Johnson's ill-advised efforts to promote Parliament, during which a wise voice picked up it was not as bad as this during the Suez crisis. Just as Hereditary Peers provide length of institutional memory that spans centuries, so individual members of the age of 80 provided a personal memory that spans decades.

And we imagine that at our peril in our rush for the appearance of the gas. Amendment 65 permits us to temper the age-based guillotine at least a little and on that basis I recommend it to your Lordships.
21:05
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
My Noble Friend Lord Blencathra can quickly compare, 80, 85 and 90, as different options for retirement age. Within this grouping and flooding my own amendments in favour of that I would therefore also support my Noble Friends amendment 100 and 1D which calls for a resolution, the argument as it is compared with the retirement age of 90 with the retirement age of 94 better assists in transitional house reform and not least the present house itself.

Regarding that necessary transition period between the present house and perform as your Lordships will have heard a short while ago the Noble Lord burns produced a very useful report. One of his recommendations is that in a given year the collective total replaced at 50%. This means that over not too many years current numbers and total is just under 800 will come down to 600. Obviously, numbers would come down quicker if they were coerced to retire at either 80 or 85 and it would be much wiser not to enforce that.

Instead, with the retirement age of 90, a transitional period can be expected to be over five years with the advantage of some new PS when they first begin to serve a fixed period of time and do so alongside peers thereby other more comic to develop and uphold the skills and democratic efficacy of this House as a revising chamber. And for a reformed house there will be many excellent candidates who have just retired from their professional careers, yet are still paid to dedicate the time here and if new PS if over 50 has and I agree with my Noble Friend that they should retirement age of 90 is a commencement date up to 75.

Regarding the present house, research figures already on the face of this bill give us the mathematics as my Noble Friend Lord Blencathra has just also reminded us by 2029 with the retirement age of 80 would call 327, a retirement age of 90 would remove 78. Clearly that is a much more balanced and acceptable figure and in any case before reaching the age of 90 Life Peers playing an active role here over the age of 90 should surely be left to decide themselves when they return.
21:08
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to move amendment 86 which forms part of this group and I think the noble Baroness the honourable lady was not in her place in the last debate when I pointed out that I asked for this amendment which was initially down to be debated on its own to be grouped with this group of amendments so that we can deal with it expeditiously. I raised my concerns with an arbitrary age or time limit, so will not address the other amendments that noble Lords have moved so far in this group other than to ask one question, if I may.

When I was reading my copy of the daily Mirror this weekend I saw that either the House had given an interview saying that she would like to move quite quickly on the matter of the retirement age which was in the Labour manifesto. And she said it may not even require legislation for that to be done, so echoing the point that my Noble Friend mode Glenn Cather raised in his contribution a moment ago, as my Noble Friend says if your Lordships house puts during the passage of this ill for a retirement age which enjoys the support of most people in this House will the Government keep it in the bill and enacted so that she can act with the speech she said she would like to want this but I rise with amendment 86 which would make clear that this can be conferred on everybody over the age of 60 and I am sure when some noble Lords saw this on that list of amendments it caused a raised eyebrow and they may have wondered whether it was an entirely serious one, but it is.

I have tabled this amendment in order to probe the government's thinking in relation to their manifesto commitment to lower the age of voting for elections to another place to 16 and is it the government's intention also when it does so to lower the age at which somebody can stand for election at the House of Commons to 16? Or does it plan to give 16 and 17 -year-olds the vote but not yet give them the opportunity to put themselves forward for election if they find that there is nobody on the ballot paper who meets their approval? As many noble Lords won over many years after the representation of the People act 1969 there was such a discrepancy.

People could vote from the age of 18, but had to wait until 21 in order to stand for election. That was changed in time for the 2010 general election. I think that leader of the was a Minister of the Cabinet Office and the two ages were finally brought into line. So I would be grateful if the noble Baroness he was responding to this group can see a bit more about the government's intention on the age for candidacy as well as for election.

And whatever the answer to that question I have tabled this amendment to see what the view of his majesties Government is of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds into your Lordships house to scrutinise the decisions that are made by a lower house which is to be elected, perhaps even partly filled by 16 and 17-year-olds. There is sometimes a bit of scepticism which accompanies the arrival of a relatively younger member of your Lordships house to these benches but we have seen in recent weeks through the value of my Noble Friend supported by peers of all ages from across your Lordships house to tackle deep fake pornography the benefits of having a multigenerational house looking at issues that affect our fellow citizens of their engagements but there is a barrier to having such a multigenerational house in our standing orders at present.

Standing orders number two says, and I quote, no lot under the age of one and 20 shall be permitted to sit in the House. I see that standing orders was adopted on 22 May one and 20 shall be permitted to sit in the House. I see that standing orders was adopted on 22 May 1685, so while it is relatively recent to the history it is a standing orders of fairly long-standing. And if I may ask the Noble Lady when she went up without she thinks that this 17th- century barrier should still be in place given the government's wider commitment to give 16 and 17-year- olds the right to vote for perhaps also to stand in connection to the other house.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to see a few words in support of the amendment,
21:13
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
words in support of the amendment, the Earl of Devon. I hope I will be forgiven and not accused of Parliamentary shenanigans if I like my Noble Friend can Cather called the Labour Party manifesto. Not in as much length as needed but I think that words there are really quite important to our understanding of what is going on here. Reform is long overdue and essential. The next Labour Government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation by introducing legislation to remove the right of peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. Same paragraph, same breath, same thought. A. Just between those very important aspect of Parliamentary reform, but that seems to have been decisive in this government's approach to this matter. It appears that the Government has come indeed to a. On these issues. As much as I like the sound of that. But it is how can it be the justification for abandoning the ambitions for a comprehensive and promptly considered set of reforms? So, why when it was promised in the manifesto has the Government suddenly had a change of heart? After all, the retirement bill, as we are discussing here, or the amendment, as we are discussing here, in many ways is more simpler than at the front of the House right now.

This bill, of course, is not so much a breath of fresh air as a sigh of relief. On the part of so many embers on the opposition benches. Let me quote, if I may, from the Guardian and 3 March this year. Another consideration has been the practicality and the age of 80. This shows that 192 This shows that 192/700 and This shows that 192/740 Life Peers will be 80 by the end of the current Parliament. The change would affect Labour peers vastly would affect Labour peers vastly " There was some special pleading by individual Lord's", one Labour backbencher said.

But overall, people looked at the piers we would lose and started to wonder if this was a good idea. The government says it must see through its manifesto, but no need to worry, I think we have already seen through it will stop --. If this amendment or any others were accepted about retirement age, it would very soon affect me. I would be forced to retire from this place that I love. Although I look forward to the second half of my professional career.

But I have always held that we are here to serve this House. Not the House being here to serve us. Least of all is this House here to serve the constitutional meanderings serve the constitutional meanderings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of a government that has come to a.. A retirement age is something that almost everything in life has that almost everything in life has and I do put it to the House at 80
21:17
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
and I do put it to the House at 80 is an upper limit is what most people would expect as being an upper normal limit to something that were still credible. I begin from that. The second issue is something which I have raised both in my speech in November and in the second reading here in December. That is the wisdom of imposing a retirement age on the current membership of the House as it were retrospectively, producing as it would probably do a cliff edge, which would lead to what I term organisational shock and the loss of organisational power or human capital which in something which is judged by many here to be performing well, would be a great shame and an unnecessary piece of self-harm.

Of course it takes some time to train up new members, indeed it takes time to find new members as others would be able to tell you. In the commercial environment, one would look for transitional arrangements. In trying to find some way of doing that. The very pleasing amendment 65 that was so well introduced by Lord Deben proposes a simple set of transitional arrangements with two legs that I think would reduce that organisational shock enormously and allow the House to transition to an 80-year-old age limit without pain and without any loss of our capability and effectiveness.

The first leg of that is to impose the age limit only on new members and this is how I remarked previously, the judges of the higher court in England and Wales did it about 34 years ago when they were worried about the loss of institutional power that same time and they found that a number of judges did in fact self-imposed on themselves retrospectively, retirement age. They could've gone forever but chose to retire the new retirement age.

I would expect that and I still expect that today. Cross bench has a slightly higher age, 73. We have a number of people in that zone, I expect that would apply with us as well. Imposing on the new is the first leg of this clever amendment. The second leg is to give everyone who comes in a minimum of 10 years. Selfishly from the cross bench point of view, one of the things we do need our judges. We need to supply judges in various circumstances, we need to supply to for the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

And others for private bills coming through. These are some examples. Some of the judges we need come from the Supreme Court and they don't retire until they are 75. Only having five years and taking a couple of years to train them up because there are no longer members of our house before hand, would mean that it's better for them for everyone to have a minimum time where they could do that. I think that feature of Lord Evans amendment is to be commended to the House.

-- Lord Deben.
21:20
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
Noble Lord to remain after the hereditary's are gone will come under increasing pressure on the grounds that many are far too old, unelected and even now we often see colourful descriptions of noble lords bios, especially when how they speak and vote is not to the particular mediums liking. In 2010 and on my own initiative, I looked at a list of peers in age order, expecting to find some age at which noble lords became effective. I can assure the committee that there is no such point.

Over 33 years, what I have seen time and time again is sadly, peers losing their mental facilities -- faculties, alongside a relatively quick physical decline. Now that we have a system of retirement, there is not the moral drive to keep attending past effectiveness although very few do. I think we can all agree that octogenarian peers can be affect if an add value. However, at 68, I am beginning to worry that I am out of touch and out of date with the things that I think and am experienced in.

And out of date with modern society. That is partially why I want to retire in the spring. The noble Viscount made the point about social media. I don't use social media, I haven't got the foggiest clue how to use it. Those with experience are valuable to the House and I frequently seek the council of very old peers. The maximum practical limit of the size of the House is about 800. I suspect that is part of the reason why the government wants to get rid of Hereditary Peers, despite our experience.

What matters is the number of active peers, not the size of the House, the number of active peers. But we also have too many active peers. My theory is after a certain size, the effectiveness of each individual peer is inversely proportional to the number of active peers. Each peer has less opportunities. For instance, in the parliament before 2010 if I got fed up with what the government was doing, I can roll into the minute room and say oral question, next available spot.

They laugh at me if I did that now, you have to go into ballot. We never had to do that. The problem is not the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of older peers, the problem is bed locking. We should have peers on both the political benches and cross benches who have succeeded in their chosen careers, have their house bought and paid for and a decent occupational pension secured. That's to say, appointment at about 55 to 63. And there is no shortage of good quality people in this situation and the noble Viscount talked about precisely that.

We can't have them because we have around 200 octogenarian peers. I am not saying that we should not have much younger peers, I am saying that the older peers are bed blocking younger potential peers. I think the solution is to make it clear for new appointments how long their term will be. How long that should be is another matter. We should make it absolutely clear how long do peers are expected to be here. I don't think it would be fair to retire older Life Peers as they would have believed they would be here for life will stop --.

Us Hereditary Peers knew we were on borrowed time since 1911.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to make two comments
21:25
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to make two comments on Lord Blencathra's figures. He gave us the figures of the impact on gave us the figures of the impact on various age limits. What he is not described is what is the consequential effect in future years. My examination of these numbers suggest that what you get from an age limit is a large impact affect to begin with, but after that, the impact is very small. I did an exercise of trying to look in the past and to judge, using one of the spreadsheets.

What would've happened if we had an age limit of 80 in the past? What would it have done to the size of the House. The result is that the House would have been smaller, but at the same number of appointments had taken place, it would've shown exactly the same upward trajectory over time. If you put in place an age limit of 80 and it comes into effect in 2029, for the following few years there are only 20 or 30 people who would then fall into the bracket of hitting the age limit, which is not such a different figure from the number of retirees that we have in any case.

I caution against thinking that this solves the problems going forward over a longish period. There's no... If they want to bring down the House quickly, and age limit is an effective way of doing that. If one wants to make sure there's a balanced profile going forward, then it isn't going to help that much with regard to that. Which is why I also slightly take issue with the thing the noble Baroness mentioned just before dinner, but somehow there was a choice between term limits and age limits.

For me to have a different purpose. An age limit is effective in bringing down the size of the House, but it doesn't do much to easing the challenge of keeping it down at that level. It creates in onward larger flow of levers at a time that you can predict in advance which leaves scope from appointments and changes in political balance in the House. My other point is that we don't have to choose. If we don't have an age limit we don't have to choose forever, one could begin with an age limit of 80 in the following parliament have an age limit of 80.

-- 85. I support... I think the transition arrangements for this are just as important as they have been in the whole debate about Hereditary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peers. I feel I'm swimming against the current, but I'm very much against
21:28
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
current, but I'm very much against having an age limit in this House. I believe it would leave us poorer, thinner, more meagre. I am delighted ministers feel determined -- appear determined to break their manifesto commitment on the subject and I would urge them to take the same wise, measured and judicious attitude to stuff on the other side of the.. Which my noble friend was mentioning earlier. We would be deprived of a great deal in this House without the wisdom of the full range of our members.

He's not here at the moment so I hope it won't embarrass him in his absence if I say this, but the best speech I've heard tonight came from Lord Butler with his experience explaining the role of the Crown Prerogative and appointing members of this House. I hope you won't take this in any way important, but he would fall on the wrong side of my noble friends age limit and I think we would all be the poorer for it.

My noble friend Lord Parkinson spoke about a multigenerational chamber. I think there's a real importance and having a multi- generational politics. I think it's important in an age where elected politicians are becoming younger, when the 24 hour news cycle social media are more exhausting, when elected politics becomes more of a young man's game, to have a space in our national discourse for people from every generation. It's a variant if you like of the point about a nation being a partnership between the dead, the unborn and the living.

Within that category of the living, there needs to be a generational balance, especially if we have an upper house which is here precisely to act as a check on the necessary radicalism of the If we are here precisely to take a longer view then I think it would be a pity to cut some of us out on the grounds of date of birth. If I may just extend both reason and his argument I will quote back on the great families of the Hereditary Peers, a letter that he wrote to the Duke of Richmond in 1772.

He can be quite a soccer when he was talking to his patrons but I think it bears repeating persons-year-old in your station of life ought to have long views. You people of great families and trust and fortune are not like such as I am who buy our growth are but annual plans that perish with our season. We went on in a slightly flattering spirit, if you are what you ought to be, are the great oaks that shared the country and perpetuate your benefits from generation to generation.

I am pretty sure that the greatest would have been against the nation but I am absolutely certain that he would have been against the unsupported removal of our hereditary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues. Movers of the amendment that the group have done in the House a service in a number of different
21:31
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
service in a number of different ways, but given that the 80-year-old retirement date was an important part of the government's manifesto it does give us the opportunity to test the government's motivation firstly for bringing forward these measures and then not including them in this bill. If I may be permitted to say I think that the engagement we have had over the two days so far in the committee Ordinance bill have been remarkably good-natured and conducted in the right House of Lords spirit and an awful lot of what the committee has been trying to get to the bottom of it is around motivation.

Why matters have been brought forward, what is the desired outcome you cannot test the effort and efficacy of an outcome without understanding the questions in the first place and I would contend that the first day on committee was really about whether the Hereditary Peers performed any better or any worse weather seems to be April consensus that there was a broad neutrality between the two groups, so we had to get to the bottom of why the Government has brought forward that set of measures.

And we got onto the deep discussion of proposals and why they were right then but wrong now and the only people that do not believe in that, so I look forward to his intervention on this group because we were talking of dogs in fights and I think he has got one in this group as well. But I think we are all very clear that age has got very little to do with how well PS perform in the House, though it appears we are equals and that is how we are treated and we do not look at someone from the late 80s as any different.

I had the good fortune to come here very long time ago, I have been here and still under the average, so I have seen it over a considerable. Of time but we do need to know in the government's response why it originally brought forward the age. Was it to produce the numbers of the House which I think we all agree is a valid direction of travel. Or is it because we felt, the Government felt that those over 80 give a contribution of less quality than others? I think we need 10 or why the Government brought it forward and what the current view is.

Because really at the heart of this if we think of all the speeches I have heard over the last two days in committee the most powerful and moving is that given by the Noble Lord shank with who I think caution the House that if we are to move and amend the constitution to change the make-up of this House we need to do so for the right reasons, for logical reasons with the right legislation, the desire to improve this House and not for any other reason and I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's response. Think I should begin by saying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think I should begin by saying that reason I am speaking to this that reason I am speaking to this rather than my Noble Friend is not because he has a conflict of interest that he would have to interest that he would have to declare. The Noble Lord had his 84th birthday coming Wednesday. He
21:36
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
birthday coming Wednesday. He intends to spend it as he has spent today, which shows he has got a great sense of fun. If this group of amendments, the previous group of amendments, the next two groups of amendments, are all around her to reduce numbers and make sure those in the House of Lords play brought to state the blindingly obvious there is one way to deal with this which is to make sure that the House of Lords is elected and I think we may have discussed that previously.

As for the retirement age I think I am right in saying every professional has a retirement age. In your Lordships house we see bishops retiring at 70.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is not right, the self- employed for example Members of Parliament do not, nor indeed do Parliament do not, nor indeed do solicitors. It is always very solicitors. It is always very dangerous to make a general comment dangerous to make a general comment in your Lordships house, but judges have a retirement age of 75 and we have a retirement age of 75 and we know that bishops aged more than 70 and indeed judges aged more than 75 and indeed judges aged more than 75 any cases have diminished -- undiminished powers and are able to play a considerable part in what about the AM to do after that age, but there is a reason for the retirement ages which is that exceptions do not prove the rule.

And we know here that there are many members of your Lordships house who stay on well beyond the point at which it would be in their best interest to retire. And we, the usual channels, have no levers in order to help them leave at a point when, objectively, it would be in there and that house is best interest. We have a signal of success last week in persuading someone in their mid-90s to retire, but it was slightly touch and go, and that frankly is not acceptable in my view.

If we are to have a retirement age the question is what should it be? The Lord Blencathra has said that 80 was clearly wrong, i.e. It is to young, he prefers 85 and the element prefers 90. We often talk about the distance between the way in which the House of lords view things and the outside world views things. I can think of no case where there is a greater distance between what the outside world would think is a reasonable retirement age and for many members of your Lordships house believe is a reasonable retirement age, and certainly the idea, in my mind at least, that 80 is far too young, I just I am afraid I find that very difficult to accept.

There is a suggestion about accept. There is a suggestion about how we might persuade people to retire without having a set retirement age, i.e. Have a retirement age which only applies to new years, but with the expectation that many existing who are over that age, whatever it is, would retire on the basis that is what the judges did. In my experience the problem is that people who most should retire are often the ones who are most reluctant to retire and I am afraid to say to the Noble Lord that it is a very attractive proposition in other ways but I do not think it will work and I certainly do not think it would work to the extent that we would want it to do.

What this debate has shown, however, is there is absolutely no consensus in your Lordships house about what he retirement age should be and I agree with the Noble Lord when he said in the last group that this is a subject that should not be part of the consideration of this bill. Something that the Government says there going to bring forward, a consultation, proposals of. And I think it is going to be very important that the impetus for this change, particularly the exact retirement age, should not come from your Lordships house.

If ever there was a case of turkeys in Christmas it is members of the House of Lords determining when they should retire, and therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with its own proposals. I very happy that they would be in line with the manifesto, but has far as this bill is concerned I do not think an amendment passed by your Lordships on a bill which is essentially about the hereditary bill is a sensible way to deal with it.
21:41
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
First of all, can I apologise if my voice feels. Although many of you may appreciate that eventuality. But can I begin by seeking to address the amendments moved by Noble Friend Lord Blencathra, Viscount Hailsham, the Earl of Dahlstrom, Lord Parkinson and Lord Dobbs. But I divide them into two categories. There is the issue of a retirement age, and there is the issue of events and I will not seek to address the latter in the context of this debate.

But I will seek to address the former because it is part of the government's manifesto commitments. They were very express about that. Now, here we are almost at 10 o'clock at night and we are debating whether it be appropriate for us to have a retirement age of for us to have a retirement age of 90 years or 85 years or perhaps even less, the general public would debate it as surreal. Quite surreal. The question posed by my Noble Friend is very much in point.

It is incumbent upon the Government now to step up and explain why they put the issue of the retirement age into their recent manifesto. It was not done in the spare of the moment. These things are thought out, debated, considered. And yet we struggle to identify the reason for that manifesto commitment. It simply floats in the air. Now, comments have already been made about other professions, other pursuits, and the professions, other pursuits, and the issue of retirement.

But clearly no one has ever contemplated an official retirement age of 19, and that is why I wonder about the terms of this debate in banking and finance one would generally expect retirement at 55. Why? Because these organisations want to refresh themselves. In the context of the judiciary, until recently the retirement age was 70. It is now 75. That is not because of the belief that the judges who reach the age of 75 are no longer capable of interpreting and applying the law.

Many are. Some are not. Some never were. But be that as it may, there is a further, more important issue. is a further, more important issue. It is the issue of public confidence. If you walk into a court to have a serious issue determined in a court of law and discovered that the judge is 92 years of age, you would rightly have reservations about his ability to determine a complex issue. It is no different for those who do not interpret and apply the law but who purport to make it.

The issue, really, is not whether the Lord was able to contribute to the proceedings of this House into his 90s, whether that order still able to do so, I do not doubt that for a moment. But there is a very real issue of public confidence. And that is also married to an issue about the numbers in this House. And how we deal with this House. And how we deal with A variety proposals have been put forward and I venture one more before report stage.

If it was determined that during the course of this parliament a member of this House had reached the age of 85, then they might be required to retire in 2029.... That wouldn't be the cliff edge... Hundred and 80 peers. Thereafter, it could be determined that those who reach the age would have to retire at the end of that parliament in 2034. That would mean that a peer who is presently 71 years of age would have a further 10 years in this House.

It would mean that appear would have a further four years in this House. And it would treat all peers equally. It would also reduce the numbers, refresh this House and allow for further cohort to appear in this House. Incidentally, I would have one further impact. If the government was to contemplate the application of such a provision, which would be consistent with their manifesto commitment because it would bring the retirement age down to 80, albeit over a period of nine years.

The consequence would be that at the end of those nine years, there would be fewer than half the accepted Hereditary Peers still in this House, even if no other steps were taken to expel them at an earlier when in time. Instead of dealing with just one manifesto commitment, they could, by applying themselves to reasonable and sensible provision on retirement, actually address to manifesto actually address to manifesto commitments. In replying, I invite the Minister to explain very clearly why the manifesto commitment on retirement appeared, what was the logic, what was the reasoning, what was the policy behind it? Perhaps she could touch upon the attitude of her back ventures to that particular issue.

-- Back Benchers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I begin it would be remiss of me not to wish Lord Wallace a
21:48
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
of me not to wish Lord Wallace a happy birthday, but as I will probably still be here Wednesday, I will do it then. What is clear on the short debate between retirement age and a minimum of a Giroud person -- participation is that there is a broad consensus on the need for change. What that should be is still a matter for debate as we have seen this evening. Let me move on to the specifics of the amendment at hand and tried to reassure in answer noble lords from their specifics.

These commitments raise important questions on the issue of retirement age that warrant further discussion. The government is keen to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the House about how best to implement our other manifesto commitments on reforming the House, including the issue of retirement age. I look forward to continuing the conversation with your lordships on the discussions my noble friend the leader has already had. As was so eloquently articulated by several noble lords, but especially by Lord Burns, the government agrees with the general direction of these amendments, which is to reduce the size of your Lordships House.

As peerages are for life, and I am very aware that when I say peerages for life, that may have different connotations given my age and what that means, the House has become too big. These amendments show the range of possible retirement ages that could be implemented. The government as set out in its manifesto believes that a mandatory retirement age at 80, at the end of the relevant parliament, strikes the right balance between setting the limit too high, thus reducing the impact on numbers, or too low, which would have a disruptive effect on your Lordships House at the end of parliament.

In fact, just for lordships information, during the last parliament, the retirement age was actually 81.3 years old. In line with some of the conversations your lordships have had this evening. This bill however is not the right vehicle to make such a change. This is a focused bill with a soul purpose and to deliver the government's manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the chamber. A principal that was agreed when the 1999 act was passed.

This bill is completing the work of that act. It is right that we take time to best consider how we implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to introduce a retirement age, engaging with your lordships. I want to briefly address amendments 101C, 101D, and 101H which include the provision to alter the commitments -- commencement of the bill. I noticed him drafting and other amendments, 101E, 101F, 101G, which will we -- we will debate at a future date.

The effect of these amendments would be that the remaining Hereditary Peers would be removed from your Lordships House on Royal assent rather than at the end of the session within which the bill is passed as it currently provides for. Given how the noble Lord so eloquently listed the individual records of service of Hereditary Peers previously, aided by his very famous spreadsheets, I am somewhat surprised he seemingly now wants them to leave sooner. He also wishes the commitment -- commencement to a further resolution of the House.

This means that commencement would be delayed further and perhaps indefinitely. The timing of the implementation of the bill follows the approach set out in the 1999 act which is to come into force at the end of the parliamentary session in which it is passed. This is a sensible approach which strikes the right balance between delivering an immediate reform, as set out in our manifesto, and the desire to minimise any disruption to the work of the House which could arise if Hereditary Peers were to put departure during the middle of a parliamentary session.

Finally, I will briefly turn to amendment 86 table by Lord Parkinson, which seeks to lower the minimum age of membership from your Lordships House from 21 to 16. My Lords, I thank the noble lords for the introductory statement with his amendment, the government committed on a manifesto promising to give 16 and 17-year- olds the right to vote in all UK elections. Strengthening our democracy and increasing the engagement of young people. This is about fostering long-lasting engagement with our democracy, building the foundations for their participation in our electoral processes and will be a major change to the electoral franchise with implications for the wider electorate.

However, this commitment does not extend to lowering the age at which an individual is able to hold elected office at national or local level or for other positions such as Police and Crime Commissioners. The government does not plan to change the minimum age eligibility criteria for local office or for your Lordships House. This bill is solely focused on removing the right for Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her clear answer. There is for the discrepancy that it is 21 to become a member of your Lordships House, but 18 to stand for election to another place. Does the noble Lady think that discrepancy noble Lady think that discrepancy ought to continue or should the two houses be equal in that regard?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

houses be equal in that regard? I was just going to touch on an answer, with regard as the noble Lord mentioned during his Lord mentioned during his contribution, with regards to our standing orders, as always their content is a matter for your content is a matter for your Lordships House and that is what he touched upon. With all of this in mind, I respectfully ask noble lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendments. We always say this is an
21:54
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

We always say this is an interesting debate and when I put down these amendments I expected it to be a fascinating debate, which it was. The government always complains was. The government always complains it's a very narrowly focused bill, so why are we talking about these other issues? We are talking about them because it's the Labour Party manifesto and it's only a narrowly drawn bill because politically they decided to make it a narrowly drawn bill and it doesn't have to be that narrowly drawn.

My noble friend supporting amendment colleagues should retire at 85, he made a valid point that we do experience decay and the things we were expert in a few years ago are now getting a bit out of date. I like the idea from the Earl of Devon of an 80-year-old of 10 years of service, I think that's an interesting idea and would permit peers over somebody to get a 10 year term in here. The Earl of Dundee supported an age of 90.

He made a good case, but I'm afraid it will not commence those on the outside it was a serious measure to retire at 80. Lord Parkinson made an intriguing point about reducing the age to 16. Which may match those who may become MPs. God help us if we have MPs at age 16 I got I would not be in the House of Commons of that ever were to happen. Lord Dobbs supporting the Earl of Devon and I liked his stop cord.

Laughter Pam royalties if I use it ever again? -- Will I have to pay him. Supporting The Earl of Devon's amendment, saying 80 was still very high from most organisations and people retire a lot earlier than that. I did like the point he made about transitional arrangements. And allowing new members to come in. The Earl of Atlee said what matters is having active peers. Many over 85 are highly active. I agree with that. I am privileged to serve on the Council of Europe and while I was in Georgia observing the elections a few months ago in my wheelchair and going to a mob trying to sabotage her vehicle, I felt quite active for a 72-year-old.

And Lord Griffiths and another were considerably older than me and also highly active members. I accept you can be over 85 and 90 and still be active here. Lord Burns made an intriguing point that if we didn't have a retirement age of 85, it would reduce the numbers considerably in the first fell swoop, but it would have diminishing effect afterwards. I think that is the case if we continue stuffing in new peers. He did suggest that we could change the dates at a future time and reduce it.

I suggest he looks at my amendment 32 which we will be coming to sometime later and that makes the case, it sets up a procedure whereby if we decide the ages wrong, we can tweak it with further Statutory Instrument, rather than legislation. My noble friend, I agree entirely that it's the quality that matters, not the age. The government wants to reduce the size of the Lords and have chosen to throw out hereditary. I suggest a better way to do it was to have a retirement age.

My noble friend, I agree entirely that peers of all ages make a valuable contribution. He asked a legitimate point which my noble friend also made, with the government please explain why they have adopted this age of 80 as retirement. Lord Newby, I also wish the noble Lord well if he is here on Wednesday, I am not sure if he drinks, but I would happily buy him a glass of champagne to celebrate a marvellous birthday. He made a very good point, that it might be in the interest of some members to retire and occasionally we see colleagues coming into this House.

I always say, I hope my Chief Whip will tell me if I get that far through, please tell me to get out at once. My noble friend made a valid point that 90 is a bit too late and it's a public confidence thing. Yes, we have colleagues, some performing well in their 90s, but it's not credible to the outside public that we have people making legislation which affect their daily lives at that age. In conclusion, the Minister said more discussion is necessary before action.

OK, what will we get that action -- when will we get that action? Home we need it, we get the feeling it is been kicked into the long grass. I and as I began saying the government say this is a very narrowly focused bill, but it doesn't have to be. They are trying to reject the amendments we have suggested and others to come along because it does not fit into the mode of getting rid of hereditary appeals. -- Hereditary Peers.

This could be amended to conclude the issues we have been discussing today and yesterday -- include the issues. Before report stage, I hope we can get some traction on two issues, either around the 85 retirement, which some of us have suggested, or the suggestions by the noble Earl for suggestions by the noble Earl for transitional arrangements of about 80 and a 10 year time limit for new lords coming in and the suggestion that we can tweak it down, perhaps started 85 and a few years later lower it to 80.

I think there could be traction in that. I hope noble lords will get together with better brains in mind and decide what we want to run with that report to try to get something which may get the support of a majority of members in this House. Having said that, I beg this House. Having said that, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 17. Amendment 18. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. I think it is a convenient point to stop, to conclude the proceedings today, so I moved up the House been out resumed. The question is that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be now resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I move And I move that And I move that the And I move that the House And I move that the House do And I move that the House do now adjourn.
13:59
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord McCabe and Baroness Debbonaire
-

22:07
14:00
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord McCabe and Baroness Debbonaire
-

22:07
14:00
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page