05/12/2016 House of Lords

to the House of Lords. The member you can watch recorded coverage of

all of the business in the Lords after the daily politics which are

tonight. The bills passing through Parliament and to highlight and

debate that it is necessary to government policy. For Northern

Ireland to need is to balance the house party political winds and here

lately with the noble lady, party politics is the job of the Commons,

although practicable -- party bicycle balance must be a

consideration when making appointments he need for filling the

house with loyal party members will be much less necessary than is

deemed at present. Any powers the Lords must -- might have come from

the experience of its members and the fact that represents the largest

possible number of professions, regions, classes, sexes, ethnic

groups, religions and special -- and special interests. I am advised that

no person or future pro Minister will ever let Chris the power of

appointments to the House of Lords. They do not. But now was a good time

to try, now everything, the constitution as well as many other

things are all up in the air. I extend my thanks to the noble Lords

for sustaining the effective second chamber grip, which I am a keen

member of and I strongly support the proposals in the title of this

debate. Membership of the group also means that I subscribe to all of the

tenants of the steel bill including making the appointments commission

into a much stronger statutory commission. The deep throat, birdie

and Laura Forsythe and many others have emphasised this and the noble

there has just topped about a similar commission. I mention this

first because the group recognised early on that the PM's patronage has

to be tackled at some stage of reform and I have worked with them

this morning, there has was been resentment of royal patronage as

Laura Trott reminded us and it is clear that image is in numbers to

the size of the Commons we will have to have a cap on your appointments.

But I'm also encouraged by the decision of the political and

considerable reform committee to continue its previous work on the

form and in short, and the quote that the House of Lords continue to

work well by addressing issues such as the size of the chamber. This

time is very well with us, it tends to identify the unarguable next

steps Lords reform. And lords, what are they? Having read the call for

written evidence I conclude that the committee will focus a strong light

on patronage and appointments and I welcome that as a measure which will

certainly command public support. My old friend the noble Viscount use

the term self restraint. That made perhaps avoid the need for

legislation. What gets me the similar suggestion and Lord Gordon

spoke of moderation so inevitably the question honours and awards

should be part of any discussion of future peerages. This and many

peoples you should be separated from appointments to this house. Today's

peers may feel happy to be released from taking part in the legislature

when they only come in on occasion. By ? support a proportional cull

with an election such as happened with Scottish peers and they

experienced in 1999 with my agent and colleagues. This was all very

well with threaded appearance, most of them came to the house, but today

will be very divisive and monopolised by quips factions.

Naturally I reassert the requirement of at least 20% of the house to be

crossbench peers. That figure in the past was 25% or more because of the

Law Lords but it has fallen to 22%. Crossbench life peers are a unique

feature in this Parliament, they are highly respected by the public and I

would even say they are the cornerstone of the current

democratic system. I dare to add that many if not most hereditary

peers can also claim similar expertise in various fields. I have

been pondering on the special problem of crossbench peerages that

they were given different instructions on arrival about

attendance. Most independent peers feel they are only obliged to come

for subject of which they have special knowledge or expertise.

Those chosen by the appointments commission are actually required to

attend as working peers. The noble Baroness lady-killer and Lord Fulke

's and others spoke of the content of the working peer. -- Baroness

lady Taylor. This contributed to the increasingly visible size of a

house. The only reason attendance had not risen faster, because it has

actually gone below 500, is that some peers still do not feel under

any obligation to come in regularly and as experts, and Lord Cromwell

spoke of this, they may well have and should have other occupations.

May that continue. This includes a smaller number among the political

parties and those who feel that they received a period of his award and

an honour. There is a possibility that those peers, both of the water

than those making an occasional contribution, could be classified

differently in future and that is subject for another day. The noble

Baroness said in her previous debate, we must recognise that the

gap between the headline size and average attendance at the sum of the

misunderstanding. My Lords before this we must build more about

retirement. And that'll be a little easier for the committee when it is

set up. I have long felt there should not be an age limit but the

peers approaching 80 should be asked to talk to the whipper convener

about the contributions in the future. -- whip or convener. The

snake advertising -- act as a gentle break and reminder that peers cannot

go on forever. Of course we all more that there are a few exceptions who

will not only go on forever but they make a real contribution even in the

80s and 90s. My Lords we need to come up to date. It is fairly normal

these days for human resources departments to interview and review

staff on a regular basis. Most peers are likely to have some direct

experience of that. The noble Baroness lady father said that there

appears in need of help and advice and we could put a human resources

manager to oversee the process well keeping the responsibility within

parties and groups. I shall be 70 for my next birthday. I feel

relatively active and am beginning to feel able to forecast my

retirement in a few years. Finally I repeat that I fully support the

principle of a cap on numbers, strongly recommend that a committee

set up under the noble Lord Burns I hope as has been mentioned already

by Lord Browne. In the new year and not later, to sort out the solutions

that will in the end achieve unanimity. It is difficult at this

stage of the debate when so many have spoken so well and covered the

ground so extensively to say anything new. So let me make a few

comments and add my support to point already made. First I would like to,

like others, payable in tribute and thanks to my noble friend Lord, for

all of the extensive work over the years that he has done on this issue

and to my noble friend Lord Norton who has wide academic and

forensically experience which we have greatly benefited from. Second,

does it matter that we are so large? Larger than the House of Commons and

the largest second chamber in the world? Some say that it doesn't,

because we should take into account the nature of this house, the daily

attendance reflecting the fact that so many peers have outside expertise

and experience which is why partly they appointed, and come mainly when

that knowledge can be put to good use. So they say the daily

attendance of just under 500 is the figure two years and my noble friend

Lady Hooker is meant in this point and I have to say I disagree. I

cannot accept that argument now that the elected chamber discussion is

not on the agenda, I believe size is the big issue for us. Easy for the

media to attack and great unfavourable public impressions, and

made even worse when the premised upon even more peers because the

government has far from a working majority in this place. This is now

our most vulnerable point, moreover, the last Conservative manifesto

committed the government to tackle the issue of size of our chamber and

the public administration and cause additional affairs committee and the

Hazard, does we now all realise is about to embark on an enquiry. So

size is big-time back on the agenda. And I believe that we must make our

views known. Third, my noble friend Lord -- Lord Hodge will revert to

the Association of Conservative peers of which I was chairman for

some years until earlier this year and we did, the executive of the

Association, did produce a unanimously agreed paper which was

pushed to the whole ACP at the beginning of this year and certainly

seemed to get wide acceptance and support. Some of the main

conclusions were that the awards should have as objective in

membership no larger than the Commons and that the composition of

the house should be responsive to any major changes in support for

political parties in general elections. We had too many

recommendations, first we agreed with the group, the Labour group of

peers and Baroness Taylor talked about this earlier in the

discussion, we agreed with the proposal and the working group that

there should be a compulsory retirement age of 80 at the end of a

parliament in which the peer reaches that H. And that was agreed by all

others, and I have to say, like me, many of us will be affected by it in

this Parliament and I still believe it is right. I would happily accept

that. I have always supported the measure that the noble Lord Lord

steel introduced about retirement, but we have to say that the numbers

of voluntary retirement is taken up to not match the new numbers of

peers coming in so it is not truly a big contribution to the size

question, however necessary and desirable it is so I believe that we

must move on. We hear this proposal criticised on grounds that so-and-so

in his or her 80s still makes a good contribution. But so what? Nearly

every other profession as a retirement age on or more usually

well below 80. Once experience becomes outdated, and mental

faculties not always so quick as they used to be.

verify my experience of working in industry and other areas which I

gave up three or four years ago does become outdated and so I don't think

that that is a very valid point. Unless we have this measure we will

reduce the numbers of new members with more recent experience and

freshness that can come in. Every vibrant organisation needs to do

that and I believe that there is a consensus for the proposal. A

consensus I believe in different parties. But here's the thing, as

the House stands at present there would be disproportionate effects

between the parties of that age proposal and we wanted to avoid

addressing that by allowing the Prime Minister of the day simply to

approve many more new peers which is the way of dealing with it at the

moment, thus adding to the size problem. We propose in our paper a

system that would keep the size of the House at 600, assuming the Lords

spiritual numbers stay the same, allocating a fixed reporter for

crossbenchers and allocating the remaining 80% to the political

party, their share of the seats reflecting general election results

and this is important, achieved by internal party elections. One other

point of the position of voluntary retirement of peers. There is

currently a disincentive under this proposal to retire for many

particularly in the governing party. Because another peer retired as

another vote last and a further threat of more divisions lost and I

think that's an incentive, a disadvantage, sorry, which causes

some of us not to undertake that voluntary retirement. I conclude on

this note, we pride ourselves on being a self-regulating house, if we

don't address this issue, others will do it for us like the Commons

select committee. So I believe there's a compelling case and I

strongly support the setting up of our own select committee to cover

all these issues. When I became a life peer, my

children told me that being an unelected parliamentarian was a

contradiction in terms. This is why I preach in such an important

activity for me and for us and I have found that after explaining to

schools and to universities and other organisations the work that we

do in holding governments to account, in scrutinising and

improving legislation, in protecting the rights and lives of our fellow

citizens, our committee work, especially with the premise of the

other place has explained, most people support the work that we do.

They are less concerned that we are unelected, that we have hereditary

peers, that some are part-timers but the one thing that is not understood

is our number and the cost. And it rankles and it tarnishes the work we

do. This is why I think the timing is long overdue to do something

about it but I welcomed the debate and support the motion. My Lords,

it's not as if we're short of ideas. We had a Royal commission in April

19 909I made a submission to it. We've had four White papers, draft

bills, reports from select committees from academics, from

think tanks, from our own clerk of the parliament and from our own

Parliamentary groups and generally, where numbers are concerned, what it

boils down to is that we should be no larger than the other place and

they are looking to reduce their numbers. Other noble Lords have

detailed the mechanics and I don't need to go through them. Others have

said at the same time as we are reducing our numbers, the Prime

Minister and the appointments commission must point only when

there is a vacancy. That must point. There has to be a formula fixing the

balance between the groups. Perhaps relating to the result of the last

three elections but with no political majority and some 20 or

25% of the crossbenchers, the important thing is that these

measures should all happen together. I might add that much of the

detailed work and analysis has already been done by Professor May

Russell and her colleagues of the Constitution unit at University

College. Conceivably, your Lordships could take things into their own

hands for example, introducing new peers only when we think is a

vacancy. In a way, this happens with the bishops. Also, a move to the QE2

centre during our and our could force us to reduce our numbers by

virtue of insufficient space. I agree with other noble Lords back to

preserve our reputation, we have to get our own house in order otherwise

others will do it for us. We know that a large part of our population

are discontented with mainstream politics. Some are discontented with

us. Even the Prime Minister has called us bloated. Has the legal

leader Google bloated House of Lords recently. It's very instructive.

There are pages of entries headed by the Prime Minister's use of the

phrase on the 8th of August. This can lead to fake news websites and

the hashtag, cut the bloated Lords directing ridiculed towards us and

this can only damage our work and damage our reputation. Is this

something that worries noble Lords? It does me. All the more reason why

we have to get on with reforming for numbers. That a select committee put

the proposal to us and soon. My lords, I have a variation to suggest

to the noble Lord Lord for Members of the House to retire. If life

peers retire immediately their peerages should be converted to

hereditary peers bearing no right to a seat in this house, it would cost

nothing and I believe it would be effective. My lords, I just want to

make four reef I have to say to my noble friend

Lord Cromwell and Baroness Hooper that it really is not sustainable to

say that the size of the House does not matter on the grounds that it is

a pool from which members contribute when they have relevant expertise.

Firstly, as Lord he would have said, we have substantially more members

than we need to do our job. Not only that, but there is a substantial

number of members who do not contribute to the work of the House

either by attending or speaking in debates or serving on committees. To

add to the statistics that Lord steel gave, well over 100 Members of

the House attend less than 15% of the sitting days. Others attend only

one whipped by their parties to vote. We have a long tail and it

could substantially be reduced with benefit to our reputation without

reducing our ability to do our work. My second point is that the problem

of our size is no more urgent than it has been in the past. As a noble

Lord, Lord Gordon said, the opposition political parties in this

house now have a substantial majority over the government. And

when the act together they can defeat the government at will. There

are only two ways in which this can be dealt with. One is by the Prime

Minister making rather appointments to this house is on a scale which

would damage public perception of the House even further. The second

is by the opposition parties showing self restraint, which to their

credit, they do at least most of the time. But this is not a satisfactory

basis on which to run our house of parliament. Thirdly, I want to deal

with the issue of the Prime Minister's exercise of patronage.

When I worked in government, I had the privilege of sitting in on

discussions between the then Prime Minister 's and the leader of this

house on appointments were to be made. The Prime Minister would ask

the leader what areas of expertise needed to be reinforced in order to

help this house to fulfil its scrutinising role. Whether it was

people with expertise in science or business or medicine or cultural

activities or many others. With no disrespect to any of those appointed

recently it is difficult to believe that this happens with political

appointments today. The main concern is to have been simply to get the

government's voting numbers up. Finally, and I say this with great

temerity, I've venture to be less pessimistic than the noble Lords

Lord Wakeham and Viscount Hailsham about the prospect of getting

effective action taken subject to one condition. That condition is

that any legislation must be first introduced and debated and passed in

your Lordships's house. I believe that it will pass your lordship's

house even if it does not give the Liberal Democrats what they want. If

however painful it is fair. If it is passed by this house and doesn't

threaten the position of the House of Commons, I think there is a good

chance that it will pass that house as well. I believe that we should go

forward with determination and with confidence.

A good deal of what the noble Lord Lord Butler has said I do believe

that an act of Parliament is ultimately necessary. It's true that

we can do quite a lot but I think a select committee examining this

would find that there are some essential aspects which require to

be dealt with by an act of Parliament. The most important of

these of course is the prerogative of the Prime Minister in appointing

peers to this house. My lords, I entirely agree with the view that

the size of this house for various reasons and including very

irrelevant reasons has become an obstacle to us fulfilling our task

with a degree of acceptance in the community in which it should have.

My lords, our fundamental task is to revise legislation which has been

passed by the House of Commons. It is true that in the past from time

to time and in this year itself there have been bills that have been

started in this house. I think that is perfectly reasonable way of

proceeding in some cases, for example, I had responsibility for

the embryo bill which came here and which was discussed by eminent

experts who knew all about these matters before it went to the House

of Commons. I was glad to say that on the really essential issue,

namely when embryo research should be allowed, the House of Commons

accepted the view that have found favour here. If you go for a

completely free vote as we did on that bill because of its nature,

you're always risking the House of Commons on House of Lords might take

different views but that extremely well and I think it is a very

important piece of legislation in an area which is outside the ordinary

scope of legislation which we have to pass. The fundamental job of this

house is revise all of legislation with these exceptions that I've just

mentioned. Over the time that I've been here, which is now a long time

and I would pass any retirement age that could reasonably be thought of

immediately, so I'm not objecting to that at all but on the other hand I

think it is for somebody else to say it, possibly, rather than myself.

Anyhow, the central task is the revision of legislation. During my

time in this house, the House of Commons has found itself and I have

never been in that house, found itself more and more subject to

very, very heavy tasks arising into constituencies. They find that so

many people have problems that they have to deal with. And one of the

results of that, I think, judging from afar is that they don't have so

much time and possibly so much inclination to revise the detail of

the bills in Parliament. It is not a particularly attractive

task. But it is mightily important because if it goes out of here

wrong, it can do a terrific damage to a lot of people. I think we have

found a way to deal with that and often with contentious matters.

There is an atmosphere in this House to try to get the right answer

irrespective of any sort of political consideration. I have

relished the atmosphere in this House since I came here a long time

ago and I think that atmosphere still continues in an attempt to

find a satisfactory answer which will do right for all manner of

people, even if we are not judges, we still try to do write to all

manner of people in accordance with the usages of this room. It does

seem to me very important that that role is preserved and that people

who are willing to undertake that and undertake it as a fairly

comprehensive use of their time are here to do it. My noble friend

talked about coming from a distance. I actually live in Inverness, which

is quite a distance from here, but I do think it is possible, if you are

devoted to it, that you should come and try to carry out your

responsibilities. When one has a certain amount of experience in this

area, I find it really a responsibility, so long as I can

come to come. Not every day, not every week, but as often as I

possibly can and certainly to matters which seemed to me to be

something upon which I know something about, such as the

University 's bill tomorrow. It is extremely important that we should

have people here who have that mission and I do believe there are a

lot of people here who have that mission. I do not wish to show

myself as an bulk into the people who have recently come. On the

contrary, many of them are better than me are doing just that, but if

we are to succeed in reducing the membership of the number of this

House, then we have to have a statutory cap on that because

otherwise that is the only way in which we can control the size after

it is produced. It is one thing to reduce it and another thing to keep

it reduced and I do believe a statutory cap is necessary and there

are complications about that which a Select Committee would be

appropriate to consider. Statutory complications, for example, people

in this House changed their religions. The move from being in

the Conservative Party to the crossbenches, more often than

perhaps other parties. These are difficulties but they should not be

obstacles to carrying out this fundamental task of reducing this to

a way which is accommodating to the important task. My Lords, it is a

great pressure and privileged to follow the noble and learned Lord,

and I respectfully agree with absolutely everything he has said.

It is very helpful to have this debate today. When I was interviewed

as a crossbench candidate, I was asked, if I got it, but I attend. I

said, of course. It was a great privilege, having been interpreting

legislation that a previous 35 years. And I am very glad that he

was asked by the Prime Minister whether he would attend and it seems

to me it is a question to be asked of every possible pier because

otherwise, what on earth is the point of coming here? I had to say,

remembering what he said, I attend nearly every day and I am not alone

in that and I bitterly resent what he said about the crossbenches not

attending because most of us attend very regularly and I would like to

feel, and I'm afraid it is not in the Chamber at the moment, that

perhaps he might retract that because it really is not a fair

comment on the work that we do. I will certainly not referring to the

noble lady and to a large number of people who do attend regularly but

if she looks at the figures I got from the library, she will see that,

of the three political groups and crossbenches, the Liberal Democrats

have the highest attendance, Labour next, conservative next, then

crossbenches least. There are a number who were unable to attend and

I think we should take account of that. I make no insult the noble

lady. I withdrew what I said. But there is hard core of crossbench

members who attend very regularly and consider that our duty is to do

the work of the House among other peers. I have to say, being 83 now,

I do agree with the noble Lord steel and the noble Lord McGregor that it

would be a very sensible compromise that those who are 80 at the end of

the Parliament, should go, and it would immediately reduce those not

well above 600 members, therefore it would be a good idea. There is

another point of course. When this House is relocated, there will be a

lot of retirements, so it may be by that stage that a lot will be done,

but this is 2022 or whatever it may be, and I entirely agree with other

noble Lords that we absolutely have to get on with it now because the

suggestion by the noble lady that 800 does not matter is quite simply

not true. We are seen as ridiculous by many people and the word bloated

that the noble Lord Judge said another supplanted out is

undoubtedly true. Consequently, we have got to move to the next stage,

which is the Select Committee. There is considerable unanimous in its

beyond that which will take evidence and it should make recommendations

and should be done in months not years. It should and could consider

what steps this House could take by resolutions within our own

procedures but I do recognise, and as the noble Leonard Lord said, at

some stage that may lead to legislation. That Select Committee

must identify what it is we cannot do ourselves and then, as the noble

Baroness said, acted together, we are actually very influential. We

should use our influence so long as this House is unanimous to put very

considerable pressure upon the Other House to deal with patronage, which

is an open sort, and other matters which we cannot do ourselves. But I

really agree with the noble Baroness and Lord Butler that we could

actually get a lot done, both in our own work and in the Other Place that

we could have a bill that started in this House. This is been a very good

debate and an important one. It is not an exercise in navel-gazing. It

matters because this House matters. Addressing science is only part but

a necessary part of what needs to be done to protect and enhance the role

of this House as a valuable and invaluable second chamber. This

House adds value and contrary to what some have said is justifiable

in democratic terms. Democracy is about how people choose to govern

themselves. In a representative democracy, the choice of who is to

govern is fundamental. In the United Kingdom, we choose a government

through elections to the House of Commons, a government responsible

for its programme of public policy and accountable for that policy to

be electors at the next election. There is a core accountability. We

have the benefit of the second chamber that fulfils tasks that add

value to political process without challenging that core

accountability. As my colleague, a specialist in democratic theory, put

it in evidence to the joint committee on the draft House of

Lords reform bill, if you divide some country within Parliament, you

undermine the capacity of Parliament to give effect to be will of the

people. We have a chamber that draws on experienced expertise to

complement the work of the elected house. By general consent, we do a

good job. This House does a good job. Debates about Lords reform

focuses primarily on composition, not on functions. There is a general

agreement about the functions of a complimentary second chamber. The

House of Lords reform bill in 2012 was premised on the House continuing

doing its existing job but of course composition and functions are

intrinsically linked. Who is in the House determines how effectively the

functions are fulfilled. We are a legitimate chamber but whereas the

Commons takes its legitimacy for granted through election, our

legitimacy has to be earned through the work that we do. We therefore

need to ensure that we are working effectively and efficiently. We need

to ensure that the quality of what we do is maintained. We know from

the poll of 2007 that electors considered the two most important

factors in determining the legitimacy of this House to be trust

in the appointments process and in considering legislation carefully

and in detail. 76% considered trust in the appointments process to be

very important. 73% thought the same for considering legislation

carefully and in detail. Election came way lower. It is three years

almost to the day since I initiated a debate on the size of the House.

It was clear then there was a problem. The problem is even greater

now. As we have heard of legislative chambers that meet regularly

throughout the year, we are the largest. It is true that the Chinese

National People's Congress has more members but it meets the only two

weeks Ichi! It is true we have a smaller membership than existed

prior to the 1999 act. The difference is in terms of activity

and perception. There is an expectation now that those who are

created as peers should contribute to be work of the House. The level

of activity places a burden on the resources of the House and on the

public purse. Any inactivity reflects badly on the House since we

appear to be carrying passengers. So either way, there is a problem. We

need to address size and that necessarily entails not only

reducing numbers but also as we have heard Contra link future

appointments. That is where public perception is important. Some noble

Lords appear to say, this is not too important, it is only perception. We

do not exist in a vacuum. The more we grow in number, the more the

media draw attention to our size, whatever the good work that we do.

Indeed, as we have heard, but that coverage masks the work of the

House. That is the reality. New creations will be pored over by the

media to see if someone has been a party donor. It only takes one for

the media to generalise about the whole. Whatever we say, that will

remain the case. We need to move from deprecating

such activity to doing something practical about it. Hence this

motion and the recognition that action needs to be taken. It's quite

clear from this debate what that action needs to be. We need to

establish a select committee to address the various options for

reducing the size of the House. This has been stressed, we can't resolve

what the precise action is in a single debate such as this. The

noble Lord Lord Anderson seem to think that the committee may not

reach agreement and that somehow that was therefore an argument for

not having a committee. My lords, if there's going to be committee with

majority and minority view I'd rather have a majority and minority

view than no committee at all. That can come forward with

recommendations, the sooner we get underway the better and the sooner

the committee reports the better. It need not be a lengthy exercise. It

is a start, it may not succeed but it is an essential start. I trust

that the member will reply and it's not a parochial issue it's about

ensuring the constitutional arrangements of this place benefit

the people. It is a necessary part. Let us get on with it and then

address what else needs to be done. I have no difficulty in agreeing on

the motion for your Lordships house and I'm tempted to follow Lord

Forsyth's advice and sit down now. Sadly for him on the House, he would

be so lucky. I'm a start with an admission, in a previous incarnation

I was responsible albeit to a modest extent for increasing the size of

your lordship house. When I was chief of staff we got the proposal

from the then Prime Minister Tony Blair about a very modest increase

in the number of Liberal Democrat peers which we rejected that it was

modest and we would like a few more. We try to find out what the other

parties were getting and we were told that was a problem and couldn't

be told we said unless we got a few more we went to agree to any. A

great deal of huffing and puffing. Ended up with 60% more than had been

on the original note. This was haggling about the composition of a

legislator in one of the world's largest countries. This was on this

process remains ridiculous and unsustainable in the long term. As

you know and might noble colleagues have set out, particularly Lord

Tyler and Lord Reynard, my party has had a long-standing policy to elect

people to your Lord's house and reduce the number of people who are

here. We believe it is legitimate to derive from the people. In the 21st

century and in a modern innovative country such as ours, it is wrong

the public has never had the opportunity to vote for members of

this house to hold as to account on our record. Individually and

collectively as Members of the House, we are legislators and it

seems to me straightforwardly that we should be accountable through

elections to those who may expect to follow the laws which we enact. One

point that has been made by a number of noble Lords this evening

strengthens the argument about regional representation in your

lordship's has, as long as we have the current system there will be a

predominance of people from London and the south-east in this house.

There is a lot of talk about rebalancing the economy. The

northern regions are not fully represented in your lordship house.

Until they are. Any sense of political rebalancing in terms of

the balance of argument is simply will not happen. And regional

elections would help to redress that balance. It's also worth pointing

out that every other second chamber in the world, I think, except

possibly the Council of Elders and Papa New Guinea is elected and

although they may all be wrong and we may be. 16 Chambers are not

wholly appointed. I stand corrected. I better be given because the noble

Lord will correctly. Very many tens of countries with more than one

chamber and therefore a minority at best have an unelected second

chamber. Wholly elected chambers are in a minority, there is no one model

that is an absolute majority. One of the great strengths of your

lordship's house which would undoubtedly disappear if we were all

elected by this kind of seminar and it would probably not be possible to

take place. I stand corrected on that point but I do not resign from

the point that an elected house or a predominantly elected house would be

superior to the current house and I strongly supported the attempt by my

colleague in another place Nick Clegg winning coalition to bring

such a change about. If such a change had been brought about the

exasperation is of the noble Lord Forsyth and others about the number

of Liberal Democrats in your lordship's house would already have

been largely a sweet because we would have had elections and we

wanted that and we still would like it, we may not always do desperately

well but in principle we are happy to fight elections. I'm grateful for

the support from the noble Lord. Much discussion today has been about

the need for consensus as we move forward and where there is a

considerable degree of consensus is around the role of the House,

notwithstanding some of the concerns on this issue. Strong legitimate

role for a second chamber to scrutinise and revise the

government's agenda to hold the executive to account the work of

select committees. Ensure a sober second thought was built into the

process. Collectively, the House takes its role extremely seriously.

We spent the vast majority of our time picking over the fine detail of

legislation continually asking the government have you got this right,

have you considered this different aspect when the policy decision was

taken and does it do what you want to do? My experience as a whip in

government is when the government lost a vote, usually it was because

we lost the argument. This was a very difficult thing to accept that

the time but it was the case and asking the Commons in no

circumstances to think again was in my view of great benefit to the way

that legislation is developed. The chamber has become much more

professional and how it carries out its important role since 1999 and

it's acted in a number of ways to improve itself already. We've taken

measures to strengthen the code of conduct and ensure the standards in

public life are observed and we've had legislation on the initiatives

of Rod Steele and Lady him into ensure that those who are convicted

of a criminal offence and sentenced for more than a year cease to be

Members of the House and to strengthen our ability to take

action unnecessary to expel or suspend members. These changes have

been achieved by consensus. There is consensus that the size of the House

should be reduced and the other principles that the other Lords of

mentioned that it should be smaller than the Commons, we should retain

an element of crossbenchers and that no political party should have a

majority. But here, consensus begins to break down and as Lord Wakeham

pointed out in his typically Wyse speech. This lack of consensus

applies to matters greatly small, all of which could in theory in

their wake enhance the credibility and reputation of the House. Such

measures which would be very quickly implemented. The House to agree the

recommendation contained in the report of the Privileges and Conduct

committee undermining public confidence in the House to

strengthen the code of conduct with a disrepute. There is no consensus

to do it so it's probably not going to happen. Another measure which was

initially proposed by my former noble friend in 2006 was in the

original draft of the bill by Lord steel would be to end the system of

hereditary by-elections was that this has now been taken up by Lord

broker antique and certainly be assured of my support with his bill.

When it was introduced, the by-election system was supposed to

be a temporary measure until the then Labour government's second

stage of Lords reform was completed. As a junior whip on the 1999 bill I

remember the noble Baroness Jay, as Leader of the House at her most

imperious slapping down people who said that the system of by-elections

for hereditary peers was a nonsense on the grounds that it may not be

perfect but because it would never be acted because there would be a

second phase of reform why was anybody worried. We have seen what's

happened there. Another measure which could be considered this

significantly reducing the role of patronage and the appointment of

Members of the House by giving a stronger role for the independent

appointments commission. And ensuring that the commission is

placed on a statutory basis. The issue of scrutinising the

suitability and commitment of potential members does have

unanimity amongst this house and we should get ahead and do that. Of all

the more substantive proposals put forward, they have clearly got major

strengths and weaknesses. I have a lot of sympathy with the proposal of

my noble colleague Lord steel on the retirement age although I know this

makes me very unpopular with certain members of my group and there are

certainly no consensus to do it. I have sympathy with the suggestion

that there should be and not retirement is a certain percentage

of attendance isn't reached in a session although I think that given

a number of people who make good contributions here are doing things

outside and can't be here all the time, we'd have to set the bar

significantly lower than the 30-40% suggested. I don't agree with the

other suggestion that we should have a moratorium in terms of

appointments because whilst it should be turned it would be a

mistake to turn it because otherwise we just get we get an ever present

house. On that point about having time to come here, when I was

appointed by the appointments commission, like my noble friend

Baroness Butler Sloss, I was extremely worried because I had

composing and broadcasting commitments and I felt I couldn't

give the House what it might need. The chairman at that time who is

sitting here today said if you have a real commitment to come, that is

what we need and so my Lords, I have attempted, I cannot always come

every moment of the day at like for example this evening and I was very

interested that it more interventions would be welcome

because it means people can come and participate even if they cannot hear

at the beginning of the day. I think he makes my point. I realise my time

is virtually up and what I would just conclude in looking at all the

suggestions that have been made and discussed is that any further work

which is now undertaken will need to look at both sides of all of them,

the upsides and downsides because the lack of consensus on all of them

just about demonstrates that none of them are unambiguously without

problem. I'm a proud member of this house and it does play a significant

and positive role but I fully accept that this role is devalued in the

minds of many people by its size. I and my colleagues will look at

methods short of the elections which we would prefer but which I

recognise we're not going to get in the foreseeable future, look at

methods by which this might be done. After today's debate, despite some

consensus we're under no illusions that this is going to be easy. This

has certainly been an interesting evening, interesting debate and I'm

grateful for Lord to instigate it. Also for the government Chief Whip

giving us time to have this debate. Perhaps my most enjoyable part was

the exchange between the noble Lord Norton and noble Lord

Despite the inevitable impact on his benches, he was still happy to go

forward with the elections. Our first seasonal greetings of turkeys

voted early for Christmas. We have had a large number of speakers today

and it reflects the issue and also the fact we are a self regulating

house. We seek solutions ourselves on how to move forward on this

issue. Many other areas of Lords reform has been initiated from your

lordship's house. And if there are to be changes on things like size,

it is helpful to proceed with consensus and broad agreement.

Labour peers have considered this issue for some time. We all seen our

2014 report. The future of the House of Lords and its place within the

wider constitution. We have not had much to baked it about its place in

the wider constitution. Certainly during the cause of to my's debate,

there have been things I have agreed to disagree down. The noble Lord,

who is a very experienced man in this matter, said it is difficult

and complicated but we can make a start. Tonight, we made that start.

We heard the views on what the problem is, how it can be resolved,

but there was broad agreement on how we could be a better understood,

reflective chamber held in higher regard if we could do that with

fewer members. But the first principle should be of course the

form follows function and the role of this House has to be the central

part of our debate. We are clear on what we do and how we can best do it

and that will scrutinise the revising chamber, valuable one. The

Canadian Senate, the first Prime Minister of Canada described the

Senate as a chamber of sober second thought. I thought that was quite an

analogy about how to approach things in many ways but I have also got no

doubt that governments have become less tolerant of that sober second

thought and indeed that more independent thought. I don't know if

noble Lords have followed the news today but the political crisis in

Italy started on a referendum about reducing the size and power of the

Senate, the second chamber. The Prime Minister has been accused of a

power grab by reducing their powers in defence of the second chamber.

Look what is happening there. This Parliament has been difficult for

the government. It is the first time ever that a Conservative government

did not have an automatic majority in your lordship's house and but the

government and opposition parties had to manage that. And despite some

transitional pick-ups, as the House, we have manage that process well.

Being in opposition does not mean the government gets its own way

every time but neither does it mean and opposition can deny the right of

an elected government to implement the programme on which it is

elected. We also heard that every government has tended to appoint

more of its own party peers and fewer of the opposition. From 1997,

when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, there were 477

Conservative peers and 117 Labour, but even then, it was only after

eight years and two electoral landslide is that the Labour Party

became the largest party in this House in 2005. Yet the pace then

from 2010 certainly gathered and the Conservative Party, despite being

two parties in government, the Conservative Party in the Liberal

Democrats, when power. Part of the problem short-term decisions taken

in recent years and a lack of understanding is of the role of the

House. David Cameron appointed more peers take faster rate than any

other Prime Minister since 1958 when life peerages were introduced. That

then became further complicated because a significant number of

those peers who were appointed from the Liberal Democrats benches were

used to be over there, they went to 104 from just 72. But then they went

into opposition on this side of the House, the Prime Minister felt he

had to appoint more Conservative peers to try to balance, I think

about it up was the expression used by noble Lords, in order to

compensate for his party of government being in opposition. That

is not the sole reason but as part of the reason why the size of the

House has grown. In looking at addressing size, there are two

issues. One is reputational and the other is practical. When I first

came here six years ago, we never had an overflow seating area the

members from this House. That is something new that has come about

from the increase in the size of the House. We should also recognise the

reputational issue. No noble Lords have commented on the numbers who

attend and those who are entitled to attend but it is not enough to say,

it is OK to stop it is almost a suggestion to other peers who in

turn up. That is not acceptable. Every member of your house is an

equal and is entitled to be here and is entitled to vote. I am sure I was

not the only one that winced when we heard one member of this House

complaining that he was appointed as a honour but did not like the being

called in to vote. That is an embarrassment for this House. I

disagree with the noble lord. It is not a part-time house. We often sit

longer than the other end. But what we have is members of this House do

not have to be full-time official politicians to engage in the work of

scrutiny and holding the government to account. So how do we achieve

reducing our size? We can agree there is an issue, we can agree on

the principle, but how do we make that? The noble Lord Cormack was

very helpful in talking about principle not detail. Inevitably,

talking about principle, we look at detail. I agree with the noble Lord

Newby that every proposal will have its downside also have its benefits.

That is what we need to take into account a look at. If we look at the

issue of retirement age, and I very uncomfortable, my great friend to

introduce me to this place, whatever age we identify with, we would not

be happy for him to go, whatever age we suggest, we can all identify

noble Lords to make an amazing contribution to this House and a few

others in younger than them who don't. There is that but I think we

do find that most noble Lords will choose an age five years above the

age they are. That is something that should be looked at but we cannot

look at that sober. Some members of this House, not just the

crossbenchers, a number of common once they are retired from their

profession because they want to use their expertise in the work of this

House. If we look at just attendance, that affect the

crossbenchers. We should expect a basic level of activity in

commitment to this House from all noble Lords. Having said that, we

also need to recognise the contribution of those who do not

attend very regularly but, when they do, they are experience, they add

expertise in value to the work we do, and it is getting the balance

between those two issues so we do justice to our colleagues or also we

have expectations that people are not just here, there is a rule to be

played in legislation in the work we do. Another issue that has come up

is to tie numbers here in some way to... I am totally opposed to using

the previous election alone as some kind of marker for numbers and

proportions the different parties and crossbenchers. What we should

look at perhaps is trends elections but I have this House bouncing about

from one side to the other because of an election result seems to me to

undermine the very essence of what we are about and not a reflection of

the House of Commons. We are distinct and separate. We complement

and work with the House of Commons but we are different. The noble Lord

made a similar point about three elections as well. But we have to

take care about how we look at that. What are the guiding principles were

looking at size? For me, but is non-negotiable is a couple numbers.

It is not have to be an absolute number, it can be a band. I

discussed this with the noble lady and it was totally unacceptable to

the government as Parliament has to have the right to make appointments

and they cannot be bettered in any way. I am not talking about removing

patronage of Prime Ministers. But there are limits. Unless a cap is

agreed, there is no value or agreement on how to reach a

reduction in size. If they that period of time, it can grow back, it

will only be with more government appointments. I have had colleagues

say to me, I would retire but, if I do, I will just create a government

they can see. That is not what this House should be about. I'm not

talking about an exact number but there has to be a band that puts a

top level on it. The other point is one should follow function. 450 was

a suggestion looked up. The reason they came to that figure was because

the committee work this House does and it is not just about

legislation. The work of our committees, we have done EU work on

EU legislation and statutory instruments and of course with

Brexit coming along, there may well be increased activity in your

lordship's house because we need to make sure that the government is

given advice from this House to address all issues. Whatever that

number is, it is less likely to be... It is likely to be less than

the Commons but relative size of the Commons is not the driver. The work

we do and how we do that work should be the driver. It is inevitable it

would be smaller than the Commons. A very quick final point. Another

point which I can strongly about as Leader of the Opposition. We have to

take into account political balance. There is no official opposition and

government embarrassed to be recognised. We talked about 20%.

There has to be recognition that we are a political Parliament and there

is a role for political parties and that has to be recognised to be an

official recognition. I would not go down the Canadian root of all

members being appointed as independents. But you want to ensure

that political recognition is taken into account. Finally, if we reduce

in size... It is inevitable that a spotlight would be shone on the

appointments process. It is time that we need greater transparency in

how appointments are made. I am not trying to stop Prime Ministers

making their judgment and other parties making their political

judgments of who they want in here but that has to be some openness

about the criteria used. We have an appointments commission that has

five peers and two independents. Should we look at the great role of

independence we would have a more widespread and diverse role on how

we appoint peers. But we have made an important start the day and I

want to end the absurdity of the elections for hereditary peers. The

whole house recognises that time has come. I do think there is something

we should be doing the show do we understand the concerns the public

have and we share those concerns. There is opportunity here. While not

having a complete consensus, there is broad agreement that we want to

move forward. I am grateful to everyone for their contributions to

this debate and to my noble friend for securing the opportunity for us

to discuss this important matter. What today's debate has shown is

that across the House, there is a strong desire to ensure we continue

and indeed improve the way we perform our critical scrutinising

and revising role. What has also come across loud and clear is the

concern noble Lords have about the public's perception and

understanding of As leader I want to be clear at the

outset that I've had the strength of feeling on this issue. I would also

add that I am strongly of the view that any action we might take in

respect of the size of the House must at heart enhance our ability to

perform for vital role of revision and scrutiny. Any reform cannot and

must not simply be about numbers. It must result in this house working

better both in terms of fulfilling our role effectively serving the

public at large. What has been encouraging about today's debate is

that this strong desire for us to work constructively together across

the House. In order to make progress on the issue. I'm strongly all the

view that it is the only way that progress can be made. However, as

noble Lords would no doubt expect me to say about a topic that has

occupied your lordship's has for many years this is not something we

will be able to make decisions on immediately and implement reforms

overnight. As noble as have said in the debate. Today is not the day

that I will be assessing the merits of every process proposal today. We

can reflect further on the detail of noble Lords's contributions. What I

would like to do is set out my approach. In doing so I would like

to remind noble Lords this is a subject they'll be considering the

two different roles to play. As leader of the whole house it is my

responsibility to ensure that we remain able to perform our role as a

scrutinising and revising chamber as effectively as possible, com

fermenting the work of the elected house and any changes we make are

consistent with that purpose. We want to consider proposals raised

across all size of the House and see your solutions can be found. This

debate reflects the fact that one of the most frequent issues noble Lords

have raised with me since I've become leader is concerned about the

negative public perception of this house and the view that our size is

one of the contributing factors to this. I understand these concerns

and agree that we must reflect upon how we can better command public

confidence in the excellent work that we do. Secondly I am also a

leader in this house of the government benches, a government

elected with a manifesto that acknowledge that size is an issue.

Has a number of noble Lords have acknowledged that must be right when

there are so many pressing legislative priorities. Not least

around the UK's exit from the EU and our ambitious social reform agenda.

I'm sure noble Lords will not be surprised that I will not be setting

up a stall at this stage and proposing specific changes and I

think today's debate has shown that there is further work to do to reach

a broad consensus on the precise way forward. However, neither am I

suggesting that we should simply set ourselves and aspect. That is

rightly collectively seek a solution to address concerns about the size

of this house raised to date whilst ensuring we continue to refresh and

renew our expertise and our outlook so we remain relevant to the Britain

of today and of the future. Whatever reforms might be implemented, it is

essential that this house continues to be able to draw on the invaluable

breadth of expertise and experience of peers as we do today. Over the

last few years we have shown what progress can be made when we come

together to make this house work more effectively, a number of noble

Lords have mentioned whether enabling members to retire from the

House, legislating so that members are removed when they do not end at

all or giving this house the power to expel members for serious

misconduct. These may have been incremental changes but the sum of

their parts has been significant and I know many noble Lords who have

spoken today and they are impatient for more wide reaching reform but we

shouldn't underestimate the importance of what has already been

achieved and of the value of taking steps forward together. I sense that

noble Lords want to bring that same spirit of moving forward in light of

today's debate. For while it will not be possible either practically

or politically to achieve everything that has been raised this evening, I

hope that it will be possible for us to examine and consider what kind of

ideas might be able to command support across the House in relation

to our size. And if in light of that consideration there are ideas for

proposals that are able to command broad consensus then I would welcome

working with noble Lords, both as Leader of the House and as a member

of the government to explore taking them forward. My Lords, following on

from today's constructive debate we have an opportunity to make

progress. It is clear that there is strong feeling across all benches

that the size of the House is an issue of concern and noble Lords

want to continue discussions about how we might look to address this.

Although I think it's also fair to say that there is not currently

clear agreement on what a solution might be. In further discussions

about our size and will be important that we reflect on the work we do

and consider how we can do it more effectively. As I have said, I am

clear that any further reform must enhance our role as a chamber of

scrutiny and revision and that we must be able to draw on a wealth of

experience and expertise. I'll reflect on the comments made this

evening and consider how best to take matters forward. I also want to

speak with my fellow leaders, the convener and the noble lord the Lord

Speaker to consider the best approach to take. As I have made

clear, I believe that if we are to make any progress on the issue, we

have to do it together as a house. The way forward will not be one

instigated, lead and imposed by government alone. A number of noble

Lords have suggested the select committee is their preferred way

forward. As the House will know we have a liaison committee that

oversees select committees and is currently seeking submissions for

next year's act ad hoc committees and that may be a route that some of

you wish to preserve. I would also like to consider and reflect on

whether a more immediate and practical step could be taken in

convening a small bag Bentaleb consultative group whose work could

be overseen by the Lord Speaker. Such a group could be well placed

early on to look at pragmatic options for progress on this issue,

analyse their implications and identify the important questions

that need to be resolved so we can move forward. Obviously I will

discuss this further in light of today's debate and I will bear in

mind the strong desire noble Lords have expressed for this to be a

process led by members as for any proposals for reform to have a

chance of success as the noble lady said, there are going to have to

command broad consensus around the House. I've heard a clear call from

today's debate and from the broader discussions I have had in my time as

leader that there is renewed momentum to have constructive

discussions about our future on this issue. Although I am coming to this

debate fresh, I'm struck by the strength of feeling across this

house on the need to try and make progress and I'm encouraged that the

debate today has set us on our way and a welcome spirit of partnership.

Is false to me briefly to wind up this debate and introduced the

motion at the beginning and I will begin by thanking once again the

Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for making this time available

to us. I would also like to say how very much I admired the spirit in

which both the leader and the shadow Leader of the House responded to the

debate. The leader in particular showed that she has within her stuff

to make a great leader of this house. She clearly understands what

the House is about and what its duties and rule are. I was

encouraged by what she said. Two things came through this debate very

strongly indeed. First of all, 49 of the 56 backbench speakers backed the

motion. With varying degrees of enthusiasm some with total

enthusiasm. But only seven didn't feel able to associate themselves

with emotion. How you define consensus I know not but certainly

an overwhelming majority. The other things that came through in this

debate was regard to the second half of the motion to which I attach, in

spite of what was said by one colleague, equal importance was the

desire for a select committee. The leader as in a very constructive way

acknowledged that. The best thing that she said was that she clearly

wants to continue discussions she talked about the possible committee

being convened by Lord Speaker and clearly that's an idea that deserves

serious consideration. And it doesn't in any sense roll out a

select committee referral, nor does it mean that we have two Creek at a

snails pace. The other thing that came out of this debate was this

sense of urgency in many of the speeches. Most notably in the most

excellent wind-up speech from the backbenchers on my noble friend Lord

McMillan and in the speech of a man who has more experience of the

workings of Parliament than perhaps anyone else, who actually said that

we are in danger of losing the claim to be seen as an effective second

chamber unless we take some action. Clearly, throughout the House

members of all parties on the crossbenchers I would just point out

that two of the five liberal speakers were warmly and supportive

of the motion. There is throughout the House a recognition that size is

an impediment to enhancing our reputation and the understanding. We

have not got an enormous amount of time. What we need in the months

ahead not a publicly announced but privately practised self-denying

ordinance on the part of the Prime Minister so we do not see another

procession coming to the box to take the oath. Everyone who has entered

this house since I came here has always been made as welcome as I was

and that is our duty always. But if we overload the benches we create

problems for everyone and that has come across time and again in the

speeches that we have heard today. I believe we are very fortunate in

having a Lord Speaker who the moment he took office made his own concerns

publicly made. We have a Leader of the House supported by a shadow

Leader of the House who recognises the importance of these issues. And

I hope that this will prove not to just have been a very long

pre-Christmas Day but the beginning of a campaign that will result in

the course of the next year or so in concrete and positive steps being

taken. We must show that we have the collective will to take the

initiative year. We do not want to have a solution imposed upon us. We

do not want a house in which so many of those take great pride to be in

any way in danger. I have great confidence from what the Leader of

the House has said and I would like an conclusion to thank everyone who

has taken part in a very constructive debate and it's

remarkable that we got through 61 speeches and it still only quarter

past nine. My Lords, I beg formally to move.

This House believes that its size should be reduced and methods be

explored by this with this could be achieved. As many as are of that

pinny and safe content, as are not say not content. I beg to move. The

House will now adjourn. The House do now adjourned.