05/12/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.to the House of Lords. The member you can watch recorded coverage of

:00:00. > :00:07.all of the business in the Lords after the daily politics which are

:00:08. > :00:11.tonight. The bills passing through Parliament and to highlight and

:00:12. > :00:16.debate that it is necessary to government policy. For Northern

:00:17. > :00:20.Ireland to need is to balance the house party political winds and here

:00:21. > :00:26.lately with the noble lady, party politics is the job of the Commons,

:00:27. > :00:28.although practicable -- party bicycle balance must be a

:00:29. > :00:32.consideration when making appointments he need for filling the

:00:33. > :00:36.house with loyal party members will be much less necessary than is

:00:37. > :00:41.deemed at present. Any powers the Lords must -- might have come from

:00:42. > :00:45.the experience of its members and the fact that represents the largest

:00:46. > :00:51.possible number of professions, regions, classes, sexes, ethnic

:00:52. > :00:57.groups, religions and special -- and special interests. I am advised that

:00:58. > :01:01.no person or future pro Minister will ever let Chris the power of

:01:02. > :01:07.appointments to the House of Lords. They do not. But now was a good time

:01:08. > :01:13.to try, now everything, the constitution as well as many other

:01:14. > :01:17.things are all up in the air. I extend my thanks to the noble Lords

:01:18. > :01:24.for sustaining the effective second chamber grip, which I am a keen

:01:25. > :01:28.member of and I strongly support the proposals in the title of this

:01:29. > :01:33.debate. Membership of the group also means that I subscribe to all of the

:01:34. > :01:37.tenants of the steel bill including making the appointments commission

:01:38. > :01:45.into a much stronger statutory commission. The deep throat, birdie

:01:46. > :01:52.and Laura Forsythe and many others have emphasised this and the noble

:01:53. > :01:56.there has just topped about a similar commission. I mention this

:01:57. > :02:01.first because the group recognised early on that the PM's patronage has

:02:02. > :02:09.to be tackled at some stage of reform and I have worked with them

:02:10. > :02:12.this morning, there has was been resentment of royal patronage as

:02:13. > :02:15.Laura Trott reminded us and it is clear that image is in numbers to

:02:16. > :02:21.the size of the Commons we will have to have a cap on your appointments.

:02:22. > :02:25.But I'm also encouraged by the decision of the political and

:02:26. > :02:30.considerable reform committee to continue its previous work on the

:02:31. > :02:33.form and in short, and the quote that the House of Lords continue to

:02:34. > :02:39.work well by addressing issues such as the size of the chamber. This

:02:40. > :02:44.time is very well with us, it tends to identify the unarguable next

:02:45. > :02:49.steps Lords reform. And lords, what are they? Having read the call for

:02:50. > :02:53.written evidence I conclude that the committee will focus a strong light

:02:54. > :03:00.on patronage and appointments and I welcome that as a measure which will

:03:01. > :03:06.certainly command public support. My old friend the noble Viscount use

:03:07. > :03:10.the term self restraint. That made perhaps avoid the need for

:03:11. > :03:15.legislation. What gets me the similar suggestion and Lord Gordon

:03:16. > :03:17.spoke of moderation so inevitably the question honours and awards

:03:18. > :03:23.should be part of any discussion of future peerages. This and many

:03:24. > :03:29.peoples you should be separated from appointments to this house. Today's

:03:30. > :03:32.peers may feel happy to be released from taking part in the legislature

:03:33. > :03:40.when they only come in on occasion. By ? support a proportional cull

:03:41. > :03:44.with an election such as happened with Scottish peers and they

:03:45. > :03:49.experienced in 1999 with my agent and colleagues. This was all very

:03:50. > :03:54.well with threaded appearance, most of them came to the house, but today

:03:55. > :03:59.will be very divisive and monopolised by quips factions.

:04:00. > :04:05.Naturally I reassert the requirement of at least 20% of the house to be

:04:06. > :04:10.crossbench peers. That figure in the past was 25% or more because of the

:04:11. > :04:17.Law Lords but it has fallen to 22%. Crossbench life peers are a unique

:04:18. > :04:21.feature in this Parliament, they are highly respected by the public and I

:04:22. > :04:26.would even say they are the cornerstone of the current

:04:27. > :04:30.democratic system. I dare to add that many if not most hereditary

:04:31. > :04:35.peers can also claim similar expertise in various fields. I have

:04:36. > :04:41.been pondering on the special problem of crossbench peerages that

:04:42. > :04:43.they were given different instructions on arrival about

:04:44. > :04:46.attendance. Most independent peers feel they are only obliged to come

:04:47. > :04:51.for subject of which they have special knowledge or expertise.

:04:52. > :04:56.Those chosen by the appointments commission are actually required to

:04:57. > :05:04.attend as working peers. The noble Baroness lady-killer and Lord Fulke

:05:05. > :05:09.'s and others spoke of the content of the working peer. -- Baroness

:05:10. > :05:13.lady Taylor. This contributed to the increasingly visible size of a

:05:14. > :05:18.house. The only reason attendance had not risen faster, because it has

:05:19. > :05:24.actually gone below 500, is that some peers still do not feel under

:05:25. > :05:27.any obligation to come in regularly and as experts, and Lord Cromwell

:05:28. > :05:34.spoke of this, they may well have and should have other occupations.

:05:35. > :05:38.May that continue. This includes a smaller number among the political

:05:39. > :05:41.parties and those who feel that they received a period of his award and

:05:42. > :05:47.an honour. There is a possibility that those peers, both of the water

:05:48. > :05:51.than those making an occasional contribution, could be classified

:05:52. > :05:58.differently in future and that is subject for another day. The noble

:05:59. > :06:03.Baroness said in her previous debate, we must recognise that the

:06:04. > :06:08.gap between the headline size and average attendance at the sum of the

:06:09. > :06:14.misunderstanding. My Lords before this we must build more about

:06:15. > :06:18.retirement. And that'll be a little easier for the committee when it is

:06:19. > :06:24.set up. I have long felt there should not be an age limit but the

:06:25. > :06:28.peers approaching 80 should be asked to talk to the whipper convener

:06:29. > :06:33.about the contributions in the future. -- whip or convener. The

:06:34. > :06:38.snake advertising -- act as a gentle break and reminder that peers cannot

:06:39. > :06:41.go on forever. Of course we all more that there are a few exceptions who

:06:42. > :06:45.will not only go on forever but they make a real contribution even in the

:06:46. > :06:51.80s and 90s. My Lords we need to come up to date. It is fairly normal

:06:52. > :06:55.these days for human resources departments to interview and review

:06:56. > :06:59.staff on a regular basis. Most peers are likely to have some direct

:07:00. > :07:04.experience of that. The noble Baroness lady father said that there

:07:05. > :07:10.appears in need of help and advice and we could put a human resources

:07:11. > :07:14.manager to oversee the process well keeping the responsibility within

:07:15. > :07:17.parties and groups. I shall be 70 for my next birthday. I feel

:07:18. > :07:22.relatively active and am beginning to feel able to forecast my

:07:23. > :07:28.retirement in a few years. Finally I repeat that I fully support the

:07:29. > :07:33.principle of a cap on numbers, strongly recommend that a committee

:07:34. > :07:41.set up under the noble Lord Burns I hope as has been mentioned already

:07:42. > :07:43.by Lord Browne. In the new year and not later, to sort out the solutions

:07:44. > :07:49.that will in the end achieve unanimity. It is difficult at this

:07:50. > :07:54.stage of the debate when so many have spoken so well and covered the

:07:55. > :07:59.ground so extensively to say anything new. So let me make a few

:08:00. > :08:04.comments and add my support to point already made. First I would like to,

:08:05. > :08:08.like others, payable in tribute and thanks to my noble friend Lord, for

:08:09. > :08:14.all of the extensive work over the years that he has done on this issue

:08:15. > :08:18.and to my noble friend Lord Norton who has wide academic and

:08:19. > :08:23.forensically experience which we have greatly benefited from. Second,

:08:24. > :08:27.does it matter that we are so large? Larger than the House of Commons and

:08:28. > :08:30.the largest second chamber in the world? Some say that it doesn't,

:08:31. > :08:35.because we should take into account the nature of this house, the daily

:08:36. > :08:39.attendance reflecting the fact that so many peers have outside expertise

:08:40. > :08:44.and experience which is why partly they appointed, and come mainly when

:08:45. > :08:50.that knowledge can be put to good use. So they say the daily

:08:51. > :08:56.attendance of just under 500 is the figure two years and my noble friend

:08:57. > :09:00.Lady Hooker is meant in this point and I have to say I disagree. I

:09:01. > :09:04.cannot accept that argument now that the elected chamber discussion is

:09:05. > :09:10.not on the agenda, I believe size is the big issue for us. Easy for the

:09:11. > :09:14.media to attack and great unfavourable public impressions, and

:09:15. > :09:17.made even worse when the premised upon even more peers because the

:09:18. > :09:23.government has far from a working majority in this place. This is now

:09:24. > :09:25.our most vulnerable point, moreover, the last Conservative manifesto

:09:26. > :09:33.committed the government to tackle the issue of size of our chamber and

:09:34. > :09:36.the public administration and cause additional affairs committee and the

:09:37. > :09:42.Hazard, does we now all realise is about to embark on an enquiry. So

:09:43. > :09:48.size is big-time back on the agenda. And I believe that we must make our

:09:49. > :09:51.views known. Third, my noble friend Lord -- Lord Hodge will revert to

:09:52. > :09:56.the Association of Conservative peers of which I was chairman for

:09:57. > :10:01.some years until earlier this year and we did, the executive of the

:10:02. > :10:05.Association, did produce a unanimously agreed paper which was

:10:06. > :10:09.pushed to the whole ACP at the beginning of this year and certainly

:10:10. > :10:14.seemed to get wide acceptance and support. Some of the main

:10:15. > :10:18.conclusions were that the awards should have as objective in

:10:19. > :10:21.membership no larger than the Commons and that the composition of

:10:22. > :10:24.the house should be responsive to any major changes in support for

:10:25. > :10:31.political parties in general elections. We had too many

:10:32. > :10:35.recommendations, first we agreed with the group, the Labour group of

:10:36. > :10:39.peers and Baroness Taylor talked about this earlier in the

:10:40. > :10:43.discussion, we agreed with the proposal and the working group that

:10:44. > :10:47.there should be a compulsory retirement age of 80 at the end of a

:10:48. > :10:54.parliament in which the peer reaches that H. And that was agreed by all

:10:55. > :10:57.others, and I have to say, like me, many of us will be affected by it in

:10:58. > :11:01.this Parliament and I still believe it is right. I would happily accept

:11:02. > :11:06.that. I have always supported the measure that the noble Lord Lord

:11:07. > :11:11.steel introduced about retirement, but we have to say that the numbers

:11:12. > :11:15.of voluntary retirement is taken up to not match the new numbers of

:11:16. > :11:18.peers coming in so it is not truly a big contribution to the size

:11:19. > :11:25.question, however necessary and desirable it is so I believe that we

:11:26. > :11:32.must move on. We hear this proposal criticised on grounds that so-and-so

:11:33. > :11:38.in his or her 80s still makes a good contribution. But so what? Nearly

:11:39. > :11:43.every other profession as a retirement age on or more usually

:11:44. > :11:47.well below 80. Once experience becomes outdated, and mental

:11:48. > :11:54.faculties not always so quick as they used to be.

:11:55. > :12:00.verify my experience of working in industry and other areas which I

:12:01. > :12:06.gave up three or four years ago does become outdated and so I don't think

:12:07. > :12:10.that that is a very valid point. Unless we have this measure we will

:12:11. > :12:14.reduce the numbers of new members with more recent experience and

:12:15. > :12:22.freshness that can come in. Every vibrant organisation needs to do

:12:23. > :12:27.that and I believe that there is a consensus for the proposal. A

:12:28. > :12:33.consensus I believe in different parties. But here's the thing, as

:12:34. > :12:36.the House stands at present there would be disproportionate effects

:12:37. > :12:43.between the parties of that age proposal and we wanted to avoid

:12:44. > :12:47.addressing that by allowing the Prime Minister of the day simply to

:12:48. > :12:52.approve many more new peers which is the way of dealing with it at the

:12:53. > :12:55.moment, thus adding to the size problem. We propose in our paper a

:12:56. > :13:04.system that would keep the size of the House at 600, assuming the Lords

:13:05. > :13:07.spiritual numbers stay the same, allocating a fixed reporter for

:13:08. > :13:12.crossbenchers and allocating the remaining 80% to the political

:13:13. > :13:17.party, their share of the seats reflecting general election results

:13:18. > :13:25.and this is important, achieved by internal party elections. One other

:13:26. > :13:29.point of the position of voluntary retirement of peers. There is

:13:30. > :13:35.currently a disincentive under this proposal to retire for many

:13:36. > :13:41.particularly in the governing party. Because another peer retired as

:13:42. > :13:46.another vote last and a further threat of more divisions lost and I

:13:47. > :13:49.think that's an incentive, a disadvantage, sorry, which causes

:13:50. > :13:53.some of us not to undertake that voluntary retirement. I conclude on

:13:54. > :13:59.this note, we pride ourselves on being a self-regulating house, if we

:14:00. > :14:04.don't address this issue, others will do it for us like the Commons

:14:05. > :14:07.select committee. So I believe there's a compelling case and I

:14:08. > :14:09.strongly support the setting up of our own select committee to cover

:14:10. > :14:17.all these issues. When I became a life peer, my

:14:18. > :14:24.children told me that being an unelected parliamentarian was a

:14:25. > :14:30.contradiction in terms. This is why I preach in such an important

:14:31. > :14:35.activity for me and for us and I have found that after explaining to

:14:36. > :14:39.schools and to universities and other organisations the work that we

:14:40. > :14:45.do in holding governments to account, in scrutinising and

:14:46. > :14:51.improving legislation, in protecting the rights and lives of our fellow

:14:52. > :14:54.citizens, our committee work, especially with the premise of the

:14:55. > :15:01.other place has explained, most people support the work that we do.

:15:02. > :15:06.They are less concerned that we are unelected, that we have hereditary

:15:07. > :15:14.peers, that some are part-timers but the one thing that is not understood

:15:15. > :15:20.is our number and the cost. And it rankles and it tarnishes the work we

:15:21. > :15:23.do. This is why I think the timing is long overdue to do something

:15:24. > :15:29.about it but I welcomed the debate and support the motion. My Lords,

:15:30. > :15:37.it's not as if we're short of ideas. We had a Royal commission in April

:15:38. > :15:41.19 909I made a submission to it. We've had four White papers, draft

:15:42. > :15:46.bills, reports from select committees from academics, from

:15:47. > :15:51.think tanks, from our own clerk of the parliament and from our own

:15:52. > :15:54.Parliamentary groups and generally, where numbers are concerned, what it

:15:55. > :16:02.boils down to is that we should be no larger than the other place and

:16:03. > :16:08.they are looking to reduce their numbers. Other noble Lords have

:16:09. > :16:13.detailed the mechanics and I don't need to go through them. Others have

:16:14. > :16:16.said at the same time as we are reducing our numbers, the Prime

:16:17. > :16:22.Minister and the appointments commission must point only when

:16:23. > :16:28.there is a vacancy. That must point. There has to be a formula fixing the

:16:29. > :16:31.balance between the groups. Perhaps relating to the result of the last

:16:32. > :16:37.three elections but with no political majority and some 20 or

:16:38. > :16:47.25% of the crossbenchers, the important thing is that these

:16:48. > :16:51.measures should all happen together. I might add that much of the

:16:52. > :16:56.detailed work and analysis has already been done by Professor May

:16:57. > :17:02.Russell and her colleagues of the Constitution unit at University

:17:03. > :17:08.College. Conceivably, your Lordships could take things into their own

:17:09. > :17:13.hands for example, introducing new peers only when we think is a

:17:14. > :17:21.vacancy. In a way, this happens with the bishops. Also, a move to the QE2

:17:22. > :17:28.centre during our and our could force us to reduce our numbers by

:17:29. > :17:33.virtue of insufficient space. I agree with other noble Lords back to

:17:34. > :17:41.preserve our reputation, we have to get our own house in order otherwise

:17:42. > :17:46.others will do it for us. We know that a large part of our population

:17:47. > :17:52.are discontented with mainstream politics. Some are discontented with

:17:53. > :18:03.us. Even the Prime Minister has called us bloated. Has the legal

:18:04. > :18:08.leader Google bloated House of Lords recently. It's very instructive.

:18:09. > :18:13.There are pages of entries headed by the Prime Minister's use of the

:18:14. > :18:18.phrase on the 8th of August. This can lead to fake news websites and

:18:19. > :18:23.the hashtag, cut the bloated Lords directing ridiculed towards us and

:18:24. > :18:30.this can only damage our work and damage our reputation. Is this

:18:31. > :18:37.something that worries noble Lords? It does me. All the more reason why

:18:38. > :18:45.we have to get on with reforming for numbers. That a select committee put

:18:46. > :18:57.the proposal to us and soon. My lords, I have a variation to suggest

:18:58. > :19:00.to the noble Lord Lord for Members of the House to retire. If life

:19:01. > :19:06.peers retire immediately their peerages should be converted to

:19:07. > :19:10.hereditary peers bearing no right to a seat in this house, it would cost

:19:11. > :19:14.nothing and I believe it would be effective. My lords, I just want to

:19:15. > :19:21.make four reef I have to say to my noble friend

:19:22. > :19:26.Lord Cromwell and Baroness Hooper that it really is not sustainable to

:19:27. > :19:32.say that the size of the House does not matter on the grounds that it is

:19:33. > :19:39.a pool from which members contribute when they have relevant expertise.

:19:40. > :19:44.Firstly, as Lord he would have said, we have substantially more members

:19:45. > :19:48.than we need to do our job. Not only that, but there is a substantial

:19:49. > :19:54.number of members who do not contribute to the work of the House

:19:55. > :19:57.either by attending or speaking in debates or serving on committees. To

:19:58. > :20:05.add to the statistics that Lord steel gave, well over 100 Members of

:20:06. > :20:11.the House attend less than 15% of the sitting days. Others attend only

:20:12. > :20:17.one whipped by their parties to vote. We have a long tail and it

:20:18. > :20:25.could substantially be reduced with benefit to our reputation without

:20:26. > :20:29.reducing our ability to do our work. My second point is that the problem

:20:30. > :20:37.of our size is no more urgent than it has been in the past. As a noble

:20:38. > :20:41.Lord, Lord Gordon said, the opposition political parties in this

:20:42. > :20:45.house now have a substantial majority over the government. And

:20:46. > :20:52.when the act together they can defeat the government at will. There

:20:53. > :20:56.are only two ways in which this can be dealt with. One is by the Prime

:20:57. > :21:01.Minister making rather appointments to this house is on a scale which

:21:02. > :21:07.would damage public perception of the House even further. The second

:21:08. > :21:15.is by the opposition parties showing self restraint, which to their

:21:16. > :21:22.credit, they do at least most of the time. But this is not a satisfactory

:21:23. > :21:27.basis on which to run our house of parliament. Thirdly, I want to deal

:21:28. > :21:32.with the issue of the Prime Minister's exercise of patronage.

:21:33. > :21:37.When I worked in government, I had the privilege of sitting in on

:21:38. > :21:41.discussions between the then Prime Minister 's and the leader of this

:21:42. > :21:49.house on appointments were to be made. The Prime Minister would ask

:21:50. > :21:54.the leader what areas of expertise needed to be reinforced in order to

:21:55. > :21:58.help this house to fulfil its scrutinising role. Whether it was

:21:59. > :22:07.people with expertise in science or business or medicine or cultural

:22:08. > :22:11.activities or many others. With no disrespect to any of those appointed

:22:12. > :22:17.recently it is difficult to believe that this happens with political

:22:18. > :22:24.appointments today. The main concern is to have been simply to get the

:22:25. > :22:31.government's voting numbers up. Finally, and I say this with great

:22:32. > :22:36.temerity, I've venture to be less pessimistic than the noble Lords

:22:37. > :22:41.Lord Wakeham and Viscount Hailsham about the prospect of getting

:22:42. > :22:49.effective action taken subject to one condition. That condition is

:22:50. > :22:55.that any legislation must be first introduced and debated and passed in

:22:56. > :23:01.your Lordships's house. I believe that it will pass your lordship's

:23:02. > :23:08.house even if it does not give the Liberal Democrats what they want. If

:23:09. > :23:12.however painful it is fair. If it is passed by this house and doesn't

:23:13. > :23:16.threaten the position of the House of Commons, I think there is a good

:23:17. > :23:23.chance that it will pass that house as well. I believe that we should go

:23:24. > :23:30.forward with determination and with confidence.

:23:31. > :23:43.A good deal of what the noble Lord Lord Butler has said I do believe

:23:44. > :23:49.that an act of Parliament is ultimately necessary. It's true that

:23:50. > :23:51.we can do quite a lot but I think a select committee examining this

:23:52. > :23:56.would find that there are some essential aspects which require to

:23:57. > :24:00.be dealt with by an act of Parliament. The most important of

:24:01. > :24:06.these of course is the prerogative of the Prime Minister in appointing

:24:07. > :24:12.peers to this house. My lords, I entirely agree with the view that

:24:13. > :24:16.the size of this house for various reasons and including very

:24:17. > :24:23.irrelevant reasons has become an obstacle to us fulfilling our task

:24:24. > :24:29.with a degree of acceptance in the community in which it should have.

:24:30. > :24:34.My lords, our fundamental task is to revise legislation which has been

:24:35. > :24:37.passed by the House of Commons. It is true that in the past from time

:24:38. > :24:43.to time and in this year itself there have been bills that have been

:24:44. > :24:50.started in this house. I think that is perfectly reasonable way of

:24:51. > :24:58.proceeding in some cases, for example, I had responsibility for

:24:59. > :25:02.the embryo bill which came here and which was discussed by eminent

:25:03. > :25:09.experts who knew all about these matters before it went to the House

:25:10. > :25:13.of Commons. I was glad to say that on the really essential issue,

:25:14. > :25:15.namely when embryo research should be allowed, the House of Commons

:25:16. > :25:22.accepted the view that have found favour here. If you go for a

:25:23. > :25:28.completely free vote as we did on that bill because of its nature,

:25:29. > :25:31.you're always risking the House of Commons on House of Lords might take

:25:32. > :25:37.different views but that extremely well and I think it is a very

:25:38. > :25:45.important piece of legislation in an area which is outside the ordinary

:25:46. > :25:53.scope of legislation which we have to pass. The fundamental job of this

:25:54. > :25:58.house is revise all of legislation with these exceptions that I've just

:25:59. > :26:04.mentioned. Over the time that I've been here, which is now a long time

:26:05. > :26:09.and I would pass any retirement age that could reasonably be thought of

:26:10. > :26:15.immediately, so I'm not objecting to that at all but on the other hand I

:26:16. > :26:21.think it is for somebody else to say it, possibly, rather than myself.

:26:22. > :26:29.Anyhow, the central task is the revision of legislation. During my

:26:30. > :26:35.time in this house, the House of Commons has found itself and I have

:26:36. > :26:40.never been in that house, found itself more and more subject to

:26:41. > :26:47.very, very heavy tasks arising into constituencies. They find that so

:26:48. > :26:50.many people have problems that they have to deal with. And one of the

:26:51. > :26:57.results of that, I think, judging from afar is that they don't have so

:26:58. > :27:00.much time and possibly so much inclination to revise the detail of

:27:01. > :27:14.the bills in Parliament. It is not a particularly attractive

:27:15. > :27:19.task. But it is mightily important because if it goes out of here

:27:20. > :27:27.wrong, it can do a terrific damage to a lot of people. I think we have

:27:28. > :27:35.found a way to deal with that and often with contentious matters.

:27:36. > :27:41.There is an atmosphere in this House to try to get the right answer

:27:42. > :27:46.irrespective of any sort of political consideration. I have

:27:47. > :27:53.relished the atmosphere in this House since I came here a long time

:27:54. > :27:57.ago and I think that atmosphere still continues in an attempt to

:27:58. > :28:02.find a satisfactory answer which will do right for all manner of

:28:03. > :28:07.people, even if we are not judges, we still try to do write to all

:28:08. > :28:16.manner of people in accordance with the usages of this room. It does

:28:17. > :28:20.seem to me very important that that role is preserved and that people

:28:21. > :28:27.who are willing to undertake that and undertake it as a fairly

:28:28. > :28:36.comprehensive use of their time are here to do it. My noble friend

:28:37. > :28:42.talked about coming from a distance. I actually live in Inverness, which

:28:43. > :28:46.is quite a distance from here, but I do think it is possible, if you are

:28:47. > :28:54.devoted to it, that you should come and try to carry out your

:28:55. > :29:02.responsibilities. When one has a certain amount of experience in this

:29:03. > :29:08.area, I find it really a responsibility, so long as I can

:29:09. > :29:12.come to come. Not every day, not every week, but as often as I

:29:13. > :29:17.possibly can and certainly to matters which seemed to me to be

:29:18. > :29:24.something upon which I know something about, such as the

:29:25. > :29:30.University 's bill tomorrow. It is extremely important that we should

:29:31. > :29:33.have people here who have that mission and I do believe there are a

:29:34. > :29:38.lot of people here who have that mission. I do not wish to show

:29:39. > :29:43.myself as an bulk into the people who have recently come. On the

:29:44. > :29:50.contrary, many of them are better than me are doing just that, but if

:29:51. > :29:54.we are to succeed in reducing the membership of the number of this

:29:55. > :30:01.House, then we have to have a statutory cap on that because

:30:02. > :30:06.otherwise that is the only way in which we can control the size after

:30:07. > :30:11.it is produced. It is one thing to reduce it and another thing to keep

:30:12. > :30:16.it reduced and I do believe a statutory cap is necessary and there

:30:17. > :30:22.are complications about that which a Select Committee would be

:30:23. > :30:26.appropriate to consider. Statutory complications, for example, people

:30:27. > :30:31.in this House changed their religions. The move from being in

:30:32. > :30:36.the Conservative Party to the crossbenches, more often than

:30:37. > :30:40.perhaps other parties. These are difficulties but they should not be

:30:41. > :30:49.obstacles to carrying out this fundamental task of reducing this to

:30:50. > :30:56.a way which is accommodating to the important task. My Lords, it is a

:30:57. > :31:02.great pressure and privileged to follow the noble and learned Lord,

:31:03. > :31:05.and I respectfully agree with absolutely everything he has said.

:31:06. > :31:16.It is very helpful to have this debate today. When I was interviewed

:31:17. > :31:23.as a crossbench candidate, I was asked, if I got it, but I attend. I

:31:24. > :31:27.said, of course. It was a great privilege, having been interpreting

:31:28. > :31:33.legislation that a previous 35 years. And I am very glad that he

:31:34. > :31:39.was asked by the Prime Minister whether he would attend and it seems

:31:40. > :31:42.to me it is a question to be asked of every possible pier because

:31:43. > :31:55.otherwise, what on earth is the point of coming here? I had to say,

:31:56. > :32:01.remembering what he said, I attend nearly every day and I am not alone

:32:02. > :32:08.in that and I bitterly resent what he said about the crossbenches not

:32:09. > :32:13.attending because most of us attend very regularly and I would like to

:32:14. > :32:19.feel, and I'm afraid it is not in the Chamber at the moment, that

:32:20. > :32:28.perhaps he might retract that because it really is not a fair

:32:29. > :32:33.comment on the work that we do. I will certainly not referring to the

:32:34. > :32:36.noble lady and to a large number of people who do attend regularly but

:32:37. > :32:41.if she looks at the figures I got from the library, she will see that,

:32:42. > :32:47.of the three political groups and crossbenches, the Liberal Democrats

:32:48. > :32:52.have the highest attendance, Labour next, conservative next, then

:32:53. > :32:56.crossbenches least. There are a number who were unable to attend and

:32:57. > :33:10.I think we should take account of that. I make no insult the noble

:33:11. > :33:14.lady. I withdrew what I said. But there is hard core of crossbench

:33:15. > :33:20.members who attend very regularly and consider that our duty is to do

:33:21. > :33:28.the work of the House among other peers. I have to say, being 83 now,

:33:29. > :33:33.I do agree with the noble Lord steel and the noble Lord McGregor that it

:33:34. > :33:38.would be a very sensible compromise that those who are 80 at the end of

:33:39. > :33:45.the Parliament, should go, and it would immediately reduce those not

:33:46. > :33:51.well above 600 members, therefore it would be a good idea. There is

:33:52. > :33:57.another point of course. When this House is relocated, there will be a

:33:58. > :34:03.lot of retirements, so it may be by that stage that a lot will be done,

:34:04. > :34:07.but this is 2022 or whatever it may be, and I entirely agree with other

:34:08. > :34:11.noble Lords that we absolutely have to get on with it now because the

:34:12. > :34:20.suggestion by the noble lady that 800 does not matter is quite simply

:34:21. > :34:27.not true. We are seen as ridiculous by many people and the word bloated

:34:28. > :34:31.that the noble Lord Judge said another supplanted out is

:34:32. > :34:39.undoubtedly true. Consequently, we have got to move to the next stage,

:34:40. > :34:44.which is the Select Committee. There is considerable unanimous in its

:34:45. > :34:48.beyond that which will take evidence and it should make recommendations

:34:49. > :34:55.and should be done in months not years. It should and could consider

:34:56. > :35:00.what steps this House could take by resolutions within our own

:35:01. > :35:05.procedures but I do recognise, and as the noble Leonard Lord said, at

:35:06. > :35:11.some stage that may lead to legislation. That Select Committee

:35:12. > :35:19.must identify what it is we cannot do ourselves and then, as the noble

:35:20. > :35:25.Baroness said, acted together, we are actually very influential. We

:35:26. > :35:31.should use our influence so long as this House is unanimous to put very

:35:32. > :35:36.considerable pressure upon the Other House to deal with patronage, which

:35:37. > :35:41.is an open sort, and other matters which we cannot do ourselves. But I

:35:42. > :35:48.really agree with the noble Baroness and Lord Butler that we could

:35:49. > :35:52.actually get a lot done, both in our own work and in the Other Place that

:35:53. > :36:03.we could have a bill that started in this House. This is been a very good

:36:04. > :36:11.debate and an important one. It is not an exercise in navel-gazing. It

:36:12. > :36:18.matters because this House matters. Addressing science is only part but

:36:19. > :36:25.a necessary part of what needs to be done to protect and enhance the role

:36:26. > :36:30.of this House as a valuable and invaluable second chamber. This

:36:31. > :36:38.House adds value and contrary to what some have said is justifiable

:36:39. > :36:45.in democratic terms. Democracy is about how people choose to govern

:36:46. > :36:51.themselves. In a representative democracy, the choice of who is to

:36:52. > :36:55.govern is fundamental. In the United Kingdom, we choose a government

:36:56. > :36:58.through elections to the House of Commons, a government responsible

:36:59. > :37:04.for its programme of public policy and accountable for that policy to

:37:05. > :37:09.be electors at the next election. There is a core accountability. We

:37:10. > :37:13.have the benefit of the second chamber that fulfils tasks that add

:37:14. > :37:21.value to political process without challenging that core

:37:22. > :37:25.accountability. As my colleague, a specialist in democratic theory, put

:37:26. > :37:30.it in evidence to the joint committee on the draft House of

:37:31. > :37:33.Lords reform bill, if you divide some country within Parliament, you

:37:34. > :37:40.undermine the capacity of Parliament to give effect to be will of the

:37:41. > :37:47.people. We have a chamber that draws on experienced expertise to

:37:48. > :37:54.complement the work of the elected house. By general consent, we do a

:37:55. > :38:00.good job. This House does a good job. Debates about Lords reform

:38:01. > :38:04.focuses primarily on composition, not on functions. There is a general

:38:05. > :38:10.agreement about the functions of a complimentary second chamber. The

:38:11. > :38:18.House of Lords reform bill in 2012 was premised on the House continuing

:38:19. > :38:23.doing its existing job but of course composition and functions are

:38:24. > :38:29.intrinsically linked. Who is in the House determines how effectively the

:38:30. > :38:37.functions are fulfilled. We are a legitimate chamber but whereas the

:38:38. > :38:41.Commons takes its legitimacy for granted through election, our

:38:42. > :38:50.legitimacy has to be earned through the work that we do. We therefore

:38:51. > :38:54.need to ensure that we are working effectively and efficiently. We need

:38:55. > :39:02.to ensure that the quality of what we do is maintained. We know from

:39:03. > :39:06.the poll of 2007 that electors considered the two most important

:39:07. > :39:14.factors in determining the legitimacy of this House to be trust

:39:15. > :39:21.in the appointments process and in considering legislation carefully

:39:22. > :39:26.and in detail. 76% considered trust in the appointments process to be

:39:27. > :39:32.very important. 73% thought the same for considering legislation

:39:33. > :39:40.carefully and in detail. Election came way lower. It is three years

:39:41. > :39:46.almost to the day since I initiated a debate on the size of the House.

:39:47. > :39:53.It was clear then there was a problem. The problem is even greater

:39:54. > :39:57.now. As we have heard of legislative chambers that meet regularly

:39:58. > :40:01.throughout the year, we are the largest. It is true that the Chinese

:40:02. > :40:09.National People's Congress has more members but it meets the only two

:40:10. > :40:14.weeks Ichi! It is true we have a smaller membership than existed

:40:15. > :40:20.prior to the 1999 act. The difference is in terms of activity

:40:21. > :40:24.and perception. There is an expectation now that those who are

:40:25. > :40:29.created as peers should contribute to be work of the House. The level

:40:30. > :40:34.of activity places a burden on the resources of the House and on the

:40:35. > :40:39.public purse. Any inactivity reflects badly on the House since we

:40:40. > :40:51.appear to be carrying passengers. So either way, there is a problem. We

:40:52. > :40:56.need to address size and that necessarily entails not only

:40:57. > :41:03.reducing numbers but also as we have heard Contra link future

:41:04. > :41:08.appointments. That is where public perception is important. Some noble

:41:09. > :41:14.Lords appear to say, this is not too important, it is only perception. We

:41:15. > :41:19.do not exist in a vacuum. The more we grow in number, the more the

:41:20. > :41:25.media draw attention to our size, whatever the good work that we do.

:41:26. > :41:32.Indeed, as we have heard, but that coverage masks the work of the

:41:33. > :41:37.House. That is the reality. New creations will be pored over by the

:41:38. > :41:43.media to see if someone has been a party donor. It only takes one for

:41:44. > :41:46.the media to generalise about the whole. Whatever we say, that will

:41:47. > :41:56.remain the case. We need to move from deprecating

:41:57. > :42:01.such activity to doing something practical about it. Hence this

:42:02. > :42:06.motion and the recognition that action needs to be taken. It's quite

:42:07. > :42:12.clear from this debate what that action needs to be. We need to

:42:13. > :42:17.establish a select committee to address the various options for

:42:18. > :42:21.reducing the size of the House. This has been stressed, we can't resolve

:42:22. > :42:25.what the precise action is in a single debate such as this. The

:42:26. > :42:28.noble Lord Lord Anderson seem to think that the committee may not

:42:29. > :42:33.reach agreement and that somehow that was therefore an argument for

:42:34. > :42:36.not having a committee. My lords, if there's going to be committee with

:42:37. > :42:44.majority and minority view I'd rather have a majority and minority

:42:45. > :42:48.view than no committee at all. That can come forward with

:42:49. > :42:51.recommendations, the sooner we get underway the better and the sooner

:42:52. > :43:01.the committee reports the better. It need not be a lengthy exercise. It

:43:02. > :43:13.is a start, it may not succeed but it is an essential start. I trust

:43:14. > :43:19.that the member will reply and it's not a parochial issue it's about

:43:20. > :43:30.ensuring the constitutional arrangements of this place benefit

:43:31. > :43:38.the people. It is a necessary part. Let us get on with it and then

:43:39. > :43:45.address what else needs to be done. I have no difficulty in agreeing on

:43:46. > :43:50.the motion for your Lordships house and I'm tempted to follow Lord

:43:51. > :43:56.Forsyth's advice and sit down now. Sadly for him on the House, he would

:43:57. > :44:02.be so lucky. I'm a start with an admission, in a previous incarnation

:44:03. > :44:08.I was responsible albeit to a modest extent for increasing the size of

:44:09. > :44:11.your lordship house. When I was chief of staff we got the proposal

:44:12. > :44:18.from the then Prime Minister Tony Blair about a very modest increase

:44:19. > :44:22.in the number of Liberal Democrat peers which we rejected that it was

:44:23. > :44:25.modest and we would like a few more. We try to find out what the other

:44:26. > :44:30.parties were getting and we were told that was a problem and couldn't

:44:31. > :44:35.be told we said unless we got a few more we went to agree to any. A

:44:36. > :44:42.great deal of huffing and puffing. Ended up with 60% more than had been

:44:43. > :44:48.on the original note. This was haggling about the composition of a

:44:49. > :44:56.legislator in one of the world's largest countries. This was on this

:44:57. > :45:01.process remains ridiculous and unsustainable in the long term. As

:45:02. > :45:09.you know and might noble colleagues have set out, particularly Lord

:45:10. > :45:13.Tyler and Lord Reynard, my party has had a long-standing policy to elect

:45:14. > :45:23.people to your Lord's house and reduce the number of people who are

:45:24. > :45:28.here. We believe it is legitimate to derive from the people. In the 21st

:45:29. > :45:31.century and in a modern innovative country such as ours, it is wrong

:45:32. > :45:35.the public has never had the opportunity to vote for members of

:45:36. > :45:43.this house to hold as to account on our record. Individually and

:45:44. > :45:45.collectively as Members of the House, we are legislators and it

:45:46. > :45:50.seems to me straightforwardly that we should be accountable through

:45:51. > :45:58.elections to those who may expect to follow the laws which we enact. One

:45:59. > :46:06.point that has been made by a number of noble Lords this evening

:46:07. > :46:12.strengthens the argument about regional representation in your

:46:13. > :46:15.lordship's has, as long as we have the current system there will be a

:46:16. > :46:19.predominance of people from London and the south-east in this house.

:46:20. > :46:25.There is a lot of talk about rebalancing the economy. The

:46:26. > :46:33.northern regions are not fully represented in your lordship house.

:46:34. > :46:36.Until they are. Any sense of political rebalancing in terms of

:46:37. > :46:43.the balance of argument is simply will not happen. And regional

:46:44. > :46:48.elections would help to redress that balance. It's also worth pointing

:46:49. > :46:53.out that every other second chamber in the world, I think, except

:46:54. > :46:56.possibly the Council of Elders and Papa New Guinea is elected and

:46:57. > :47:10.although they may all be wrong and we may be. 16 Chambers are not

:47:11. > :47:16.wholly appointed. I stand corrected. I better be given because the noble

:47:17. > :47:25.Lord will correctly. Very many tens of countries with more than one

:47:26. > :47:32.chamber and therefore a minority at best have an unelected second

:47:33. > :47:41.chamber. Wholly elected chambers are in a minority, there is no one model

:47:42. > :47:46.that is an absolute majority. One of the great strengths of your

:47:47. > :47:49.lordship's house which would undoubtedly disappear if we were all

:47:50. > :47:56.elected by this kind of seminar and it would probably not be possible to

:47:57. > :48:04.take place. I stand corrected on that point but I do not resign from

:48:05. > :48:09.the point that an elected house or a predominantly elected house would be

:48:10. > :48:14.superior to the current house and I strongly supported the attempt by my

:48:15. > :48:19.colleague in another place Nick Clegg winning coalition to bring

:48:20. > :48:24.such a change about. If such a change had been brought about the

:48:25. > :48:29.exasperation is of the noble Lord Forsyth and others about the number

:48:30. > :48:33.of Liberal Democrats in your lordship's house would already have

:48:34. > :48:37.been largely a sweet because we would have had elections and we

:48:38. > :48:41.wanted that and we still would like it, we may not always do desperately

:48:42. > :48:50.well but in principle we are happy to fight elections. I'm grateful for

:48:51. > :48:55.the support from the noble Lord. Much discussion today has been about

:48:56. > :48:58.the need for consensus as we move forward and where there is a

:48:59. > :49:07.considerable degree of consensus is around the role of the House,

:49:08. > :49:17.notwithstanding some of the concerns on this issue. Strong legitimate

:49:18. > :49:20.role for a second chamber to scrutinise and revise the

:49:21. > :49:30.government's agenda to hold the executive to account the work of

:49:31. > :49:36.select committees. Ensure a sober second thought was built into the

:49:37. > :49:39.process. Collectively, the House takes its role extremely seriously.

:49:40. > :49:43.We spent the vast majority of our time picking over the fine detail of

:49:44. > :49:47.legislation continually asking the government have you got this right,

:49:48. > :49:51.have you considered this different aspect when the policy decision was

:49:52. > :49:56.taken and does it do what you want to do? My experience as a whip in

:49:57. > :50:00.government is when the government lost a vote, usually it was because

:50:01. > :50:05.we lost the argument. This was a very difficult thing to accept that

:50:06. > :50:10.the time but it was the case and asking the Commons in no

:50:11. > :50:18.circumstances to think again was in my view of great benefit to the way

:50:19. > :50:21.that legislation is developed. The chamber has become much more

:50:22. > :50:26.professional and how it carries out its important role since 1999 and

:50:27. > :50:30.it's acted in a number of ways to improve itself already. We've taken

:50:31. > :50:36.measures to strengthen the code of conduct and ensure the standards in

:50:37. > :50:41.public life are observed and we've had legislation on the initiatives

:50:42. > :50:44.of Rod Steele and Lady him into ensure that those who are convicted

:50:45. > :50:47.of a criminal offence and sentenced for more than a year cease to be

:50:48. > :50:51.Members of the House and to strengthen our ability to take

:50:52. > :50:58.action unnecessary to expel or suspend members. These changes have

:50:59. > :51:02.been achieved by consensus. There is consensus that the size of the House

:51:03. > :51:06.should be reduced and the other principles that the other Lords of

:51:07. > :51:09.mentioned that it should be smaller than the Commons, we should retain

:51:10. > :51:14.an element of crossbenchers and that no political party should have a

:51:15. > :51:23.majority. But here, consensus begins to break down and as Lord Wakeham

:51:24. > :51:28.pointed out in his typically Wyse speech. This lack of consensus

:51:29. > :51:32.applies to matters greatly small, all of which could in theory in

:51:33. > :51:38.their wake enhance the credibility and reputation of the House. Such

:51:39. > :51:42.measures which would be very quickly implemented. The House to agree the

:51:43. > :51:45.recommendation contained in the report of the Privileges and Conduct

:51:46. > :51:48.committee undermining public confidence in the House to

:51:49. > :51:53.strengthen the code of conduct with a disrepute. There is no consensus

:51:54. > :51:58.to do it so it's probably not going to happen. Another measure which was

:51:59. > :52:04.initially proposed by my former noble friend in 2006 was in the

:52:05. > :52:09.original draft of the bill by Lord steel would be to end the system of

:52:10. > :52:14.hereditary by-elections was that this has now been taken up by Lord

:52:15. > :52:20.broker antique and certainly be assured of my support with his bill.

:52:21. > :52:23.When it was introduced, the by-election system was supposed to

:52:24. > :52:27.be a temporary measure until the then Labour government's second

:52:28. > :52:35.stage of Lords reform was completed. As a junior whip on the 1999 bill I

:52:36. > :52:37.remember the noble Baroness Jay, as Leader of the House at her most

:52:38. > :52:44.imperious slapping down people who said that the system of by-elections

:52:45. > :52:49.for hereditary peers was a nonsense on the grounds that it may not be

:52:50. > :52:53.perfect but because it would never be acted because there would be a

:52:54. > :52:56.second phase of reform why was anybody worried. We have seen what's

:52:57. > :53:01.happened there. Another measure which could be considered this

:53:02. > :53:04.significantly reducing the role of patronage and the appointment of

:53:05. > :53:08.Members of the House by giving a stronger role for the independent

:53:09. > :53:16.appointments commission. And ensuring that the commission is

:53:17. > :53:20.placed on a statutory basis. The issue of scrutinising the

:53:21. > :53:26.suitability and commitment of potential members does have

:53:27. > :53:34.unanimity amongst this house and we should get ahead and do that. Of all

:53:35. > :53:37.the more substantive proposals put forward, they have clearly got major

:53:38. > :53:44.strengths and weaknesses. I have a lot of sympathy with the proposal of

:53:45. > :53:47.my noble colleague Lord steel on the retirement age although I know this

:53:48. > :53:51.makes me very unpopular with certain members of my group and there are

:53:52. > :53:58.certainly no consensus to do it. I have sympathy with the suggestion

:53:59. > :54:02.that there should be and not retirement is a certain percentage

:54:03. > :54:05.of attendance isn't reached in a session although I think that given

:54:06. > :54:08.a number of people who make good contributions here are doing things

:54:09. > :54:14.outside and can't be here all the time, we'd have to set the bar

:54:15. > :54:17.significantly lower than the 30-40% suggested. I don't agree with the

:54:18. > :54:25.other suggestion that we should have a moratorium in terms of

:54:26. > :54:28.appointments because whilst it should be turned it would be a

:54:29. > :54:40.mistake to turn it because otherwise we just get we get an ever present

:54:41. > :54:48.house. On that point about having time to come here, when I was

:54:49. > :54:52.appointed by the appointments commission, like my noble friend

:54:53. > :54:55.Baroness Butler Sloss, I was extremely worried because I had

:54:56. > :54:59.composing and broadcasting commitments and I felt I couldn't

:55:00. > :55:04.give the House what it might need. The chairman at that time who is

:55:05. > :55:11.sitting here today said if you have a real commitment to come, that is

:55:12. > :55:14.what we need and so my Lords, I have attempted, I cannot always come

:55:15. > :55:20.every moment of the day at like for example this evening and I was very

:55:21. > :55:24.interested that it more interventions would be welcome

:55:25. > :55:29.because it means people can come and participate even if they cannot hear

:55:30. > :55:36.at the beginning of the day. I think he makes my point. I realise my time

:55:37. > :55:42.is virtually up and what I would just conclude in looking at all the

:55:43. > :55:46.suggestions that have been made and discussed is that any further work

:55:47. > :55:50.which is now undertaken will need to look at both sides of all of them,

:55:51. > :55:57.the upsides and downsides because the lack of consensus on all of them

:55:58. > :56:03.just about demonstrates that none of them are unambiguously without

:56:04. > :56:07.problem. I'm a proud member of this house and it does play a significant

:56:08. > :56:12.and positive role but I fully accept that this role is devalued in the

:56:13. > :56:17.minds of many people by its size. I and my colleagues will look at

:56:18. > :56:20.methods short of the elections which we would prefer but which I

:56:21. > :56:26.recognise we're not going to get in the foreseeable future, look at

:56:27. > :56:30.methods by which this might be done. After today's debate, despite some

:56:31. > :56:37.consensus we're under no illusions that this is going to be easy. This

:56:38. > :56:44.has certainly been an interesting evening, interesting debate and I'm

:56:45. > :56:50.grateful for Lord to instigate it. Also for the government Chief Whip

:56:51. > :56:53.giving us time to have this debate. Perhaps my most enjoyable part was

:56:54. > :57:04.the exchange between the noble Lord Norton and noble Lord

:57:05. > :57:15.Despite the inevitable impact on his benches, he was still happy to go

:57:16. > :57:19.forward with the elections. Our first seasonal greetings of turkeys

:57:20. > :57:25.voted early for Christmas. We have had a large number of speakers today

:57:26. > :57:32.and it reflects the issue and also the fact we are a self regulating

:57:33. > :57:36.house. We seek solutions ourselves on how to move forward on this

:57:37. > :57:44.issue. Many other areas of Lords reform has been initiated from your

:57:45. > :57:50.lordship's house. And if there are to be changes on things like size,

:57:51. > :57:53.it is helpful to proceed with consensus and broad agreement.

:57:54. > :58:03.Labour peers have considered this issue for some time. We all seen our

:58:04. > :58:09.2014 report. The future of the House of Lords and its place within the

:58:10. > :58:16.wider constitution. We have not had much to baked it about its place in

:58:17. > :58:26.the wider constitution. Certainly during the cause of to my's debate,

:58:27. > :58:32.there have been things I have agreed to disagree down. The noble Lord,

:58:33. > :58:36.who is a very experienced man in this matter, said it is difficult

:58:37. > :58:42.and complicated but we can make a start. Tonight, we made that start.

:58:43. > :58:47.We heard the views on what the problem is, how it can be resolved,

:58:48. > :58:52.but there was broad agreement on how we could be a better understood,

:58:53. > :58:58.reflective chamber held in higher regard if we could do that with

:58:59. > :59:02.fewer members. But the first principle should be of course the

:59:03. > :59:09.form follows function and the role of this House has to be the central

:59:10. > :59:13.part of our debate. We are clear on what we do and how we can best do it

:59:14. > :59:26.and that will scrutinise the revising chamber, valuable one. The

:59:27. > :59:31.Canadian Senate, the first Prime Minister of Canada described the

:59:32. > :59:34.Senate as a chamber of sober second thought. I thought that was quite an

:59:35. > :59:38.analogy about how to approach things in many ways but I have also got no

:59:39. > :59:45.doubt that governments have become less tolerant of that sober second

:59:46. > :59:49.thought and indeed that more independent thought. I don't know if

:59:50. > :59:54.noble Lords have followed the news today but the political crisis in

:59:55. > :59:59.Italy started on a referendum about reducing the size and power of the

:00:00. > :00:03.Senate, the second chamber. The Prime Minister has been accused of a

:00:04. > :00:11.power grab by reducing their powers in defence of the second chamber.

:00:12. > :00:14.Look what is happening there. This Parliament has been difficult for

:00:15. > :00:19.the government. It is the first time ever that a Conservative government

:00:20. > :00:23.did not have an automatic majority in your lordship's house and but the

:00:24. > :00:28.government and opposition parties had to manage that. And despite some

:00:29. > :00:33.transitional pick-ups, as the House, we have manage that process well.

:00:34. > :00:37.Being in opposition does not mean the government gets its own way

:00:38. > :00:40.every time but neither does it mean and opposition can deny the right of

:00:41. > :00:47.an elected government to implement the programme on which it is

:00:48. > :00:51.elected. We also heard that every government has tended to appoint

:00:52. > :00:57.more of its own party peers and fewer of the opposition. From 1997,

:00:58. > :01:03.when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, there were 477

:01:04. > :01:07.Conservative peers and 117 Labour, but even then, it was only after

:01:08. > :01:13.eight years and two electoral landslide is that the Labour Party

:01:14. > :01:19.became the largest party in this House in 2005. Yet the pace then

:01:20. > :01:24.from 2010 certainly gathered and the Conservative Party, despite being

:01:25. > :01:38.two parties in government, the Conservative Party in the Liberal

:01:39. > :01:41.Democrats, when power. Part of the problem short-term decisions taken

:01:42. > :01:45.in recent years and a lack of understanding is of the role of the

:01:46. > :01:52.House. David Cameron appointed more peers take faster rate than any

:01:53. > :02:02.other Prime Minister since 1958 when life peerages were introduced. That

:02:03. > :02:05.then became further complicated because a significant number of

:02:06. > :02:13.those peers who were appointed from the Liberal Democrats benches were

:02:14. > :02:19.used to be over there, they went to 104 from just 72. But then they went

:02:20. > :02:22.into opposition on this side of the House, the Prime Minister felt he

:02:23. > :02:27.had to appoint more Conservative peers to try to balance, I think

:02:28. > :02:32.about it up was the expression used by noble Lords, in order to

:02:33. > :02:36.compensate for his party of government being in opposition. That

:02:37. > :02:41.is not the sole reason but as part of the reason why the size of the

:02:42. > :02:47.House has grown. In looking at addressing size, there are two

:02:48. > :02:51.issues. One is reputational and the other is practical. When I first

:02:52. > :02:56.came here six years ago, we never had an overflow seating area the

:02:57. > :03:00.members from this House. That is something new that has come about

:03:01. > :03:08.from the increase in the size of the House. We should also recognise the

:03:09. > :03:12.reputational issue. No noble Lords have commented on the numbers who

:03:13. > :03:17.attend and those who are entitled to attend but it is not enough to say,

:03:18. > :03:23.it is OK to stop it is almost a suggestion to other peers who in

:03:24. > :03:27.turn up. That is not acceptable. Every member of your house is an

:03:28. > :03:33.equal and is entitled to be here and is entitled to vote. I am sure I was

:03:34. > :03:37.not the only one that winced when we heard one member of this House

:03:38. > :03:42.complaining that he was appointed as a honour but did not like the being

:03:43. > :03:52.called in to vote. That is an embarrassment for this House. I

:03:53. > :03:55.disagree with the noble lord. It is not a part-time house. We often sit

:03:56. > :04:00.longer than the other end. But what we have is members of this House do

:04:01. > :04:04.not have to be full-time official politicians to engage in the work of

:04:05. > :04:10.scrutiny and holding the government to account. So how do we achieve

:04:11. > :04:15.reducing our size? We can agree there is an issue, we can agree on

:04:16. > :04:20.the principle, but how do we make that? The noble Lord Cormack was

:04:21. > :04:23.very helpful in talking about principle not detail. Inevitably,

:04:24. > :04:32.talking about principle, we look at detail. I agree with the noble Lord

:04:33. > :04:36.Newby that every proposal will have its downside also have its benefits.

:04:37. > :04:43.That is what we need to take into account a look at. If we look at the

:04:44. > :04:47.issue of retirement age, and I very uncomfortable, my great friend to

:04:48. > :04:53.introduce me to this place, whatever age we identify with, we would not

:04:54. > :04:58.be happy for him to go, whatever age we suggest, we can all identify

:04:59. > :05:02.noble Lords to make an amazing contribution to this House and a few

:05:03. > :05:10.others in younger than them who don't. There is that but I think we

:05:11. > :05:14.do find that most noble Lords will choose an age five years above the

:05:15. > :05:22.age they are. That is something that should be looked at but we cannot

:05:23. > :05:26.look at that sober. Some members of this House, not just the

:05:27. > :05:28.crossbenchers, a number of common once they are retired from their

:05:29. > :05:33.profession because they want to use their expertise in the work of this

:05:34. > :05:37.House. If we look at just attendance, that affect the

:05:38. > :05:40.crossbenchers. We should expect a basic level of activity in

:05:41. > :05:47.commitment to this House from all noble Lords. Having said that, we

:05:48. > :05:51.also need to recognise the contribution of those who do not

:05:52. > :05:55.attend very regularly but, when they do, they are experience, they add

:05:56. > :06:00.expertise in value to the work we do, and it is getting the balance

:06:01. > :06:04.between those two issues so we do justice to our colleagues or also we

:06:05. > :06:10.have expectations that people are not just here, there is a rule to be

:06:11. > :06:17.played in legislation in the work we do. Another issue that has come up

:06:18. > :06:27.is to tie numbers here in some way to... I am totally opposed to using

:06:28. > :06:32.the previous election alone as some kind of marker for numbers and

:06:33. > :06:37.proportions the different parties and crossbenchers. What we should

:06:38. > :06:41.look at perhaps is trends elections but I have this House bouncing about

:06:42. > :06:45.from one side to the other because of an election result seems to me to

:06:46. > :06:51.undermine the very essence of what we are about and not a reflection of

:06:52. > :06:54.the House of Commons. We are distinct and separate. We complement

:06:55. > :06:59.and work with the House of Commons but we are different. The noble Lord

:07:00. > :07:04.made a similar point about three elections as well. But we have to

:07:05. > :07:10.take care about how we look at that. What are the guiding principles were

:07:11. > :07:15.looking at size? For me, but is non-negotiable is a couple numbers.

:07:16. > :07:21.It is not have to be an absolute number, it can be a band. I

:07:22. > :07:25.discussed this with the noble lady and it was totally unacceptable to

:07:26. > :07:29.the government as Parliament has to have the right to make appointments

:07:30. > :07:41.and they cannot be bettered in any way. I am not talking about removing

:07:42. > :07:48.patronage of Prime Ministers. But there are limits. Unless a cap is

:07:49. > :07:53.agreed, there is no value or agreement on how to reach a

:07:54. > :08:00.reduction in size. If they that period of time, it can grow back, it

:08:01. > :08:05.will only be with more government appointments. I have had colleagues

:08:06. > :08:08.say to me, I would retire but, if I do, I will just create a government

:08:09. > :08:12.they can see. That is not what this House should be about. I'm not

:08:13. > :08:21.talking about an exact number but there has to be a band that puts a

:08:22. > :08:27.top level on it. The other point is one should follow function. 450 was

:08:28. > :08:33.a suggestion looked up. The reason they came to that figure was because

:08:34. > :08:36.the committee work this House does and it is not just about

:08:37. > :08:42.legislation. The work of our committees, we have done EU work on

:08:43. > :08:48.EU legislation and statutory instruments and of course with

:08:49. > :08:52.Brexit coming along, there may well be increased activity in your

:08:53. > :08:58.lordship's house because we need to make sure that the government is

:08:59. > :09:02.given advice from this House to address all issues. Whatever that

:09:03. > :09:06.number is, it is less likely to be... It is likely to be less than

:09:07. > :09:10.the Commons but relative size of the Commons is not the driver. The work

:09:11. > :09:15.we do and how we do that work should be the driver. It is inevitable it

:09:16. > :09:22.would be smaller than the Commons. A very quick final point. Another

:09:23. > :09:29.point which I can strongly about as Leader of the Opposition. We have to

:09:30. > :09:33.take into account political balance. There is no official opposition and

:09:34. > :09:42.government embarrassed to be recognised. We talked about 20%.

:09:43. > :09:46.There has to be recognition that we are a political Parliament and there

:09:47. > :09:51.is a role for political parties and that has to be recognised to be an

:09:52. > :09:56.official recognition. I would not go down the Canadian root of all

:09:57. > :10:00.members being appointed as independents. But you want to ensure

:10:01. > :10:10.that political recognition is taken into account. Finally, if we reduce

:10:11. > :10:16.in size... It is inevitable that a spotlight would be shone on the

:10:17. > :10:25.appointments process. It is time that we need greater transparency in

:10:26. > :10:32.how appointments are made. I am not trying to stop Prime Ministers

:10:33. > :10:35.making their judgment and other parties making their political

:10:36. > :10:39.judgments of who they want in here but that has to be some openness

:10:40. > :10:44.about the criteria used. We have an appointments commission that has

:10:45. > :10:47.five peers and two independents. Should we look at the great role of

:10:48. > :10:51.independence we would have a more widespread and diverse role on how

:10:52. > :10:58.we appoint peers. But we have made an important start the day and I

:10:59. > :11:02.want to end the absurdity of the elections for hereditary peers. The

:11:03. > :11:10.whole house recognises that time has come. I do think there is something

:11:11. > :11:14.we should be doing the show do we understand the concerns the public

:11:15. > :11:19.have and we share those concerns. There is opportunity here. While not

:11:20. > :11:27.having a complete consensus, there is broad agreement that we want to

:11:28. > :11:32.move forward. I am grateful to everyone for their contributions to

:11:33. > :11:37.this debate and to my noble friend for securing the opportunity for us

:11:38. > :11:41.to discuss this important matter. What today's debate has shown is

:11:42. > :11:46.that across the House, there is a strong desire to ensure we continue

:11:47. > :11:50.and indeed improve the way we perform our critical scrutinising

:11:51. > :11:55.and revising role. What has also come across loud and clear is the

:11:56. > :11:56.concern noble Lords have about the public's perception and

:11:57. > :12:12.understanding of As leader I want to be clear at the

:12:13. > :12:18.outset that I've had the strength of feeling on this issue. I would also

:12:19. > :12:22.add that I am strongly of the view that any action we might take in

:12:23. > :12:28.respect of the size of the House must at heart enhance our ability to

:12:29. > :12:34.perform for vital role of revision and scrutiny. Any reform cannot and

:12:35. > :12:38.must not simply be about numbers. It must result in this house working

:12:39. > :12:43.better both in terms of fulfilling our role effectively serving the

:12:44. > :12:49.public at large. What has been encouraging about today's debate is

:12:50. > :12:53.that this strong desire for us to work constructively together across

:12:54. > :12:59.the House. In order to make progress on the issue. I'm strongly all the

:13:00. > :13:05.view that it is the only way that progress can be made. However, as

:13:06. > :13:08.noble Lords would no doubt expect me to say about a topic that has

:13:09. > :13:13.occupied your lordship's has for many years this is not something we

:13:14. > :13:17.will be able to make decisions on immediately and implement reforms

:13:18. > :13:27.overnight. As noble as have said in the debate. Today is not the day

:13:28. > :13:36.that I will be assessing the merits of every process proposal today. We

:13:37. > :13:39.can reflect further on the detail of noble Lords's contributions. What I

:13:40. > :13:44.would like to do is set out my approach. In doing so I would like

:13:45. > :13:49.to remind noble Lords this is a subject they'll be considering the

:13:50. > :13:53.two different roles to play. As leader of the whole house it is my

:13:54. > :14:00.responsibility to ensure that we remain able to perform our role as a

:14:01. > :14:03.scrutinising and revising chamber as effectively as possible, com

:14:04. > :14:10.fermenting the work of the elected house and any changes we make are

:14:11. > :14:15.consistent with that purpose. We want to consider proposals raised

:14:16. > :14:19.across all size of the House and see your solutions can be found. This

:14:20. > :14:24.debate reflects the fact that one of the most frequent issues noble Lords

:14:25. > :14:29.have raised with me since I've become leader is concerned about the

:14:30. > :14:32.negative public perception of this house and the view that our size is

:14:33. > :14:38.one of the contributing factors to this. I understand these concerns

:14:39. > :14:42.and agree that we must reflect upon how we can better command public

:14:43. > :14:47.confidence in the excellent work that we do. Secondly I am also a

:14:48. > :14:52.leader in this house of the government benches, a government

:14:53. > :15:06.elected with a manifesto that acknowledge that size is an issue.

:15:07. > :15:11.Has a number of noble Lords have acknowledged that must be right when

:15:12. > :15:16.there are so many pressing legislative priorities. Not least

:15:17. > :15:21.around the UK's exit from the EU and our ambitious social reform agenda.

:15:22. > :15:24.I'm sure noble Lords will not be surprised that I will not be setting

:15:25. > :15:30.up a stall at this stage and proposing specific changes and I

:15:31. > :15:36.think today's debate has shown that there is further work to do to reach

:15:37. > :15:43.a broad consensus on the precise way forward. However, neither am I

:15:44. > :15:46.suggesting that we should simply set ourselves and aspect. That is

:15:47. > :15:52.rightly collectively seek a solution to address concerns about the size

:15:53. > :15:55.of this house raised to date whilst ensuring we continue to refresh and

:15:56. > :16:00.renew our expertise and our outlook so we remain relevant to the Britain

:16:01. > :16:05.of today and of the future. Whatever reforms might be implemented, it is

:16:06. > :16:10.essential that this house continues to be able to draw on the invaluable

:16:11. > :16:16.breadth of expertise and experience of peers as we do today. Over the

:16:17. > :16:20.last few years we have shown what progress can be made when we come

:16:21. > :16:25.together to make this house work more effectively, a number of noble

:16:26. > :16:28.Lords have mentioned whether enabling members to retire from the

:16:29. > :16:33.House, legislating so that members are removed when they do not end at

:16:34. > :16:37.all or giving this house the power to expel members for serious

:16:38. > :16:47.misconduct. These may have been incremental changes but the sum of

:16:48. > :16:52.their parts has been significant and I know many noble Lords who have

:16:53. > :16:56.spoken today and they are impatient for more wide reaching reform but we

:16:57. > :17:00.shouldn't underestimate the importance of what has already been

:17:01. > :17:08.achieved and of the value of taking steps forward together. I sense that

:17:09. > :17:12.noble Lords want to bring that same spirit of moving forward in light of

:17:13. > :17:17.today's debate. For while it will not be possible either practically

:17:18. > :17:23.or politically to achieve everything that has been raised this evening, I

:17:24. > :17:27.hope that it will be possible for us to examine and consider what kind of

:17:28. > :17:33.ideas might be able to command support across the House in relation

:17:34. > :17:39.to our size. And if in light of that consideration there are ideas for

:17:40. > :17:44.proposals that are able to command broad consensus then I would welcome

:17:45. > :17:47.working with noble Lords, both as Leader of the House and as a member

:17:48. > :17:52.of the government to explore taking them forward. My Lords, following on

:17:53. > :17:57.from today's constructive debate we have an opportunity to make

:17:58. > :18:01.progress. It is clear that there is strong feeling across all benches

:18:02. > :18:07.that the size of the House is an issue of concern and noble Lords

:18:08. > :18:11.want to continue discussions about how we might look to address this.

:18:12. > :18:14.Although I think it's also fair to say that there is not currently

:18:15. > :18:20.clear agreement on what a solution might be. In further discussions

:18:21. > :18:24.about our size and will be important that we reflect on the work we do

:18:25. > :18:31.and consider how we can do it more effectively. As I have said, I am

:18:32. > :18:34.clear that any further reform must enhance our role as a chamber of

:18:35. > :18:40.scrutiny and revision and that we must be able to draw on a wealth of

:18:41. > :18:43.experience and expertise. I'll reflect on the comments made this

:18:44. > :18:49.evening and consider how best to take matters forward. I also want to

:18:50. > :18:52.speak with my fellow leaders, the convener and the noble lord the Lord

:18:53. > :18:57.Speaker to consider the best approach to take. As I have made

:18:58. > :19:03.clear, I believe that if we are to make any progress on the issue, we

:19:04. > :19:08.have to do it together as a house. The way forward will not be one

:19:09. > :19:11.instigated, lead and imposed by government alone. A number of noble

:19:12. > :19:15.Lords have suggested the select committee is their preferred way

:19:16. > :19:18.forward. As the House will know we have a liaison committee that

:19:19. > :19:24.oversees select committees and is currently seeking submissions for

:19:25. > :19:27.next year's act ad hoc committees and that may be a route that some of

:19:28. > :19:32.you wish to preserve. I would also like to consider and reflect on

:19:33. > :19:38.whether a more immediate and practical step could be taken in

:19:39. > :19:43.convening a small bag Bentaleb consultative group whose work could

:19:44. > :19:48.be overseen by the Lord Speaker. Such a group could be well placed

:19:49. > :19:52.early on to look at pragmatic options for progress on this issue,

:19:53. > :19:55.analyse their implications and identify the important questions

:19:56. > :20:01.that need to be resolved so we can move forward. Obviously I will

:20:02. > :20:05.discuss this further in light of today's debate and I will bear in

:20:06. > :20:10.mind the strong desire noble Lords have expressed for this to be a

:20:11. > :20:14.process led by members as for any proposals for reform to have a

:20:15. > :20:18.chance of success as the noble lady said, there are going to have to

:20:19. > :20:22.command broad consensus around the House. I've heard a clear call from

:20:23. > :20:27.today's debate and from the broader discussions I have had in my time as

:20:28. > :20:30.leader that there is renewed momentum to have constructive

:20:31. > :20:36.discussions about our future on this issue. Although I am coming to this

:20:37. > :20:42.debate fresh, I'm struck by the strength of feeling across this

:20:43. > :20:46.house on the need to try and make progress and I'm encouraged that the

:20:47. > :20:54.debate today has set us on our way and a welcome spirit of partnership.

:20:55. > :21:00.Is false to me briefly to wind up this debate and introduced the

:21:01. > :21:05.motion at the beginning and I will begin by thanking once again the

:21:06. > :21:09.Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for making this time available

:21:10. > :21:19.to us. I would also like to say how very much I admired the spirit in

:21:20. > :21:25.which both the leader and the shadow Leader of the House responded to the

:21:26. > :21:31.debate. The leader in particular showed that she has within her stuff

:21:32. > :21:36.to make a great leader of this house. She clearly understands what

:21:37. > :21:44.the House is about and what its duties and rule are. I was

:21:45. > :21:54.encouraged by what she said. Two things came through this debate very

:21:55. > :22:01.strongly indeed. First of all, 49 of the 56 backbench speakers backed the

:22:02. > :22:06.motion. With varying degrees of enthusiasm some with total

:22:07. > :22:11.enthusiasm. But only seven didn't feel able to associate themselves

:22:12. > :22:16.with emotion. How you define consensus I know not but certainly

:22:17. > :22:21.an overwhelming majority. The other things that came through in this

:22:22. > :22:27.debate was regard to the second half of the motion to which I attach, in

:22:28. > :22:32.spite of what was said by one colleague, equal importance was the

:22:33. > :22:39.desire for a select committee. The leader as in a very constructive way

:22:40. > :22:45.acknowledged that. The best thing that she said was that she clearly

:22:46. > :22:53.wants to continue discussions she talked about the possible committee

:22:54. > :22:58.being convened by Lord Speaker and clearly that's an idea that deserves

:22:59. > :23:04.serious consideration. And it doesn't in any sense roll out a

:23:05. > :23:10.select committee referral, nor does it mean that we have two Creek at a

:23:11. > :23:17.snails pace. The other thing that came out of this debate was this

:23:18. > :23:23.sense of urgency in many of the speeches. Most notably in the most

:23:24. > :23:32.excellent wind-up speech from the backbenchers on my noble friend Lord

:23:33. > :23:35.McMillan and in the speech of a man who has more experience of the

:23:36. > :23:43.workings of Parliament than perhaps anyone else, who actually said that

:23:44. > :23:51.we are in danger of losing the claim to be seen as an effective second

:23:52. > :23:58.chamber unless we take some action. Clearly, throughout the House

:23:59. > :24:01.members of all parties on the crossbenchers I would just point out

:24:02. > :24:08.that two of the five liberal speakers were warmly and supportive

:24:09. > :24:16.of the motion. There is throughout the House a recognition that size is

:24:17. > :24:25.an impediment to enhancing our reputation and the understanding. We

:24:26. > :24:36.have not got an enormous amount of time. What we need in the months

:24:37. > :24:40.ahead not a publicly announced but privately practised self-denying

:24:41. > :24:47.ordinance on the part of the Prime Minister so we do not see another

:24:48. > :24:55.procession coming to the box to take the oath. Everyone who has entered

:24:56. > :25:02.this house since I came here has always been made as welcome as I was

:25:03. > :25:09.and that is our duty always. But if we overload the benches we create

:25:10. > :25:16.problems for everyone and that has come across time and again in the

:25:17. > :25:21.speeches that we have heard today. I believe we are very fortunate in

:25:22. > :25:32.having a Lord Speaker who the moment he took office made his own concerns

:25:33. > :25:36.publicly made. We have a Leader of the House supported by a shadow

:25:37. > :25:44.Leader of the House who recognises the importance of these issues. And

:25:45. > :25:50.I hope that this will prove not to just have been a very long

:25:51. > :25:59.pre-Christmas Day but the beginning of a campaign that will result in

:26:00. > :26:07.the course of the next year or so in concrete and positive steps being

:26:08. > :26:13.taken. We must show that we have the collective will to take the

:26:14. > :26:21.initiative year. We do not want to have a solution imposed upon us. We

:26:22. > :26:28.do not want a house in which so many of those take great pride to be in

:26:29. > :26:32.any way in danger. I have great confidence from what the Leader of

:26:33. > :26:35.the House has said and I would like an conclusion to thank everyone who

:26:36. > :26:41.has taken part in a very constructive debate and it's

:26:42. > :26:45.remarkable that we got through 61 speeches and it still only quarter

:26:46. > :26:52.past nine. My Lords, I beg formally to move.

:26:53. > :26:58.This House believes that its size should be reduced and methods be

:26:59. > :27:12.explored by this with this could be achieved. As many as are of that

:27:13. > :27:19.pinny and safe content, as are not say not content. I beg to move. The

:27:20. > :27:24.House will now adjourn. The House do now adjourned.