Size of the House of Lords Committee

:00:54. > :01:01.Good morning and may I welcome you to this session of the public

:01:02. > :01:05.administration public affairs committee about our inquiry into the

:01:06. > :01:11.next step of reform for the House of Lords. You arrive on the morning of

:01:12. > :01:18.a very topical time. Where the House of Lords has been

:01:19. > :01:23.very much in the news, both with the documentary and with recent

:01:24. > :01:27.political events. Formerly, I have to ask you to

:01:28. > :01:36.introduce each of yourselves for the record, please.

:01:37. > :01:40.Amanda Smith. Baroness of Basildon for these purpose and the Labour

:01:41. > :01:50.leader in the House of Lords opposition. I'm David Halt, the

:01:51. > :01:56.convener of the cross-bench pers. Grateful to you all for coming. We

:01:57. > :02:02.will ask short questions, and if uppion can give fairly crisp answers

:02:03. > :02:08.that will be helpful. If the answers are going on longer, I may wish to

:02:09. > :02:13.shorten them. So, could we have our first question, please, Paul Anyone?

:02:14. > :02:20.Could I state as a practitioner in this place for a long time, my

:02:21. > :02:22.admiration for your House as a body for scrutinising legislation,

:02:23. > :02:28.superior to what happens here. But the position of the Lord's,

:02:29. > :02:33.which is nothing to do with you, is one that is indefensible in so many

:02:34. > :02:38.ways in the number of peers, and the fact it is possible to buy a place

:02:39. > :02:44.in the Lord's if you contribute to any of the three main parties. The

:02:45. > :02:49.fact it overrepresents London and under-represents Scotland and that

:02:50. > :02:53.will get worse, all of the problems that arice and the illogical things

:02:54. > :03:03.that come from it. We are stuck with it now. There have been attempts to

:03:04. > :03:06.reform it. As a bemused nation watches the ermine-clad antics in

:03:07. > :03:10.the Lord's and on the television programme, where there is serious

:03:11. > :03:16.work going on there, can you list practical ways to reforming it, from

:03:17. > :03:22.the worst excesses in the near future? How can we do it? Are you

:03:23. > :03:28.talking about worst excesses in appointments? I could go on. I think

:03:29. > :03:35.I have the gives. Another problem is the apparent lack

:03:36. > :03:39.of rules for conduct in the Lord's. Someone being interviewed as a

:03:40. > :03:43.possible lobbyist says when they leave the House of Commons, in the

:03:44. > :03:47.Lord's, they could do more for you for the money that is paid in the

:03:48. > :03:55.Lord's because of the rules. But there is a number of perceptions of

:03:56. > :04:03.the Lord's that are there and cannot be respected any more as a second

:04:04. > :04:07.chamber. The question of reforms coming up,

:04:08. > :04:13.the question on rules and lobbying, that is something that perhaps you

:04:14. > :04:19.could address immediately? We have tightening up the rules on lobbying

:04:20. > :04:24.considerably. I think that the privileges and the

:04:25. > :04:31.conduct committee and subcommittee which looks at them has been

:04:32. > :04:39.rigorous certainly in the years I have been on it, at making sure that

:04:40. > :04:48.the rule which says you can't either have public paid advocacy in the

:04:49. > :04:50.Lords or use your position to lobby ministers, has been rigorously

:04:51. > :04:55.enforced and there have been sanctions against people. I think it

:04:56. > :05:02.has tightened up a lot in recent years but I think now it is pretty

:05:03. > :05:08.rigorous. I would agree. Anyone who uses their

:05:09. > :05:12.position inappropriately would be dealt with swiftly, if there are

:05:13. > :05:17.suggestions as to how it can be improved I would be open to

:05:18. > :05:21.suggestions. But no-one would tolerate members of the House of

:05:22. > :05:26.Commons using their position, either paid positions or positions that the

:05:27. > :05:29.public might think that they are acting inappropriately would be

:05:30. > :05:36.acceptable in any way. Could we take the I pointments. The

:05:37. > :05:41.reason we are in such a mess is to solve problems within internal party

:05:42. > :05:48.problems, that have been existing because of the cruelly and people

:05:49. > :05:55.are adding to the number in the Lords, in order to solve internal

:05:56. > :06:00.political party problems. I think you find across the House of Lords

:06:01. > :06:10.broad agreement with evidence by debates that we have had and issues

:06:11. > :06:15.raised that the House of Lords has a size that is beyond that which the

:06:16. > :06:21.job is required of it. I think that we will come to these

:06:22. > :06:26.questions... Shall I continue to answer or shall await? I think we

:06:27. > :06:31.will wait. The general question is what can we

:06:32. > :06:41.do about it? We have other questions... If we are arguing about

:06:42. > :06:47.the conduct, I would refer to you two cases recently, that suggests

:06:48. > :06:52.that the rules that have been imposed, par tick Latin America with

:06:53. > :06:58.one case, with a complaint I made where it took two hearings for it to

:06:59. > :07:03.go through where there seemed observe abuse on rules of lobbying,

:07:04. > :07:07.it must have been done in two stages and it was nothing rigorous, the

:07:08. > :07:11.Lord was asked to make a brief apology, and then the whole thing

:07:12. > :07:17.forgotten about. Is there more to be done on this

:07:18. > :07:21.question, Lord Hope? The committee takes a close eye on what is going

:07:22. > :07:26.on. There is a subcommittee within that committee that works with the

:07:27. > :07:30.commissioner to investigate these case, you must look carefully at the

:07:31. > :07:35.facts before forming a judgment as to the result of the process. But

:07:36. > :07:39.when something is exposed like let's say in this case, we all appreciate

:07:40. > :07:46.that something went wrong and we learn from it. A great deal of

:07:47. > :07:52.effort is taken with new peers to explain the rules and make it clear

:07:53. > :07:58.that there is a boundary beyond which they must not go.

:07:59. > :08:08.And how do we stop people buying places in the Lords? W... As far as

:08:09. > :08:14.the cross-benchers are concerned it different. There are two routes, one

:08:15. > :08:19.is the Prime Minister's appointment system, ten appointees in the life

:08:20. > :08:25.of a Parliament, Cabinet secaries senior military figures and so on,

:08:26. > :08:28.the other is through the Appointment's Commission, we are

:08:29. > :08:33.allowed two a year. It is a separate process from politics. There is no

:08:34. > :08:39.question of buying your way in. It is a competitive process. The

:08:40. > :08:42.cross-benchers must be understood against that background.

:08:43. > :08:48.Well are well aware of that system. It is one that is entirely

:08:49. > :08:51.defencible. The problem is that politicians, former MPs appoint the

:08:52. > :08:59.people who have given their party money. This is going back even

:09:00. > :09:04.before my time in this Parliament. The question about the appointment

:09:05. > :09:09.of peers, there are a number of issues that I would like to see

:09:10. > :09:14.changed. I would like a cap on the number of peers appointed to the

:09:15. > :09:20.House of Lords. A more proactive role for the current appointment's

:09:21. > :09:24.commission or a separate body that looks at the propiraty of the peers

:09:25. > :09:32.appointed and the contribution that they can make to the Lords. And take

:09:33. > :09:40.into account the work that the Lords have done. There are issues around

:09:41. > :09:43.ensuring that those appointed can be properly vetted, checked to ensure

:09:44. > :09:47.that they can provide a contribution. The current system

:09:48. > :09:53.does not do that as well as it could and if it is looking at the

:09:54. > :09:57.Appointment's Commissioner, we must look at the resources and the time

:09:58. > :10:02.given where in a number of occasions with the limited powers on

:10:03. > :10:09.appointments they are not given enough time to fully look and fulfil

:10:10. > :10:14.their functions. I would have no problem looking at all appointments

:10:15. > :10:21.but there must be a clear criteria set out first.

:10:22. > :10:28.I think one of the key thing is the appointments Commission should do is

:10:29. > :10:36.to seek an assurance from party appointees that they intend to play

:10:37. > :10:40.that part. I think that would deal with Mr Flynn's point about people

:10:41. > :10:46.who have been party donors, who in some cases come in with no

:10:47. > :10:55.expectation of of doing a hand's turn and that seems to be wrong in

:10:56. > :11:01.principle and I think the only way you can get the principle of a

:11:02. > :11:06.working appear as if the appointments committee where on a

:11:07. > :11:11.statutory basis and had powers to quiz potential appointees about

:11:12. > :11:16.their future commitments. As far as crossbenchers are concerned, the

:11:17. > :11:18.system is more rigorous than in the case of political parties and

:11:19. > :11:21.everybody who comes in through that route has tested as to whether they

:11:22. > :11:26.are prepared to make a contribution and indeed whether the contribution

:11:27. > :11:30.they can make is worth having. So, it is a rigorous one and one might

:11:31. > :11:36.want to explore the ability of the Commission to expand a rigorous

:11:37. > :11:41.process... We will come to that. Can I ask a first principles question?

:11:42. > :11:47.Do we all agree what the appropriate role of the House of Lords actually

:11:48. > :11:51.is? Would you like to have a stab at all three of you agreeing on what it

:11:52. > :12:03.is? There may or may not be agreement. I tend to vary slightly

:12:04. > :12:07.from the scrutiny description. A House of sober second thought is the

:12:08. > :12:13.Canadian edition and I think that's a nice description of what we do. We

:12:14. > :12:16.give breathing space and the House of Lords gave the opportunity for

:12:17. > :12:20.the House of Commons to look again at an issue recently. There is

:12:21. > :12:28.difference between us on the panel what we do in the House but that

:12:29. > :12:31.sober second thought that allows the Commons to think again, I think

:12:32. > :12:36.there has been some difficulty with that. Not the House of Lords, we

:12:37. > :12:40.have seen a lot of attacks on the House of Lords suggesting we have

:12:41. > :12:46.exceeded agreement. I think we have not exceeded that agreement. Tax

:12:47. > :12:52.credits was when that allegation started. When we Government to look

:12:53. > :12:57.again, that led to the Strathclyde report. And before the Brexit

:12:58. > :13:01.process even started, the House of Lords was being threatened with

:13:02. > :13:04.abolition and 1000 extra peers to get the Bill through. It would've

:13:05. > :13:09.taken two years to get 1000 extra peers but the comments were still

:13:10. > :13:13.made. So, I think how the Government response to the House of Lords,

:13:14. > :13:17.asking the House of Commons to think again, has changed. And that,

:13:18. > :13:23.perhaps, is a wider issue. I think we're quite clear on how a row. If

:13:24. > :13:28.you cut the number of fatal motions, the number of times the Commons has

:13:29. > :13:32.been able to think again, nothing significant has changed on that over

:13:33. > :13:40.time. Feared the other two witnesses differ from that? Fifa the answer

:13:41. > :13:48.while Skiff is firstly, scrutiny of legislation. Secondly, daily holding

:13:49. > :13:53.of account through questions and debates and thirdly, the House of

:13:54. > :13:57.Lords has been reasonably good at having early-stage debates on big

:13:58. > :14:03.public policy issues which are contentious and which there is no

:14:04. > :14:08.consensus on. Right to die is an obvious area but some of these big

:14:09. > :14:13.issues have been discussed in the Lords and brought to public view in

:14:14. > :14:19.a way that doesn't happen in quite the same way in the Commons. All I

:14:20. > :14:24.would add is to stress the work of the committees on the committee work

:14:25. > :14:28.that goes on the House of Lords, in the EU field and legislation, as we

:14:29. > :14:32.looked at with HS2, the committee work is of a very high standard and

:14:33. > :14:36.a lot of effort is put in by people who perhaps don't play a big part in

:14:37. > :14:44.the Chamber but are working hard on committees to develop the thinking

:14:45. > :14:54.through them. Can I just pick up on one point from the previous

:14:55. > :14:57.question. On that last answer, I shall get nearer to the microphone,

:14:58. > :15:04.I can be slightly soft-spoken sometimes. In terms of the rove the

:15:05. > :15:09.House of Lords, how much do you feel the role is helped or hindered by

:15:10. > :15:18.the fact that you do not have a constituency party group of members,

:15:19. > :15:22.sometimes scrutinising and focusing on what you may or may not be doing,

:15:23. > :15:32.in terms of your potential reselection or not, into your role?

:15:33. > :15:36.I'm in the best place, having been about the House of Commons on the

:15:37. > :15:40.House of Lords. 13 years in the House of Commons as a backbencher

:15:41. > :15:45.and as a minister and now six in the House of Lords. I see the rules is

:15:46. > :15:49.very different. A complimentary. I think it is right the final say is

:15:50. > :15:52.with the House of Commons and privacy allows for the House of

:15:53. > :16:00.Commons because we are an elected House. It does not stop me and my

:16:01. > :16:08.colleagues in the House of Lords may agree, from having feelings about

:16:09. > :16:13.issues and letters no lack of direct contact. We're not representatives,

:16:14. > :16:27.so it's a different role. I'm talking about the selection of MPs,

:16:28. > :16:39.have to you feel about not having to pander to the line with a thought of

:16:40. > :16:43.reselection? In a sense, you come to it knowing that that is the deal. It

:16:44. > :16:48.is obviously different from being an MP. I think what has changed during

:16:49. > :16:53.my time there is that when I started, you were operating in a

:16:54. > :16:56.closed box. If you received very few letters. Now, particularly with

:16:57. > :17:07.e-mail, that has changed significantly. I have had over 500

:17:08. > :17:12.e-mails about the Article 50 Bill in the last week, expressing a wide

:17:13. > :17:18.range of opinion. Although people don't feel we are accountable in the

:17:19. > :17:23.same way as MPs, we feel that they are, or I feel, leaving aside any

:17:24. > :17:28.political or tragic campaigning, but I am exposed more to public opinion,

:17:29. > :17:38.is it where, and to individuals with views in which I speak and have done

:17:39. > :17:42.in the past. Crossbenchers contribute expertise, people from

:17:43. > :17:45.various backgrounds, medicine, University, military, for example,

:17:46. > :17:51.lawyers, and that is the contribution they make, it is not

:17:52. > :17:54.based on constituency work and most, not all, would never dream of

:17:55. > :17:58.standing for election, partly because they do not have time to do

:17:59. > :18:02.that but that is one might like to think about who to sometimes said to

:18:03. > :18:08.me that they feel they do represent a constituency and that is the

:18:09. > :18:12.bishops who are dealing... You may laugh but they do speak to people of

:18:13. > :18:18.different faiths who contribute their thoughts through them. People

:18:19. > :18:23.know they exist. Through their Diocese, which is a large area, they

:18:24. > :18:27.develop ideas. The questions they ask at question time are often based

:18:28. > :18:31.on their understanding of how things are within their dioceses. Of

:18:32. > :18:42.course, it is very easy to laugh at this but it is fact that they do try

:18:43. > :18:50.to represent their Diocese. Bishops being representative of different

:18:51. > :18:55.faiths... Well, the people I speak to say they are approached by other

:18:56. > :19:01.faiths, who know they are there and they contribute their ideas to them.

:19:02. > :19:06.Would you not be better to give those other faiths a voice? There

:19:07. > :19:16.are other faiths in the House. Lord Singh, and there are people other

:19:17. > :19:21.than that and the point I am making is the Bishop does not just

:19:22. > :19:24.represent themselves as individuals. But we could help by giving voice to

:19:25. > :19:32.other faiths within the House of Lords. They're there. I would

:19:33. > :19:35.welcome more faiths on the crossbenchers, it is a question of

:19:36. > :19:45.getting in and through the process and we have several better already.

:19:46. > :19:52.Thank you. I didn't get to where I wanted to be those questions but

:19:53. > :19:55.anyway... On more substantive questions about House of Lords

:19:56. > :20:02.reform, generally speaking, more incremental reform has been more

:20:03. > :20:06.successful than radical reform. I wonder from your perspective, each

:20:07. > :20:13.of you in turn, starting with Baroness Smith, for which you

:20:14. > :20:16.suggest is the next small essential Lords reform? I think there are a

:20:17. > :20:23.number of incremental reforms which could be easily achieved. The

:20:24. > :20:26.hereditary by-elections, we should end those, which are on nonsense and

:20:27. > :20:30.an embarrassment to the House. That could be done tomorrow. That could

:20:31. > :20:36.be reversed. Visit Private Members' Bill in existence. The Government

:20:37. > :20:39.takes a few should be consensus. To get complete consensus on anything

:20:40. > :20:50.is very difficult. To get a broad consensus is easy. Also on powers of

:20:51. > :20:56.blocking, I think Maccabi an easy one to do. In another paper, it was

:20:57. > :21:04.looked at revising powers and limiting blocking powers. Blocking

:21:05. > :21:07.powers are so rarely use it. I wouldn't get rid all together but

:21:08. > :21:17.you could extend revising powers, for example on NSIs. Also, looking

:21:18. > :21:21.at the size of the House, I think there is broad agreement the size of

:21:22. > :21:27.the House does need to be addressed. It has largely come about, partly as

:21:28. > :21:34.a result of the Coalition Government, David Cameron wanted to

:21:35. > :21:40.have more peers and appointed peers at a faster rate than 1958

:21:41. > :21:47.potted-mac I will come back to that point in a moment. But the

:21:48. > :21:54.incremental reform you suggest tips, ending hereditary by-elections, that

:21:55. > :22:02.is only going to gradually erode... It is not a numbers issue. That is

:22:03. > :22:13.one easy suggestion. Lord Newby? There is no consensus on virtually

:22:14. > :22:17.nothing. So, that means that. No absolute consensus. There is a broad

:22:18. > :22:21.consensus that we should reduce numbers House of Lords but there is

:22:22. > :22:24.no consensus thereafter on how to do it. Parties are differentially

:22:25. > :22:29.affected by virtually any reform we might care to make. In terms of what

:22:30. > :22:36.could become in the relatively short-term, without major

:22:37. > :22:39.legislation, you could strengthen the appointments Commission, as we

:22:40. > :22:45.have said, you could stop hereditary by-elections and you could have a

:22:46. > :22:52.moratorium so that at least you are turning off the tap temporarily. We

:22:53. > :22:54.could go a bit further in encouraging people to retire,

:22:55. > :23:01.although I think that scheme has worked pretty well, really, and it

:23:02. > :23:06.is now more acceptable for people to retire and I think more to do so in

:23:07. > :23:13.future. Alike can I count on retirement, I agree. There are

:23:14. > :23:17.people in the House that would retire, certainly on my side, who

:23:18. > :23:21.would consider retirement because our appointment level has been so

:23:22. > :23:25.low since 2010, they don't feel their numbers would be replaced, it

:23:26. > :23:28.would be replaced by someone from a Government party, so I think not

:23:29. > :23:31.just looking at size but the political balance of how the House

:23:32. > :23:39.works have to be part of the same debate. You both agree on a cap on

:23:40. > :23:46.size? Yes, an absolute cap or something doesn't ban but a cap on

:23:47. > :23:51.size. Regard it as part of my job to spread the message of retirement it

:23:52. > :23:56.is said that on the whole, our group is rather older than others. It is

:23:57. > :24:00.done to the way people coming and I have worked hard to achieve more

:24:01. > :24:08.retirements. Can I come back to hereditary peers?

:24:09. > :24:16.Dmrb In my case it is about 15% of my group. I recognise it is absurd,

:24:17. > :24:21.having the by-elections but if it is to be stopped, I would like the ways

:24:22. > :24:27.into the Crossbench group widened, otherwise I'm losing people in

:24:28. > :24:33.retirement and indeed mortality without replacements.

:24:34. > :24:37.It really must be a quid pro quo. It was always a temporary measure to

:24:38. > :24:41.hold the position until a proper reform of the House of Lords was

:24:42. > :24:46.achieved. So from my position, I don't think it would be right to

:24:47. > :24:52.just terminate it without looking at the consequences for my group.

:24:53. > :24:56.This is where there is an agreement across the House of Lords, there is

:24:57. > :25:04.an agreement generally in the House of Lords from what you all said that

:25:05. > :25:08.the House of Lords is too big. 200 more peers therein MPs at the

:25:09. > :25:17.moment. That is the general analysis. But there seems to be

:25:18. > :25:22.disagreement as Lord Newby said even amongst the emphasis that Baroness

:25:23. > :25:27.Smith put on the issue of the hereditary by-elections and the

:25:28. > :25:32.impact it would have as Lord hope has indicated on a particular

:25:33. > :25:37.subject. So I am wondering in this if you had to choose between making

:25:38. > :25:43.an argument for incremental change where there is a lot of disagreement

:25:44. > :25:48.about what the change is and putting a cap or a moratorium on new members

:25:49. > :25:54.or something along the lines, which of those would you choose as a crude

:25:55. > :25:59.mechanism to deliver some level of reform? I would like an absolute

:26:00. > :26:10.cap. But it depends on the co-operation of the Prime Minister,

:26:11. > :26:16.whose perogative is along with the appointments she makes. There was a

:26:17. > :26:21.vote and the total figure voting was 633. You test that against the

:26:22. > :26:25.nominal number of the membership which is over 800 and you can see in

:26:26. > :26:30.practice with the efforts to get people in we don't get anything like

:26:31. > :26:35.the 800 people coming in. So there is a question as to the working

:26:36. > :26:39.numbers as opposed to the nominal number that is worth considering.

:26:40. > :26:44.But I would go for a cap at around 600.

:26:45. > :26:54.Agreed? I may go lower. But the key thing is, you are right, there to

:26:55. > :26:58.say today oh, we can agree on this but on the hereditary by-elections,

:26:59. > :27:05.David says how it affects his group more, it would over 30 years when

:27:06. > :27:10.they have died out but anything we are look at has a different affect

:27:11. > :27:14.on different groups. But trying to get down to the issues there will

:27:15. > :27:22.not be one thing that is magic bullet. The moratorium would advance

:27:23. > :27:26.you to the younger party, those with older groups would gradually fade

:27:27. > :27:33.and the numbers would not perhaps improve the work of the lord lords.

:27:34. > :27:39.So getting the Speaker's Committee to look at this, to come up with a

:27:40. > :27:42.range of issues to get principles established, there could be some

:27:43. > :27:46.agreement. I think that we do agree that the

:27:47. > :27:52.House of Lords should be largely reduced. End of agreement.

:27:53. > :28:01.I think it is too simplistic to say that we only agree on that. I would

:28:02. > :28:04.put faith on the committee. We have Christine Crawley looking at this

:28:05. > :28:09.issue, it will take work but there must be a determination from all of

:28:10. > :28:15.them that although we think it should be reduced but also how to

:28:16. > :28:21.reach that. The effectiveness of the retirement

:28:22. > :28:26.system, has it exceeded your expectations or are you disappointed

:28:27. > :28:35.with the number of people that exited? Disappointed? I have

:28:36. > :28:40.colleagues on my side of the House that would retire if they thought

:28:41. > :28:45.that their work would be under taken by somebody else but don't see a new

:28:46. > :28:50.Labour appointment coming in. So if there was a cap on numbers and a

:28:51. > :28:55.political balance, there would be more retirements. I think in our

:28:56. > :29:02.group it has worked well. We have had people who have not

:29:03. > :29:06.participated, coming to retire, and others like Shirley Williams who had

:29:07. > :29:12.a high-profile, who took the view that given the age that they reached

:29:13. > :29:18.they thought to withdraw. As I say, for my group it's worked pretty much

:29:19. > :29:23.as I would have expected. It is true of the cross benchers but

:29:24. > :29:28.it requires effort to look around to people reaching that point. The

:29:29. > :29:34.numbers involved are low, it is not the cure-all. But it is something

:29:35. > :29:38.that can be achieved and continue to be worked on.

:29:39. > :29:41.One of the questions INAUDIBLE

:29:42. > :29:52.I think you may have answered it for me is that the numbers here last

:29:53. > :29:59.week were 633, is it really necessary, given all those efforts

:30:00. > :30:05.to get people here? The ab-Hewitt maximum is virtually 633.

:30:06. > :30:10.Somebody calculated that we need 450 to staff the committees and that's

:30:11. > :30:16.the starting point. But you need extra residue on top, which is why I

:30:17. > :30:23.go for about 600. There is a feature of the lord lords, that I noticed in

:30:24. > :30:27.my time. The more you emphasise on attendance and participation being

:30:28. > :30:32.necessary, there is less time for the people to speak in debates.

:30:33. > :30:37.There is timed debates, two minutes or one minute each, that is a

:30:38. > :30:42.feature of numbers. So it is one of these things where you must be

:30:43. > :30:48.careful what you wish for. But the overall numbers of 800 is bad for

:30:49. > :30:52.the image of the House and we could come down to 600 without diminishing

:30:53. > :30:57.really the participation of people who really do participate. So if it

:30:58. > :31:05.is image, you can reduce to 600 without too much loss of effort.

:31:06. > :31:09.I would agree with that. Would start not from reducing

:31:10. > :31:14.numbers but what is the number we need to fulfil the functions we have

:31:15. > :31:20.to do? We did a report from the Labour peers in March 2014, starting

:31:21. > :31:25.from the basis, when David said how many were needed to fulfil the

:31:26. > :31:30.committee places and to fulfil the work of the House, I think you are

:31:31. > :31:34.right just over 600 is the maximum to attend the House. Anyone who

:31:35. > :31:40.could walk last week was there, pretty much. But I don't think it

:31:41. > :31:43.shows the House in a good light. When the Government is proposing to

:31:44. > :31:46.reduce the House of Commons, to receive so many appointments into

:31:47. > :31:52.the House of Lords, I think is wrong.

:31:53. > :31:58.As long as the House of Lords is appointed, it makes sense for it not

:31:59. > :32:01.simply to be a House of full-time politicians, which means by

:32:02. > :32:05.definition you need more than you would otherwise need as you are

:32:06. > :32:10.having to spread it out. We have to all of us have to find people to sit

:32:11. > :32:15.on committees for example. Well, if people are doing other jobs outside,

:32:16. > :32:19.which we encourage, because that brings expertise in, the amount of

:32:20. > :32:25.time that they then have to do committee and other work in the lord

:32:26. > :32:30.lords is limited so you need other people to fulfil the positions.

:32:31. > :32:34.So you are agreed on capping the size but now you are talking

:32:35. > :32:42.yourself out of capping the size? No. The cap on size that we argued

:32:43. > :32:51.for when talking about an elected House in the last Parliament was

:32:52. > :32:56.450. But you need it to be larger than that for a full-time House. If

:32:57. > :33:00.there is a cap on size, the Prime Minister can't go above the cap that

:33:01. > :33:06.is the most critical point of all when thinking of numbers. It will be

:33:07. > :33:10.a full-time house but not all the members are full-time.

:33:11. > :33:16.An overwhelm majority in the House of Lords for a cap.

:33:17. > :33:20.Effectively a reduction in the size of the House of Lords and the three

:33:21. > :33:24.of you appear to support that view. So we now accept that the House of

:33:25. > :33:31.Lords could take 600 as being the figure. So 600 is what is wanted as

:33:32. > :33:37.the maximum in the House of Lords. What is the obstacle to achieving

:33:38. > :33:47.that? I have had discussions with the Government previously, they were

:33:48. > :33:50.not prepared to accept a cap. I was told you could not

:33:51. > :33:53.INAUDIBLE Because of prime easterly

:33:54. > :33:57.appointments, when I raised this the last time it was under a different

:33:58. > :34:02.leader in the House of Lords but the Government at that time was not in

:34:03. > :34:06.favour of a cap, so maybe things have changed but it has not been the

:34:07. > :34:08.position so far. Let's ignore the Government's

:34:09. > :34:12.perspective. The House of Lords think that there should be a

:34:13. > :34:16.reduction in the number of peers, you are coming to a figure of 6

:34:17. > :34:22.hundreds. That is the figure that the House of Lords wishes to

:34:23. > :34:26.achieve. What are the obstacles to getting there, ignoring the

:34:27. > :34:31.Government? The obstacle is agreement. I am optimistic than a

:34:32. > :34:39.Newburyie on this. We have the committee to meet to look at this

:34:40. > :34:45.now. I don't know if this will solve the problem or X will solve the

:34:46. > :34:53.problem. Retirement is there. But there are members in their 80s who

:34:54. > :34:58.make a great contribution. Then there are others in their 30s who

:34:59. > :35:03.you never see. So the committee will have to look at attendance,

:35:04. > :35:09.activity, whilst not ignoring the people that bring in expertise when

:35:10. > :35:16.they do come in. But a basic level of attendance. Some can be dealt

:35:17. > :35:20.with. If you don't attend you should be automatically retired. So some

:35:21. > :35:25.things must be addressed but I hope that the committee are looking at, I

:35:26. > :35:30.look forward to the report, to bring the issues and see the impact of

:35:31. > :35:38.them and coalesce around some to try to bring the size down.

:35:39. > :35:41.So you see a direct link between composition and the membership et

:35:42. > :35:46.cetera and the number, rather than just say 600 and then waiting for

:35:47. > :35:51.the numbers to drop to 600? I think yes to work to get the numbers below

:35:52. > :35:56.that level. So that the number is 600, and wait for people to die off

:35:57. > :36:00.to get to that number, it that is unacceptable.

:36:01. > :36:04.The answer is that you need leadership from Government. Not just

:36:05. > :36:11.legislation to do this. If you say you want a cap of 600, A you have to

:36:12. > :36:14.legislate for that. Then you need legislation probably in terms of how

:36:15. > :36:18.to do it. The deafily is in the detail in the House of Lords in

:36:19. > :36:22.terms of reducing it. As you have heard, all of the groups are

:36:23. > :36:26.affected by the different methods of reducing numbers. You need a lead

:36:27. > :36:32.from somebody. The only to give that lead are Government. They are going

:36:33. > :36:37.to have to be resolute. There will be opposition as we have seen in the

:36:38. > :36:41.past. Every single change proposed to the House of Lords, beyond

:36:42. > :36:45.probably the cap, which you could easily get a majority for but

:36:46. > :36:56.resolute leadership to push it through.

:36:57. > :36:59.Or the advantage from the Crossbenchers' point of view that

:37:00. > :37:05.the Crossbencher should amount to 20%. We achieve that with the

:37:06. > :37:10.numbers of 180. Today we are 177. I would have to shed about 30 members

:37:11. > :37:14.to bring myself down, 35, possibly, to the proportion within the cap.

:37:15. > :37:19.We will come back to the size of groups and the composition in a

:37:20. > :37:26.minute but the question on the obstacles that you see to achieving

:37:27. > :37:31.a cob sensus on the agreement? I come back to the figures, given my

:37:32. > :37:36.case, I am different to the other groups but if you regard the

:37:37. > :37:42.Crossbenchers as a 20% figure in the total membership of the House I can

:37:43. > :37:45.work on people in a variety of ways, attendance, age, state of health and

:37:46. > :37:50.participation and useful contribution. It could be within our

:37:51. > :37:54.group a question of persuading people to reduce but Lord Newby is

:37:55. > :38:00.right at the end of the day legislation is needed for a critical

:38:01. > :38:05.reason: We are all entitled to a writ somons when each Parliament

:38:06. > :38:08.starts up that gives us an unchallengeable right to attend.

:38:09. > :38:13.There must be something to stop that so that those people who are

:38:14. > :38:19.regarded as no longer worth, or who should no longer be a part of the

:38:20. > :38:24.House are no longer titled to waive their writ.

:38:25. > :38:30.Does anyone agree that there should be a retirement age? There is for

:38:31. > :38:34.the judges. In principle we agree. But the

:38:35. > :38:40.difficulty is look at the House, and some of the best expertise comes

:38:41. > :38:46.from the older members. There is the example of a retirement

:38:47. > :38:53.age to 80 but not applying to anyone above the age of 77?

:38:54. > :39:03.Everybody thinks there should be a retirement age, it's one of the

:39:04. > :39:06.problems we always have. Can I just pick up something? I don't think

:39:07. > :39:15.it's for the Government to take a lead on this. We would have got

:39:16. > :39:21.hereditary by-elections through the House, but the Government obstructed

:39:22. > :39:24.it, we would have to accept we are not going to get everybody to

:39:25. > :39:29.permanently agree on everything. So the Government has to say, if there

:39:30. > :39:38.is a broad consensus, they will work on this. On age, I'm not necessarily

:39:39. > :39:43.very representative of my group, but I would personally, and this will

:39:44. > :39:50.make me very unpopular with some of my colleagues, personally submit a

:39:51. > :39:55.retirement age. A question to look at is the age profile of people that

:39:56. > :39:58.come in. In my group, it's between 50 and 60, you have to think about

:39:59. > :40:04.that against the contribution they would want to make. If you come in

:40:05. > :40:07.at 60, I would have thought 15 years' service is a reasonable

:40:08. > :40:14.thing. It is a commendation of age and length of service. 15 years is

:40:15. > :40:17.three parliaments, and it could be made clear by the appointments

:40:18. > :40:26.Commission that that is what the expectation is. And you will be

:40:27. > :40:37.expected to retire after one or two of these factors come into play.

:40:38. > :40:41.I've got a solution to this manner which I'm sure you're not going to

:40:42. > :40:45.like. Why do we scrap the House of Lords and have a second chamber

:40:46. > :40:51.which is elected by the people of the UK, representing all the regions

:40:52. > :41:01.of the UK. That would seem to solve all of our problems. I agree! Most

:41:02. > :41:05.of the problems that Mr Flynn mentioned at the start would not be

:41:06. > :41:09.resolved by-elections. And certainly the very significant

:41:10. > :41:16.underrepresentation of the English regions, and of Scotland, and Wales,

:41:17. > :41:20.would be dealt with by-elections. The Liberal Democrats who oppose

:41:21. > :41:26.proposals for elections in the last Parliament, that we put forward, had

:41:27. > :41:38.a 15 year term of office. -- the Liberal Democrats's proposals. The

:41:39. > :41:41.chartists said people should be elected every year, but 15 years and

:41:42. > :41:46.not being able to stand for re-election has no accountability in

:41:47. > :41:50.it. I'm not a proponent of an elected house, but what I would say

:41:51. > :41:55.is that it changes the nature, so I think there should be, if you are

:41:56. > :41:59.looking at this, to look at how it impacts on the House of Commons as

:42:00. > :42:03.well. I voted for the abolition of the House of Lords when I was a

:42:04. > :42:07.member of Parliament because I did not support the proposals for an

:42:08. > :42:12.elected house or a hybrid house. It wasn't that I didn't support the

:42:13. > :42:15.notion of a second chamber, but we have to think quite carefully how we

:42:16. > :42:21.do that, and my reluctance is just to say, I would not want a second

:42:22. > :42:28.chamber to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. So if there

:42:29. > :42:32.are ways of looking at something, changes on that, I am relaxed about

:42:33. > :42:35.that, but I think it has to be looked at in the context of

:42:36. > :42:38.Parliament as a whole, and not thinking that by changing the House

:42:39. > :42:47.of Lords you can make a change that doesn't impact on the House of

:42:48. > :42:52.Commons. It would cease to elect if you made the body wholly elected.

:42:53. > :42:55.Our group contributes very substantially to science and

:42:56. > :43:00.technology, medicine, and so forth. But I am very much in favour of

:43:01. > :43:03.something that would increase the representation from elsewhere than

:43:04. > :43:09.London. I come from Scotland, travel down every week from Scotland, and I

:43:10. > :43:13.am dependent on my ?300 to pay my accommodation. That's all we get,

:43:14. > :43:16.apart from travelling costs. The question is, are people from

:43:17. > :43:20.Scotland or Wales and the remoter parts of England prepared to

:43:21. > :43:26.contribute to the work of the House, given that that's all they get out

:43:27. > :43:30.of it from the point of view of covering their costs, and the time

:43:31. > :43:34.and effort it takes to travel to and from the two places? We are short of

:43:35. > :43:38.representation from Scotland and Wales does not it would be

:43:39. > :43:45.determined by the number of members. We are not looking at electing 800

:43:46. > :43:50.or so people. So the numbers are going to come down substantially.

:43:51. > :43:56.Yes, I'm not quite sure how you are going to solve the problem of

:43:57. > :44:00.regional representation, without having something -- some greater

:44:01. > :44:04.effort in persuading people to take part in the establishment, in the

:44:05. > :44:07.institution. The numbers of people putting themselves forward to the

:44:08. > :44:12.Commission as far as I know are very much centred around this part of the

:44:13. > :44:18.country. Strangely enough we get more hereditary peers from Scotland

:44:19. > :44:34.than we do by appointments through the other channels. Won people ask,

:44:35. > :44:40.-- I think we do have to look at the Parliament as a whole, and I thought

:44:41. > :44:48.we were talking about incremental reform, that would be a major

:44:49. > :44:50.change, and I think we need to look at Parliament as a whole, and be

:44:51. > :44:55.clear that the last proposals put forward for an elected house, I just

:44:56. > :44:59.could not support. Maybe other proposals are good, but

:45:00. > :45:08.I thought the 15 year term was unacceptable. Did you see a future

:45:09. > :45:13.for 92 hereditary peers? In a macro I have been arguing that you could

:45:14. > :45:15.end the by-elections immediately. To be honest nobody knows really who

:45:16. > :45:18.are the by-elections immediately. To be honest nobody knows really who

:45:19. > :45:24.other hereditary peers and who are not. I think the differentiation we

:45:25. > :45:28.make in the House of Lords is between those who get on with a job

:45:29. > :45:32.of work, and if people don't they are drawn to attention. But for

:45:33. > :45:36.those who work, we don't know whether they are hereditary or not.

:45:37. > :45:40.I raised this in debate recently, the Minister said, he could only

:45:41. > :45:44.support incremental change, and that wasn't an incremental change. Well,

:45:45. > :45:49.given the change would take place over 30 years, I think that is

:45:50. > :45:53.pretty incremental. So I don't justify that. It was a deal that was

:45:54. > :45:57.done that was supposed to be temporary, has lived its time.

:45:58. > :46:01.That's not to criticise those who play a part in the House, across

:46:02. > :46:11.parties and crossbenchers, but the by-election system is indefensible.

:46:12. > :46:14.Lord Newby? I think the current -- the concern was expressed when the

:46:15. > :46:20.reforms were proposed during the Coalition about challenging the

:46:21. > :46:24.primacy of the Commons can be assuaged in part if the House of

:46:25. > :46:28.Lords is seen to have a very different basis of representation,

:46:29. > :46:33.which it would have had, namely people would have been elected on a

:46:34. > :46:42.regional basis. Our constitutional proposals go further than just

:46:43. > :46:45.electing the House of Lords, so in a sense they hang together. But I

:46:46. > :46:52.think that electing people regionally would give a very

:46:53. > :46:56.different background to their coming to this place, and I must say I have

:46:57. > :47:01.never found any difficulty when we've been looking to even appoint

:47:02. > :47:07.people from any part of the country to come to the House of Lords, it's

:47:08. > :47:12.not a place which people tend to shy away from if given the opportunity

:47:13. > :47:16.to come in my experience. I think an elected house would be more

:47:17. > :47:21.powerful. If I was standing for election to anywhere, I would hardly

:47:22. > :47:25.knock on doors to say, please vote for me because I want to be a member

:47:26. > :47:28.of the second chamber, so I can advise or express an opinion to the

:47:29. > :47:35.House of Commons. I think an elected house would want more power. So I

:47:36. > :47:40.expect -- except Dick's comment, I think it would challenge primacy.

:47:41. > :47:49.But there has to be a conscious decision for the way forward. There

:47:50. > :47:53.is another possibility, which is elected apart from the 20% who are

:47:54. > :47:55.crossbenches, who would be appointed. And you would preserve

:47:56. > :48:01.the expertise through the appointment system. Which might be

:48:02. > :48:07.more broadly spread around the regions.

:48:08. > :48:12.This doesn't sound like part of the sort of most obvious consensual next

:48:13. > :48:18.step. Given that there is consensus over the size, how can this be done

:48:19. > :48:30.without greater control over appointments? It was suggested on

:48:31. > :48:37.the 5th of December that it is not possible, and you agree with that

:48:38. > :48:42.assessment? Entirely. I think you come back to the prerogative, in so

:48:43. > :48:44.far as the people coming into the crossbenches are concerned, the

:48:45. > :48:50.numbers are so few year by year that it doesn't affect the overall

:48:51. > :48:53.numbers. So there is a cap on the size, and more control over the

:48:54. > :49:02.prerogative? We are making progress. Question six? My views are more

:49:03. > :49:11.radical than my question would imply... There are vested interests

:49:12. > :49:16.in every term, and a major vested interest is that of the Prime

:49:17. > :49:21.Minister. A more managed system implies greater limitations on the

:49:22. > :49:26.Prime Minister, she is understandably reluctant to

:49:27. > :49:36.surrender her patronage power. How do we overcome that conundrum? I

:49:37. > :49:39.don't think we move the Prime Minister's patronage altogether, but

:49:40. > :49:45.I think it's been an element of control and transparency and audit,

:49:46. > :49:50.and although -- at the moment it's a different process, as David has

:49:51. > :49:57.said, if you are a crossbench peer, you have undergone a different level

:49:58. > :50:08.of check-in -- checking than if you are a party appointed peer. Whilst I

:50:09. > :50:13.think -- I think issues... There could be a wider remit, and one of

:50:14. > :50:18.the things you could ask, and this would be for the House of Lords

:50:19. > :50:21.committee to look at, is say, can you suggest criteria who you think

:50:22. > :50:26.it would be -- that you think it would be appropriate to look at if

:50:27. > :50:33.you had a greater say, or a greater scrutiny role, on political

:50:34. > :50:39.appointments? And if that isn't happening, then I think there has to

:50:40. > :50:52.be a greater transparency. -- if that is happening. If they are going

:50:53. > :50:58.to do an effective job of scrutiny, they need the time and resources to

:50:59. > :51:00.do it in. I wouldn't say there is a suggestion of removing prime

:51:01. > :51:09.ministerial patronage altogether, but it can't just be "I'm putting

:51:10. > :51:13.these people in because I need to up my numbers." I think that has led to

:51:14. > :51:19.the current position we have where the House is so large. You still

:51:20. > :51:24.have prime ministerial patronage just as you have from the other

:51:25. > :51:28.party leaders, if you have a cap, but I think the two constraints we

:51:29. > :51:34.are suggesting we put on that patronage is firstly, on the

:51:35. > :51:37.numbers. And secondly, saying that anybody that the Prime Minister put

:51:38. > :51:42.forward would still have to go through a slightly more rigorous

:51:43. > :51:47.process with the appointments Commission, to make sure that they

:51:48. > :51:52.were people who we play a valuable part in the House of Lords, which

:51:53. > :51:56.clearly hasn't always been the case in the past.

:51:57. > :52:00.Migrant depends on the Prime Minister, first of all through the

:52:01. > :52:07.ten per Parliament route. -- my group. It is for her to decide let's

:52:08. > :52:11.say when a former Commons secretary should come in, but the Prime

:52:12. > :52:14.Minister also controls entry through the selection Commission, and it's

:52:15. > :52:17.quite interesting, David Cameron established the principle that they

:52:18. > :52:21.would be too per year coming in through that route, but it broke

:52:22. > :52:24.down towards the end of his period in his office, and those one year he

:52:25. > :52:30.didn't appoint anybody although there were recommendations. Four

:52:31. > :52:37.were then appointed to make up for that, in I think 2015, but we've had

:52:38. > :52:40.no appointments since then, although the apartments Commission have at

:52:41. > :52:44.least four people they have recommended. There has been a

:52:45. > :52:47.moratorium on this for some reason I don't understand, so there are two

:52:48. > :52:52.aspects to this, on the one hand you want to control the promised 's

:52:53. > :52:56.appointments of political groups, but at the same time to encourage

:52:57. > :52:59.more generous to show I say to the crossbenches, and in particular if

:53:00. > :53:03.you end the hereditary peers, we would have to ask the Prime Minister

:53:04. > :53:07.to be prepared to make up the gap if somebody dies who is a hereditary,

:53:08. > :53:11.to be replaced through the appointments Commission. So that

:53:12. > :53:16.side instability at as well. Couldn't the Prime Minister simply

:53:17. > :53:22.be removed from the picture? There are some automatic people, former

:53:23. > :53:25.Cabinet secretaries and so on. But the problem with the Prime

:53:26. > :53:29.Minister's appointments is not just for the House of Lords, it's with

:53:30. > :53:33.the House of Commons. Because it is a corrupting influence, is it not,

:53:34. > :53:36.that people in the House of Commons, some, are looking to the mission of

:53:37. > :53:40.the House of Lords, and will curry favour with the Prime Minister, and

:53:41. > :53:45.be obliging when it comes to resigning their seats at a

:53:46. > :53:48.convenient time of the Prime Minister can spot favourites and put

:53:49. > :53:55.them in safe seats. These things go on. Isn't that a major problem? None

:53:56. > :54:01.of our group come from that route. But appointments in general.

:54:02. > :54:12.It is the effect on the House of Commons as much on the House of

:54:13. > :54:17.Lords that, and indeed, the Blair and Cameron government,

:54:18. > :54:20.particularly. The Blair government was adept to slotting people into

:54:21. > :54:29.safe seats when they became available. One member what offered a

:54:30. > :54:35.seat, we understand, he was replaced in his seat and then was not in the

:54:36. > :54:41.House of Lords. He was angry. But these things damage our democracy? I

:54:42. > :54:45.think I am right in saying that all of the recommendations of the House

:54:46. > :54:49.have to pass through the hands of the Prime Minister to go through Her

:54:50. > :54:54.Majesty. One has to think about that right. In my case, in the

:54:55. > :54:56.Crossbenchers, we are not looking for people who have been in

:54:57. > :55:03.Parliament before. That's the point of the group. I'm not sure the point

:55:04. > :55:08.which I fully understand you are drawing my attention to, affects my

:55:09. > :55:14.group at all. I don't know if I can satisfy you but if there are clear

:55:15. > :55:21.criteria that somebody somebody has to meet as to what they bring and

:55:22. > :55:25.contribute. One of my worries and issues, looking at what was

:55:26. > :55:29.suggested that there should only be a 15-year term of who should stay in

:55:30. > :55:34.the House of Lords that encourages it to the last 15 years of your

:55:35. > :55:41.political life you go the House of Lords which is unacceptable but if

:55:42. > :55:47.there is clear criteria you are expected to fulfil X, Y and Z, then

:55:48. > :55:52.that happens. If some people go to the House of Lords to do the work

:55:53. > :55:56.required of them but from a House of Lords powerful I'm not terrible

:55:57. > :56:01.worried if they do the work but what I worry about is if people think

:56:02. > :56:05.that they can take it easy, or if they get the seat in the House of

:56:06. > :56:15.Lords, and I stand down. That influence. So my priority is it

:56:16. > :56:19.would not resolve the issue but I think a criteria of which there are

:56:20. > :56:22.expectations of which those that come in, the danger is that there

:56:23. > :56:27.are some people who promise anything to get in. So the steps we have

:56:28. > :56:32.started to take, that somebody does not tend a session, that they are

:56:33. > :56:38.gone, that should be looked at more by the committee looking at this.

:56:39. > :56:42.But always there will be an element of Prime Ministers having certain

:56:43. > :56:47.appointments but firm that up with criteria, that will help.

:56:48. > :56:53.And the great thing about the House of Commons, guilties Pete the fact

:56:54. > :56:55.that parties try to control selections, awkward individuals get

:56:56. > :57:01.into Parliament and make a difference. It is important to have

:57:02. > :57:05.people who are going to be grit in the oyster, people that challenge

:57:06. > :57:10.and not just go along. Now in the House of Lords that is almost

:57:11. > :57:16.impossible. Especially since the hereditaryis a going. They used to

:57:17. > :57:20.be more independent. Where I dispute that, once somebody

:57:21. > :57:25.is given an appointment in the House of Lords, they are beholden to

:57:26. > :57:29.nobody other than their conscious. In my group, people were thinking I

:57:30. > :57:33.was appointed by the Prime Minister, have must agree with that point of

:57:34. > :57:36.view but it doesn't work like that. There are numerous examples from all

:57:37. > :57:40.political parties in the House of Lords where people might have been

:57:41. > :57:48.expected to vote in a certain way, just don't.

:57:49. > :57:51.There is, I would have to say, perhaps say, a perception... There

:57:52. > :57:56.isn't the same whipping operation in the House of Lords as in the House

:57:57. > :58:01.of Commons. People don't feel the same way, they have party

:58:02. > :58:05.allegiances but that is not abroute. If you look at rebellions you find

:58:06. > :58:11.there is more independence in the House of Lords.

:58:12. > :58:17.That is one of the advantages of an unelected House. Moving on. Some of

:58:18. > :58:22.what is in front is covered. On the issue of the pure of the

:58:23. > :58:28.Prime Minister, the patronage. If we were capped at 600 and curtailed the

:58:29. > :58:33.Prime Minister's patronage in terms of appoint to the 600, should the

:58:34. > :58:40.Prime Minister still have the ability to appoint ministers over

:58:41. > :58:46.and above the 600 as a principle? I would argue no. My idea has always

:58:47. > :58:53.been a band where the ministers come from.

:58:54. > :58:59.Yes, no problem. Yes, I follow.

:59:00. > :59:03.There is agreement. Although I have suggested a band of

:59:04. > :59:08.a number but the Prime Minister can go below or keep a few in his

:59:09. > :59:13.pocket. No problem with that. Again. Yes broadly attempted a limit

:59:14. > :59:18.to the size of the House of Lords. But then the issue of the groupings

:59:19. > :59:23.within that number. What sort of principles should apply to how we

:59:24. > :59:27.balance between the political parties arched the Crossbenchers,

:59:28. > :59:33.and any future new political parties that may form? How do we go about

:59:34. > :59:39.dealing with the composition of the 600? We want it elected. That deals

:59:40. > :59:44.with it automatically. I do agree.

:59:45. > :59:49.But on the assumption it is not? If you are not going to do that, I

:59:50. > :59:55.think it would be possible, although I think it would be difficult to get

:59:56. > :00:01.a consensus on it, to reach a system under which you looked at results

:00:02. > :00:04.from possibly two or three cycles of elections and had some combination

:00:05. > :00:13.of votes and seats taken into account. I think any system has its

:00:14. > :00:17.short comings but I think that will be probably the best way of dealing

:00:18. > :00:22.with this. Of course at the moment we've got the situation that the SNP

:00:23. > :00:31.under the current rules refuse to be in the House of Lords. That means

:00:32. > :00:35.that is Askew in the system. So I think... You could say that the

:00:36. > :00:42.Liberal Democrats are overrepresented? Well, the Liberal

:00:43. > :00:45.Democrats throughout their last few decades have beened

:00:46. > :00:50.under-represented in the Lord's. Temporarily taking the House of

:00:51. > :01:00.Lords alone, we are overrepresented. Taking Parliament as a whole, about

:01:01. > :01:05.8%... But the principles that you think should apply? That is what I

:01:06. > :01:09.was saying you must look at a combination.

:01:10. > :01:14.Clearly on any individual election, any party as we know to our cost,

:01:15. > :01:17.can go up and down a bit. I think stability, this is not a Lib Dem

:01:18. > :01:26.point but stability in the House of Lords makes a lot of sense.

:01:27. > :01:33.Baroness Smith? Largely the same. The principles are about 3% and 20%

:01:34. > :01:39.Crossbenchers. The public think of independents in the House. They

:01:40. > :01:42.rather like that. And the other principles is that the governments

:01:43. > :01:47.should not have majorities. It doesn't mean that they can't be the

:01:48. > :01:52.biggest party but tend to become the biggest party over time. We were the

:01:53. > :01:56.largest party in 2005, this government have done it much more

:01:57. > :02:01.quickly because of the rate of the appointments that they have made.

:02:02. > :02:05.The Labour Party has always governed without a majority in the House of

:02:06. > :02:10.Lords. By and large it gets the business through because of the

:02:11. > :02:14.Commons. So I think that is quite a good principle. It challenges the

:02:15. > :02:19.Government make a better case and to engage in debate with the Commons

:02:20. > :02:22.when they have the final say. And there must be recognition of other

:02:23. > :02:28.political parties and off 1458 opposition. The Liberal Democrats

:02:29. > :02:33.are overrepresented. There is the SNP are under-represented and Ukip

:02:34. > :02:38.are under-represented as well. So I don't think that there can be a

:02:39. > :02:46.direct link with election. Up about I think if you look at probably two,

:02:47. > :02:49.three or four election cycling you would gradually move to ensuring it

:02:50. > :02:53.was not out of kilter from the House of Commons but neither a reflection

:02:54. > :02:59.of the House of Commons. I am sure that you will say 20%,

:03:00. > :03:02.Lord hope. But what about the remaining 80%.

:03:03. > :03:08.I argue against a hard and a fast line. One of the problems of an

:03:09. > :03:13.unelected House, you cannot be too precise. I say 20% but tomorrow I

:03:14. > :03:20.may persuade three people to retire and I'm below the 20%. How do I make

:03:21. > :03:28.that up instantly? I can't. Also there is movement across the groups.

:03:29. > :03:31.I receive one or two people who decided to leave the Liberal

:03:32. > :03:35.Democrats or the Labour Party. Some of the people do so in the case of

:03:36. > :03:40.the Tories and the Labour Party, they were appointed to be ministers

:03:41. > :03:44.without any previous party affiliation, they have served their

:03:45. > :03:53.time as ministers and would proffer to be on the Crossbenchers. So a

:03:54. > :03:57.certain amount of looseness. I am not a political animal, so don't

:03:58. > :03:58.know how it can be resolved without a discussion between the political

:03:59. > :04:03.parties. Lord hope I can press you on this.

:04:04. > :04:08.It is possible that there will be a proposal at some stage that may

:04:09. > :04:17.require you to exercise an opinion in one way or another sn. So what is

:04:18. > :04:22.your view? I don't think one can do better than to try to reflect the

:04:23. > :04:29.performance of the parties at the last election. But the problem is if

:04:30. > :04:34.there is a big switch in the parties for one or the other, how can you

:04:35. > :04:38.adjust it to reflect the performance of the election? But broadly

:04:39. > :04:42.speaking thinking of appointments coming in they should do their best

:04:43. > :04:47.to reflect the results of the election. That is ar pass ars can

:04:48. > :04:52.take it. A suggestion made is in order to adjust the size of the

:04:53. > :04:59.party groupings that the party groupings themselves.should have

:05:00. > :05:05.elections to elect from their own number the requisite number for that

:05:06. > :05:14.Parliament, be what it may what do you think of that proposal? That

:05:15. > :05:19.would suggest that one of the party groups which has lost heavily within

:05:20. > :05:25.the selection would have to asked a member of their party to leave to

:05:26. > :05:29.rebalance the positions. But to achieve that will be difficult

:05:30. > :05:36.without some kind of statutory backing. What about the principle of

:05:37. > :05:41.it? I can see the value of the principle but how to achieve it with

:05:42. > :05:50.people who like the position? Baroness Smith That is a reason I

:05:51. > :05:58.would not support, looking at a reflection of the elections, looking

:05:59. > :06:00.at the cycles. I think once you have the proportions decided and the

:06:01. > :06:04.committee hopefully will come up with something and we have to work

:06:05. > :06:08.to the numbers then there must be a discussion within the groups of how

:06:09. > :06:12.to achieve the numbers that they are expected to have.

:06:13. > :06:21.But it must be something repeated. It can't be a one off? It can't be a

:06:22. > :06:24.one-off but looking at a three year cycle, there won't be dramatic

:06:25. > :06:31.changes and all of us must agree that there is a churn. In our case

:06:32. > :06:38.it is members leaving, often not of their own volition. We have a number

:06:39. > :06:43.who can no longer attend because of ill health or have died. You do get

:06:44. > :06:48.that churn. Maybe you ask others if they are going to retire? I don't

:06:49. > :06:55.know how but to avoid dramatic changes from election to election.

:06:56. > :06:59.That is not how it is supposed to be reflected from election to election

:07:00. > :07:08.but over a cycle of elections. This is a more difficult problem for

:07:09. > :07:13.your party because of the way that the electoral diocese has fallen but

:07:14. > :07:20.you said earlier, you could agree on a reflection of cycles of elections.

:07:21. > :07:24.Is that where there could be consensus about the system of

:07:25. > :07:29.controlling the numbers? Yes, I think so. And we are great

:07:30. > :07:34.optimists. Our current position is a temporary blip. But I think that

:07:35. > :07:38.doing something over cycles makes sense. That is what we were

:07:39. > :07:46.proposing when we wanted the House of Lords elected, to be elected over

:07:47. > :07:50.three cycles for less volatility in composition than we had potentially

:07:51. > :07:56.in the Commons. I think that is the way you have to do it.

:07:57. > :08:00.So, two cycles, three? We proposed three before.

:08:01. > :08:06.Three? I said three or four. But I'm not opposed to three.

:08:07. > :08:13.So the number of cycles reflects your optimism or not of the future

:08:14. > :08:18.elections, perhaps? It reflects to manage stability of the House

:08:19. > :08:25.alongside. The problem for suss that our members were largely appointed

:08:26. > :08:30.during Tony Blair's years, during the Labour governments. As there

:08:31. > :08:34.have been so few appointments in 2010, the members are getting older.

:08:35. > :08:44.So you have to refresh and regenerate. Younger people being

:08:45. > :08:49.appointed. But there must be an understanding that there is work to

:08:50. > :08:51.be done. That you reflect on that and replenish and rejuvenate the

:08:52. > :08:57.members. So if there was a consensus between

:08:58. > :09:02.the parties reflecting membership to a number of electoral cycles, what

:09:03. > :09:04.would be the Crossbenchers's attitude? The figure of three seems

:09:05. > :09:14.sensible. But it is up to the political

:09:15. > :09:19.parties to decide whether they can work with that system. So we've

:09:20. > :09:23.already discussed the House of Lords Appointments Commission quite

:09:24. > :09:29.extensively, it has been suggested if it is to do more it needs more

:09:30. > :09:36.resources and more powers, on the question of, I mean, at the most

:09:37. > :09:39.limited extent, should it have a more interventionist role of vetting

:09:40. > :09:47.the appointments recommended by political parties and proposed by

:09:48. > :09:51.prime ministerial patronage? To what extent should it have a stronger

:09:52. > :09:58.role? I think it should have a stronger role. I think one of the

:09:59. > :10:02.key elements in that would be to seek assurances from people about

:10:03. > :10:06.the part that they would play. I think they're probably all parties

:10:07. > :10:10.can think of people who have been up -- appointed, who never had any

:10:11. > :10:20.attention -- intention of playing an active role at the point at which

:10:21. > :10:24.they were appointed. Incidentally, although crossbenches follow a

:10:25. > :10:26.different system, there have been some crossbenches who have taken the

:10:27. > :10:31.view that they were appointed but weren't intended to be very at --

:10:32. > :10:36.active until they had finished a particular bit of their career. But

:10:37. > :10:40.I think it is patently sensible to require people to give some kind of

:10:41. > :10:44.formal assurance that they are willing to take an active point --

:10:45. > :10:47.part in the House of Lords. Because I think that we deter some people

:10:48. > :10:53.from allowing their names to go forward. But how should that be

:10:54. > :11:02.done? With some kind of requirement to sign a statement of commitment?

:11:03. > :11:10.Should there be a list of activities that somebody is undertaking to

:11:11. > :11:15.perform over the role -- district -- a role over a defined period? How

:11:16. > :11:21.should it be done's I think that comes down to how do you define what

:11:22. > :11:25.the role is? I think you can see -- people can promise all kinds of

:11:26. > :11:29.things that they have no intention, and once they are appointed there

:11:30. > :11:33.has to be systems, if somebody does not attend, if they do not engage,

:11:34. > :11:39.they can lose their membership. We have that partially in place now.

:11:40. > :11:43.And I think we should look at people who take repeated leave of absence

:11:44. > :11:46.to do other things, and only intend to come back to the House of Lords

:11:47. > :11:52.when there is nothing else. I think that is abuse of the system. I think

:11:53. > :11:55.it would be a useful thing to look at the criteria they would look at,

:11:56. > :12:00.and I think you can probably gauge from the public and from those of us

:12:01. > :12:04.in the House and politicians, what our expectations would be if

:12:05. > :12:08.somebody's coming to the House, and what the expectation should be on

:12:09. > :12:12.appointment. So if somebody's been appointed simply because they have

:12:13. > :12:18.been a donor to a party, that would not be acceptable. As seen donors in

:12:19. > :12:21.the House who I think, on one occasion, not from a party, I've

:12:22. > :12:26.seen them speak once in the entire time they have been there. Whether

:12:27. > :12:29.they worked on committee I don't know, but that isn't probably the

:12:30. > :12:34.best way to do the job of work that is needed in the House. So I think

:12:35. > :12:38.there should be a published criteria, open to the public and

:12:39. > :12:41.parliament as a whole, of the expectations that should be

:12:42. > :12:47.fulfilled. There should be relevant experience, that kind of thing. That

:12:48. > :12:51.suggests to me, from the perspective of a chairman of a Select Committee,

:12:52. > :12:56.that there should be some kind of proper capri appointment hearing for

:12:57. > :13:01.each new pier. Just half an hour in front of -- proper appointment

:13:02. > :13:18.hearing for each new pier. What do you think about proposal.

:13:19. > :13:25.Lord Hope? You tend to find people who are suitable for the particular

:13:26. > :13:29.committee you are talking about. If you are looking at science and

:13:30. > :13:34.technology, you tend to look towards someone who has experience in that

:13:35. > :13:39.field. You have ad hoc committees, which we set up for being discussed

:13:40. > :13:43.at the moment to discuss particular topics. So there are particular

:13:44. > :13:47.types of committees. You could have a selection process for standing

:13:48. > :13:52.committees, so that when you have the ad hoc ones, you are probably

:13:53. > :13:57.best thing for people who are most suited to it, and we know each other

:13:58. > :14:00.reasonably well to be able to decide whether the particular person is

:14:01. > :14:06.suited to carry that through. We had one of the NHS, and it was somebody

:14:07. > :14:10.who is very qualified. But it sounds as though crossbenches are already

:14:11. > :14:15.doing this. But how good are the party leaders at appointing people

:14:16. > :14:19.but House of Lords Ashley needs? I think of the dearth of lawyers on

:14:20. > :14:27.the Conservative benches, despite the pleadings behind the scenes of

:14:28. > :14:30.successive leaders of the Conservatives in the House of Lords.

:14:31. > :14:37.Other examples like that in other parties? I have not been involved in

:14:38. > :14:44.any appointments in the party, but I haven't -- I think at the moment

:14:45. > :14:47.that may come because there is a lack of confidence in the

:14:48. > :14:52.appointments system. But if there was a public element that the

:14:53. > :14:56.criteria was published, and that people knew who they were, that

:14:57. > :15:00.might create a different atmosphere. So I haven't thought about that

:15:01. > :15:06.before, haven't got a view about it, it is something to consider. But at

:15:07. > :15:10.the moment I would quite like to look at the existing system, if it

:15:11. > :15:13.is more open, more transparent, I slightly worry about people who it

:15:14. > :15:17.is public that their names have gone forward, and they are rejected only

:15:18. > :15:21.because they do not fulfil the criteria at that time you have too

:15:22. > :15:26.many doctors or lawyers. That might be seen as something that is

:15:27. > :15:30.critical of them whereas is actually critical of the House, but their

:15:31. > :15:35.particular skills are not needed. But I personally would like to have

:15:36. > :15:38.a look at trying to beef up a Appointments Commission with more

:15:39. > :15:47.transparency, more public accountability, and trying to create

:15:48. > :15:54.more public confidence. Why aren't the advertisements or applications

:15:55. > :16:00.and interviews, like any other public appointment? I don't have any

:16:01. > :16:05.objections to that. I have most to do with Liberal Democrat

:16:06. > :16:10.appointments as Chuck -- Charles Kennedy's chief of staff. We had a

:16:11. > :16:15.system whereby a panel was elected by our conference representatives,

:16:16. > :16:23.from which the leader was required to make most of his appointments,

:16:24. > :16:27.and we had as it were a primary system for a list. And they had to

:16:28. > :16:31.stand for election and publish their manifestos become -- before they got

:16:32. > :16:35.on that list. And I think that was a very good system. There were still

:16:36. > :16:41.some scope for the party leaders who appoint people who've been from the

:16:42. > :16:45.House of Commons, but I have no objection in principle to having

:16:46. > :16:48.greater public scrutiny of opponents to House of Lords, given that people

:16:49. > :16:54.who come to the House of Lords as politicians completely avoid the

:16:55. > :17:00.public scrutiny that the selection process -- -- of the selection

:17:01. > :17:06.process that an MP requires. Finally, we have top a lot about the

:17:07. > :17:11.need for diversity. But if you have got a Commission like HOLAC, how

:17:12. > :17:14.capable is it of making anything but everything rather safe, and not

:17:15. > :17:18.having very exciting people coming into the House of Lords? Analyst

:17:19. > :17:24.party leaders take risks, and interesting people turn up as peers.

:17:25. > :17:30.We might not be approved by some establishment quango. -- at least.

:17:31. > :17:34.How do you keep the real diversity? You can have lots of people from

:17:35. > :17:40.different parts of the UK, and different backgrounds, but if they

:17:41. > :17:45.have all got political degrees from Oxford there is not much diversity.

:17:46. > :17:51.The crossbenches have among their number Lord Birt, somebody who never

:17:52. > :17:55.went to Oxford, who learned to read in prison. -- Lord Birt.

:17:56. > :18:10.But who would have appointed Lord Pearson of Rannoch, apart from a

:18:11. > :18:15.prior minister who liked him? -- a Prime Minister. Mr Chairman, I

:18:16. > :18:19.thought what you were proposing was that the party leaders would still

:18:20. > :18:23.make nominations, but in order for them to be ratified they would have

:18:24. > :18:28.to go through public process, not that the party leaders would be

:18:29. > :18:34.taken out of it altogether? Lord Pearson wrote to us and sent us

:18:35. > :18:37.copies of letters he had from the previous per minister, saying he was

:18:38. > :18:43.going to keep the representation of you kept under daily review

:18:44. > :18:49.virtually, and I mean clearly, Ukip is protesting -- publicly

:18:50. > :18:59.underrepresented in this House and your house. Of all the absurdities

:19:00. > :19:03.that we have in our Constitution now, do you think it is appropriate

:19:04. > :19:08.that the only one that the Government is going to put right

:19:09. > :19:14.with any urgency, is to reduce the number of elected members here,

:19:15. > :19:20.before the attempt to any of the other constitutional problems we

:19:21. > :19:24.have? We have a balanced constitutional Commission to look at

:19:25. > :19:27.all the problems that are there, and come up with some agreement, and

:19:28. > :19:34.wouldn't the House of Lords contribute a great deal to a

:19:35. > :19:38.rational constitution if they opposed the self interested decision

:19:39. > :19:45.by the Conservative Government to enact the only reform that would

:19:46. > :19:49.result in the election of more Conservative MPs? I think you have

:19:50. > :19:52.my comments earlier, but I think it's completely appalling that the

:19:53. > :19:56.Conservative Government is reducing the size of the House of Commons,

:19:57. > :20:02.whilst increasing the size of the House of Lords. You may recall that

:20:03. > :20:08.there have been numerous votes, I think the only all-night sitting I

:20:09. > :20:12.recall as a member of the House of Lords, was on the issue of the

:20:13. > :20:17.boundary spill, and indeed our last attempt to look at the boundary

:20:18. > :20:22.spill was on a Statutory Instrument whereby the Electoral Commission

:20:23. > :20:27.recommended that there should be delay in the effective date of the

:20:28. > :20:37.register, and we lost that vote, the Conservative Party won it. But I

:20:38. > :20:41.think the point you are making, Mr Chairman, about HOLAC, would it only

:20:42. > :20:44.appoint the great and the good, I think there is an issue that prime

:20:45. > :20:48.ministers would put their names forward to a committee. But I

:20:49. > :20:53.question whether it should be HOLAC at another committee would look at

:20:54. > :20:57.this. One of my concerns would be that if we are looking at people in

:20:58. > :21:03.the medical profession for example, we have a few surgeons. We don't

:21:04. > :21:08.have many nurses left, I think we have one, two only left in the

:21:09. > :21:11.House. If you are ensuring you have representation on the crossbenches

:21:12. > :21:15.as well from professions, it should be all levels, not just the highest

:21:16. > :21:20.levels. If the person can make a contribution to the work of the

:21:21. > :21:23.House. Do you think there is a new urgency, in that the overarching

:21:24. > :21:27.priority of politics here and elsewhere without -- throughout the

:21:28. > :21:32.whole world now, is the need to restore faith in politicians and

:21:33. > :21:36.political systems, because the alternative is the election of

:21:37. > :21:44.people like Donald Trump? And that that urgency should be expressed,

:21:45. > :21:50.and that we do go all out to restore the facilitation of politics? I

:21:51. > :21:53.think we are missing a trick, and misunderstanding if we think it is

:21:54. > :22:00.all about structures. In all my years as an MP, I think I had two

:22:01. > :22:04.people contact me about the House of Lords, but on issues like MPs'

:22:05. > :22:10.expenses there were many more. So I think we make a mistake if we are

:22:11. > :22:13.thinking we can address the issue of representation if we look at the

:22:14. > :22:19.structure of Parliament, I think it is far deeper than that. But you see

:22:20. > :22:24.my point, about the tendency for the establishment to achieve blandness.

:22:25. > :22:26.I mean, I'm going to ask the House of Lords Appointments Commission,

:22:27. > :22:31.how many Eurosceptics they have appointed during their period? How

:22:32. > :22:36.many Eurosceptics are there on the crossbenches? Yellow macro well, I'm

:22:37. > :22:41.not sure I can answer that. As convener, it is not my job to

:22:42. > :22:51.interrogate people. It was a rhetorical question! I might have

:22:52. > :22:55.asked the same issue about those who supported or opposed fox hunting. As

:22:56. > :22:59.I was struggling to get legislation through on that. I think there are

:23:00. > :23:03.political issues that arise that you would have asked that as a question,

:23:04. > :23:07.so in the years where crossbench peers have been appointed, nobody

:23:08. > :23:11.thought us, if Britain wanted to leave the EU in the future what

:23:12. > :23:16.would be a view? But as issues arise, perhaps that should be

:23:17. > :23:19.something fed into HOLAC on the Appointments Commission. My advice

:23:20. > :23:23.to somebody applying to be a people's peer would be to be very

:23:24. > :23:35.wary about the answer they gave. Anyway, moving on. Mr Hodkinson.

:23:36. > :23:39.About how to achieve a reduction in the size of the House of Lords. It

:23:40. > :23:44.seems this would be at the very least a political agreement between

:23:45. > :23:51.the groups in the chamber, so how committed are you personally to the

:23:52. > :24:02.idea of your group agreeing with other groups about reduction? We

:24:03. > :24:10.think strongly that the House is too large and we're very happy to have

:24:11. > :24:15.discussions with anybody in the search for an agreement. As you have

:24:16. > :24:21.seen this morning, there is some elements of an agreement that may be

:24:22. > :24:27.easily reached but others that are more contentious.

:24:28. > :24:33.We can't be committed to agreement if other groups, anymore than any

:24:34. > :24:36.other group can be committed to an agreement, unless other groups and

:24:37. > :24:40.we agree. How much would you like to achieve

:24:41. > :24:47.an agreement? Very much so. Is not the reality that each group

:24:48. > :24:53.would be affected and you can say as long as it's some other group, not

:24:54. > :24:59.my group, especially if it is overrepresented, is it not very

:25:00. > :25:05.difficult? I think you are making overall much of the legislation of

:25:06. > :25:10.the Lib Dems. We have significant reduced our numbers with elections.

:25:11. > :25:15.I don't think that is the relevant point. We would be happy to have

:25:16. > :25:22.discussions and reach agreement. The point that I have made several times

:25:23. > :25:26.is that on my experience of trying to make an agreement, have been

:25:27. > :25:30.found difficult in practice to achieve.

:25:31. > :25:36.Baroness Smith? All agreements require a compromise. To move this

:25:37. > :25:43.forward, to sit on a House that gets bigger and bigger each time the new

:25:44. > :25:47.Prime Minister wants to put somebody in, it is unsustainable and does not

:25:48. > :25:52.bring credit to the House. Also if it does not help the work we are

:25:53. > :25:59.doing it is difficult. If we see people on my side, say, we would

:26:00. > :26:04.retire but we would not get anyone to replace them, so they will stay.

:26:05. > :26:12.They are still fairly active in the House and do a very good job, so to

:26:13. > :26:19.inkeep increasing numbers for the Government party can't work. It will

:26:20. > :26:25.involve compromise. I am putting faith in the Lord Speaker's

:26:26. > :26:30.Committee. I know it is hard. But we are talking about under this system.

:26:31. > :26:35.I think we will all have to accept that all of our numbers have to be

:26:36. > :26:40.reduced and no group that can say I have not lost somebody that is

:26:41. > :26:46.valuable. That is a worry. That is why when I think we see the report,

:26:47. > :26:50.we look at it, establish the broad principles but narrow them to reduce

:26:51. > :26:56.the size of the House. Once we have those, we can say how can we achieve

:26:57. > :27:02.that. It may be a transition period over which we achieve it, we may not

:27:03. > :27:08.reduce it next week but it might be over two years. But I am putting

:27:09. > :27:14.faith in the committee. All parties on the Crossbenchers are on it. The

:27:15. > :27:20.bishops have said that they would accept a reduction on their numbers,

:27:21. > :27:27.so there is the onus on us all to reduce the numbers.

:27:28. > :27:31.Littered burn, a Crossbencher is well aware of the views of the

:27:32. > :27:39.Crossbenchers who have written in to him. I have encouraged members to

:27:40. > :27:43.write in and express their views, I am looking for his recommendations

:27:44. > :27:48.to achieve the reduction in numbers in our groups when I know what the

:27:49. > :27:54.figures are. To me it is a relatively straightforward process.

:27:55. > :27:59.If we reduce to 600, I will look to Lord burn's recommendations and on

:28:00. > :28:04.the basis of that, I will be strengthened in my work to reduce

:28:05. > :28:12.the numbers to reach that reduction. It is reasonable to do that.

:28:13. > :28:18.Briefly, we have interviewed two former Lord Speakers, Baroness De

:28:19. > :28:25.Sousa and it is clear from you too, that all of the changes you are

:28:26. > :28:30.prepared to tolerate are minor, marginal, incremental change, to get

:28:31. > :28:33.radical changes that they must come through parties and eelections and a

:28:34. > :28:41.party getting elected and doing something different. Is that the

:28:42. > :28:45.reality? Because there is such difficulty, as I have said, in

:28:46. > :28:48.getting people to agree, because I think different individuals have

:28:49. > :28:54.very different views. What does it take to get your groups

:28:55. > :29:00.to come with you? It depends if you are talking about major change,

:29:01. > :29:04.radical change or incremental change. Radical change, I agree it

:29:05. > :29:08.must come from the political parties. It must be the Government

:29:09. > :29:13.in power. It must bring forward legislation. So laying that to one

:29:14. > :29:17.side, in terms of bringing the groups with us, for my group if

:29:18. > :29:21.there is a reduction of numbers, I think that they will look to

:29:22. > :29:26.fairness. I think that they have an open mind on it. Some people are

:29:27. > :29:30.concerned... But the pain could be mitigated by the pace of the reform?

:29:31. > :29:34.The pace and how fair they perceive it to be.

:29:35. > :29:39.Yes. All agreed on that? Yes.

:29:40. > :29:43.Yes. Mr Flynn, sorry, John? Do you think

:29:44. > :29:47.that the initiative, though, should be coming from the House of Lords or

:29:48. > :29:55.from the Government? It's coming from the House of Lords now. The

:29:56. > :30:00.initiative in setting had you report has come from it.

:30:01. > :30:03.To take it forward you need to bring in legislation or change, should

:30:04. > :30:07.that initiative come from the House of Lords rather than than from the

:30:08. > :30:11.Government? All of the initiatives from this come from the House of

:30:12. > :30:15.Lords. The Government takes the view that unless there is not just broad

:30:16. > :30:24.agreement but absalute consensus on something. That is not an assailable

:30:25. > :30:30.position if legislation is needed. But all change requires legislation.

:30:31. > :30:34.The miner changes have been done by privately members' bills. You could

:30:35. > :30:41.do things by private members' bill... A couple have been blocked.

:30:42. > :30:50.I was about to say that the problem is that it's a very uncertain path

:30:51. > :30:54.is a private members' bill, start in the House of Lords not least because

:30:55. > :30:59.it most come from the other place. If you are to have substantive

:31:00. > :31:05.change you're going to need Government support for it anyway. So

:31:06. > :31:12.if they took the lead and made any legislative change in a Government

:31:13. > :31:20.Bill, that would be more likely to succeed than the private members'

:31:21. > :31:24.bill. INAUDIBLE

:31:25. > :31:28.Can I say that the purpose behind the Better than's committee's

:31:29. > :31:35.Appointment is to achieve something that has a reasonable prospect of

:31:36. > :31:41.being accepted by Government with a view to Government legislation...

:31:42. > :31:45.For various reasons that's the best way to achieve that to find

:31:46. > :31:49.consensus across the House for Government to agree with that to

:31:50. > :31:59.agree on sufficient support to be passed.

:32:00. > :32:04.You said Lord Flynn that there was influence by monarchy? Do you

:32:05. > :32:12.believe that there is a role in the Monarch? The Monarch? The martyr of

:32:13. > :32:17.monarchy being given to, I mean, check the but you said there was

:32:18. > :32:24.this further check, the appointments had to be approved by the monarch?

:32:25. > :32:30.Please, don't misunderstand me. That is figure rative. Every peer

:32:31. > :32:33.receives a patent, that is under the signature of the Monarch. The

:32:34. > :32:41.recommendation must go through the Prime Minister to the Monarch.

:32:42. > :32:51.Are you suggesting that she takes any other part? But acts in the same

:32:52. > :32:59.way as she does with the honours. And the only time she did was to

:33:00. > :33:02.opponent out at one time when she was to appoint somebody who was

:33:03. > :33:06.actually dead. The key person is the Prime Minister

:33:07. > :33:10.and the speed at which things are done and the names put forward

:33:11. > :33:14.depend on the initiative of the Prime Minister.

:33:15. > :33:18.That's a relief. What could be achieved without

:33:19. > :33:23.legislation? Could progress be made without legislation? If the Prime

:33:24. > :33:28.Minister agreed to a cap on numbers, then I think you would find, I think

:33:29. > :33:32.we could find a route to reduce numbers. Part of the obstacle has

:33:33. > :33:38.been, especially with the discussions from the former leader

:33:39. > :33:42.of the House is that no party is willing to reduce numbers if they

:33:43. > :33:47.can be increased beyond that number whether in a year or five years, so

:33:48. > :33:53.the cap on numbers is something that the Prime Minister could say and

:33:54. > :33:59.serve as impetus to the parties to agree on a reduction.

:34:00. > :34:05.Is that like offering a to the opposition a rod for your own back?

:34:06. > :34:10.It is not necessarily so. If the Prime Minister were to agree that of

:34:11. > :34:16.any party, any government, that they would be have to be reassured that

:34:17. > :34:19.what they perceive as the imbalance against them inherited from the

:34:20. > :34:23.previous Parliament would be redressed? This Government has done

:34:24. > :34:26.that. They managed to become the largest party in the shortest space

:34:27. > :34:33.of time. Yes, and we are in this endless arms

:34:34. > :34:36.race. If you terminate elections, you

:34:37. > :34:42.would have to address the question of the writ of summons, dealt with

:34:43. > :34:48.in the 1999 act. You cannot have a system where we have agreed of

:34:49. > :34:54.everything and then somebody turns up with a writ and has a right to

:34:55. > :34:59.come in anyway. Yes, it can be interrupted by

:35:00. > :35:04.individuals? Yes, you have to allow for that possibility.

:35:05. > :35:08.And to allow for the possibility, eve finance the parties agreed,

:35:09. > :35:11.voluntarily to put pressure on people to retire or bring down the

:35:12. > :35:16.side, there is nothing to stop the member of one of our groups opting

:35:17. > :35:23.to become an independent in order to avoid pressure from their party

:35:24. > :35:26.group. So, it's a very imperfect system unless it is underpinned by

:35:27. > :35:30.legislation. How do you deal with the

:35:31. > :35:34.independents in the legislation? Well, that's a challenge. But you

:35:35. > :35:39.would have to deal with the independents as otherwise you could

:35:40. > :35:44.just get a seepage out of the independents and they would end up

:35:45. > :35:50.by being a big, uncontrolled group. I can see the lawyer on this panel

:35:51. > :35:55.is itching to kick in a definitive answer. I think we have to show

:35:56. > :36:02.leadership within the groups. It is a very fair point.

:36:03. > :36:08.There are a number of people who cheese to be non-aligned. And choose

:36:09. > :36:17.to be. -- there are a number of people who

:36:18. > :36:24.choose to be non-aligned. Could a law define categories of

:36:25. > :36:30.peers, according to a party that they are affiliated to when they

:36:31. > :36:35.first arrived in the House? I don't know if you can do it illegally but

:36:36. > :36:39.a quirk of the system is that somebody Khan change party in life

:36:40. > :36:42.but in death, if they are hereditary, they revert to the party

:36:43. > :36:48.of which they were originally a member. So that if somebody, as has

:36:49. > :36:53.been in our case, somebody was a Liberal Democrat hereditary but is

:36:54. > :36:59.now a Crossbencher but on his death, the election for his successor would

:37:00. > :37:03.be as a Liberal Democrat. Could this be addressed by the

:37:04. > :37:10.standing order of the House rather than legislation? By-elections would

:37:11. > :37:16.solve the problem! If there is nothing further anyone would like to

:37:17. > :37:23.add? A brief one. This House has be-latedly got rid of

:37:24. > :37:28.wigs, when is the House of Lords going to end the practice of

:37:29. > :37:37.dressing up looking like playing cards and looking like a pantomime

:37:38. > :37:43.and come into the 21st century? I think we are in the process of

:37:44. > :37:47.changing that position on wigs for our clerks to bring out ofs into the

:37:48. > :37:54.line with the House of Commons. What about the silver stick in

:37:55. > :38:00.waiting, does he still exist? I don't know who the silver stick in

:38:01. > :38:08.waiting is? Oh, dear. Robin Hood? We are going back a bit!

:38:09. > :38:13.I have one very brief final question, relating to the point

:38:14. > :38:17.raced earlier by Mr Flynn. How are the party groups to vote on the

:38:18. > :38:22.boundary of the proposals when they come to your House? We are not going

:38:23. > :38:28.to block them. We will vote for them.

:38:29. > :38:32.The boundary proposals to reduce the size of Commons, how will your group

:38:33. > :38:37.vote on that proposal? I have no idea. As a group we have no

:38:38. > :38:44.corporate view on anything. Baroness Smith? As I understand it,

:38:45. > :38:48.if it is legislation passed, there is not a constitutional reason for

:38:49. > :38:53.us to vote against them, as much as we think that they are appalling

:38:54. > :39:00.proposals, the bill is passed so, that all is left is legislation...

:39:01. > :39:05.So you will not oppose it? Well, thank you very much. It has been a

:39:06. > :39:11.very illuminating session. If I may say so, the degree of courtesy and

:39:12. > :39:16.corporation between the three party groups is a great example of why

:39:17. > :39:18.your House is so effective and a lesson to our own House. Thank you

:39:19. > :39:57.very much. Order. Order. August 2013, and the Government

:39:58. > :40:08.loses a vote asking Parliament for permission to vote -- bomb Bashar

:40:09. > :40:12.al-Assad's forces in Syria. It is clear to me that the British

:40:13. > :40:16.Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to

:40:17. > :40:21.see British military action. I get that, and the Government will

:40:22. > :40:25.accordingly. The vote was a serious blow to the Prime Minister. But he

:40:26. > :40:27.didn't need to hold it to commit