Size of the House of Lords Committee Select Committees


Size of the House of Lords Committee

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Size of the House of Lords Committee. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Good morning and may I welcome you to this session of the public

:00:54.:01:01.

administration public affairs committee about our inquiry into the

:01:02.:01:05.

next step of reform for the House of Lords. You arrive on the morning of

:01:06.:01:11.

a very topical time. Where the House of Lords has been

:01:12.:01:18.

very much in the news, both with the documentary and with recent

:01:19.:01:23.

political events. Formerly, I have to ask you to

:01:24.:01:27.

introduce each of yourselves for the record, please.

:01:28.:01:36.

Amanda Smith. Baroness of Basildon for these purpose and the Labour

:01:37.:01:40.

leader in the House of Lords opposition. I'm David Halt, the

:01:41.:01:50.

convener of the cross-bench pers. Grateful to you all for coming. We

:01:51.:01:56.

will ask short questions, and if uppion can give fairly crisp answers

:01:57.:02:02.

that will be helpful. If the answers are going on longer, I may wish to

:02:03.:02:08.

shorten them. So, could we have our first question, please, Paul Anyone?

:02:09.:02:13.

Could I state as a practitioner in this place for a long time, my

:02:14.:02:20.

admiration for your House as a body for scrutinising legislation,

:02:21.:02:22.

superior to what happens here. But the position of the Lord's,

:02:23.:02:28.

which is nothing to do with you, is one that is indefensible in so many

:02:29.:02:33.

ways in the number of peers, and the fact it is possible to buy a place

:02:34.:02:38.

in the Lord's if you contribute to any of the three main parties. The

:02:39.:02:44.

fact it overrepresents London and under-represents Scotland and that

:02:45.:02:49.

will get worse, all of the problems that arice and the illogical things

:02:50.:02:53.

that come from it. We are stuck with it now. There have been attempts to

:02:54.:03:03.

reform it. As a bemused nation watches the ermine-clad antics in

:03:04.:03:06.

the Lord's and on the television programme, where there is serious

:03:07.:03:10.

work going on there, can you list practical ways to reforming it, from

:03:11.:03:16.

the worst excesses in the near future? How can we do it? Are you

:03:17.:03:22.

talking about worst excesses in appointments? I could go on. I think

:03:23.:03:28.

I have the gives. Another problem is the apparent lack

:03:29.:03:35.

of rules for conduct in the Lord's. Someone being interviewed as a

:03:36.:03:39.

possible lobbyist says when they leave the House of Commons, in the

:03:40.:03:43.

Lord's, they could do more for you for the money that is paid in the

:03:44.:03:47.

Lord's because of the rules. But there is a number of perceptions of

:03:48.:03:55.

the Lord's that are there and cannot be respected any more as a second

:03:56.:04:03.

chamber. The question of reforms coming up,

:04:04.:04:07.

the question on rules and lobbying, that is something that perhaps you

:04:08.:04:13.

could address immediately? We have tightening up the rules on lobbying

:04:14.:04:19.

considerably. I think that the privileges and the

:04:20.:04:24.

conduct committee and subcommittee which looks at them has been

:04:25.:04:31.

rigorous certainly in the years I have been on it, at making sure that

:04:32.:04:39.

the rule which says you can't either have public paid advocacy in the

:04:40.:04:48.

Lords or use your position to lobby ministers, has been rigorously

:04:49.:04:50.

enforced and there have been sanctions against people. I think it

:04:51.:04:55.

has tightened up a lot in recent years but I think now it is pretty

:04:56.:05:02.

rigorous. I would agree. Anyone who uses their

:05:03.:05:08.

position inappropriately would be dealt with swiftly, if there are

:05:09.:05:12.

suggestions as to how it can be improved I would be open to

:05:13.:05:17.

suggestions. But no-one would tolerate members of the House of

:05:18.:05:21.

Commons using their position, either paid positions or positions that the

:05:22.:05:26.

public might think that they are acting inappropriately would be

:05:27.:05:29.

acceptable in any way. Could we take the I pointments. The

:05:30.:05:36.

reason we are in such a mess is to solve problems within internal party

:05:37.:05:41.

problems, that have been existing because of the cruelly and people

:05:42.:05:48.

are adding to the number in the Lords, in order to solve internal

:05:49.:05:55.

political party problems. I think you find across the House of Lords

:05:56.:06:00.

broad agreement with evidence by debates that we have had and issues

:06:01.:06:10.

raised that the House of Lords has a size that is beyond that which the

:06:11.:06:15.

job is required of it. I think that we will come to these

:06:16.:06:21.

questions... Shall I continue to answer or shall await? I think we

:06:22.:06:26.

will wait. The general question is what can we

:06:27.:06:31.

do about it? We have other questions... If we are arguing about

:06:32.:06:41.

the conduct, I would refer to you two cases recently, that suggests

:06:42.:06:47.

that the rules that have been imposed, par tick Latin America with

:06:48.:06:52.

one case, with a complaint I made where it took two hearings for it to

:06:53.:06:58.

go through where there seemed observe abuse on rules of lobbying,

:06:59.:07:03.

it must have been done in two stages and it was nothing rigorous, the

:07:04.:07:07.

Lord was asked to make a brief apology, and then the whole thing

:07:08.:07:11.

forgotten about. Is there more to be done on this

:07:12.:07:17.

question, Lord Hope? The committee takes a close eye on what is going

:07:18.:07:21.

on. There is a subcommittee within that committee that works with the

:07:22.:07:26.

commissioner to investigate these case, you must look carefully at the

:07:27.:07:30.

facts before forming a judgment as to the result of the process. But

:07:31.:07:35.

when something is exposed like let's say in this case, we all appreciate

:07:36.:07:39.

that something went wrong and we learn from it. A great deal of

:07:40.:07:46.

effort is taken with new peers to explain the rules and make it clear

:07:47.:07:52.

that there is a boundary beyond which they must not go.

:07:53.:07:58.

And how do we stop people buying places in the Lords? W... As far as

:07:59.:08:08.

the cross-benchers are concerned it different. There are two routes, one

:08:09.:08:14.

is the Prime Minister's appointment system, ten appointees in the life

:08:15.:08:19.

of a Parliament, Cabinet secaries senior military figures and so on,

:08:20.:08:25.

the other is through the Appointment's Commission, we are

:08:26.:08:28.

allowed two a year. It is a separate process from politics. There is no

:08:29.:08:33.

question of buying your way in. It is a competitive process. The

:08:34.:08:39.

cross-benchers must be understood against that background.

:08:40.:08:42.

Well are well aware of that system. It is one that is entirely

:08:43.:08:48.

defencible. The problem is that politicians, former MPs appoint the

:08:49.:08:51.

people who have given their party money. This is going back even

:08:52.:08:59.

before my time in this Parliament. The question about the appointment

:09:00.:09:04.

of peers, there are a number of issues that I would like to see

:09:05.:09:09.

changed. I would like a cap on the number of peers appointed to the

:09:10.:09:14.

House of Lords. A more proactive role for the current appointment's

:09:15.:09:20.

commission or a separate body that looks at the propiraty of the peers

:09:21.:09:24.

appointed and the contribution that they can make to the Lords. And take

:09:25.:09:32.

into account the work that the Lords have done. There are issues around

:09:33.:09:40.

ensuring that those appointed can be properly vetted, checked to ensure

:09:41.:09:43.

that they can provide a contribution. The current system

:09:44.:09:47.

does not do that as well as it could and if it is looking at the

:09:48.:09:53.

Appointment's Commissioner, we must look at the resources and the time

:09:54.:09:57.

given where in a number of occasions with the limited powers on

:09:58.:10:02.

appointments they are not given enough time to fully look and fulfil

:10:03.:10:09.

their functions. I would have no problem looking at all appointments

:10:10.:10:14.

but there must be a clear criteria set out first.

:10:15.:10:21.

I think one of the key thing is the appointments Commission should do is

:10:22.:10:28.

to seek an assurance from party appointees that they intend to play

:10:29.:10:36.

that part. I think that would deal with Mr Flynn's point about people

:10:37.:10:40.

who have been party donors, who in some cases come in with no

:10:41.:10:46.

expectation of of doing a hand's turn and that seems to be wrong in

:10:47.:10:55.

principle and I think the only way you can get the principle of a

:10:56.:11:01.

working appear as if the appointments committee where on a

:11:02.:11:06.

statutory basis and had powers to quiz potential appointees about

:11:07.:11:11.

their future commitments. As far as crossbenchers are concerned, the

:11:12.:11:16.

system is more rigorous than in the case of political parties and

:11:17.:11:18.

everybody who comes in through that route has tested as to whether they

:11:19.:11:21.

are prepared to make a contribution and indeed whether the contribution

:11:22.:11:26.

they can make is worth having. So, it is a rigorous one and one might

:11:27.:11:30.

want to explore the ability of the Commission to expand a rigorous

:11:31.:11:36.

process... We will come to that. Can I ask a first principles question?

:11:37.:11:41.

Do we all agree what the appropriate role of the House of Lords actually

:11:42.:11:47.

is? Would you like to have a stab at all three of you agreeing on what it

:11:48.:11:51.

is? There may or may not be agreement. I tend to vary slightly

:11:52.:12:03.

from the scrutiny description. A House of sober second thought is the

:12:04.:12:07.

Canadian edition and I think that's a nice description of what we do. We

:12:08.:12:13.

give breathing space and the House of Lords gave the opportunity for

:12:14.:12:16.

the House of Commons to look again at an issue recently. There is

:12:17.:12:20.

difference between us on the panel what we do in the House but that

:12:21.:12:28.

sober second thought that allows the Commons to think again, I think

:12:29.:12:31.

there has been some difficulty with that. Not the House of Lords, we

:12:32.:12:36.

have seen a lot of attacks on the House of Lords suggesting we have

:12:37.:12:40.

exceeded agreement. I think we have not exceeded that agreement. Tax

:12:41.:12:46.

credits was when that allegation started. When we Government to look

:12:47.:12:52.

again, that led to the Strathclyde report. And before the Brexit

:12:53.:12:57.

process even started, the House of Lords was being threatened with

:12:58.:13:01.

abolition and 1000 extra peers to get the Bill through. It would've

:13:02.:13:04.

taken two years to get 1000 extra peers but the comments were still

:13:05.:13:09.

made. So, I think how the Government response to the House of Lords,

:13:10.:13:13.

asking the House of Commons to think again, has changed. And that,

:13:14.:13:17.

perhaps, is a wider issue. I think we're quite clear on how a row. If

:13:18.:13:23.

you cut the number of fatal motions, the number of times the Commons has

:13:24.:13:28.

been able to think again, nothing significant has changed on that over

:13:29.:13:32.

time. Feared the other two witnesses differ from that? Fifa the answer

:13:33.:13:40.

while Skiff is firstly, scrutiny of legislation. Secondly, daily holding

:13:41.:13:48.

of account through questions and debates and thirdly, the House of

:13:49.:13:53.

Lords has been reasonably good at having early-stage debates on big

:13:54.:13:57.

public policy issues which are contentious and which there is no

:13:58.:14:03.

consensus on. Right to die is an obvious area but some of these big

:14:04.:14:08.

issues have been discussed in the Lords and brought to public view in

:14:09.:14:13.

a way that doesn't happen in quite the same way in the Commons. All I

:14:14.:14:19.

would add is to stress the work of the committees on the committee work

:14:20.:14:24.

that goes on the House of Lords, in the EU field and legislation, as we

:14:25.:14:28.

looked at with HS2, the committee work is of a very high standard and

:14:29.:14:32.

a lot of effort is put in by people who perhaps don't play a big part in

:14:33.:14:36.

the Chamber but are working hard on committees to develop the thinking

:14:37.:14:44.

through them. Can I just pick up on one point from the previous

:14:45.:14:54.

question. On that last answer, I shall get nearer to the microphone,

:14:55.:14:57.

I can be slightly soft-spoken sometimes. In terms of the rove the

:14:58.:15:04.

House of Lords, how much do you feel the role is helped or hindered by

:15:05.:15:09.

the fact that you do not have a constituency party group of members,

:15:10.:15:18.

sometimes scrutinising and focusing on what you may or may not be doing,

:15:19.:15:22.

in terms of your potential reselection or not, into your role?

:15:23.:15:32.

I'm in the best place, having been about the House of Commons on the

:15:33.:15:36.

House of Lords. 13 years in the House of Commons as a backbencher

:15:37.:15:40.

and as a minister and now six in the House of Lords. I see the rules is

:15:41.:15:45.

very different. A complimentary. I think it is right the final say is

:15:46.:15:49.

with the House of Commons and privacy allows for the House of

:15:50.:15:52.

Commons because we are an elected House. It does not stop me and my

:15:53.:16:00.

colleagues in the House of Lords may agree, from having feelings about

:16:01.:16:08.

issues and letters no lack of direct contact. We're not representatives,

:16:09.:16:13.

so it's a different role. I'm talking about the selection of MPs,

:16:14.:16:27.

have to you feel about not having to pander to the line with a thought of

:16:28.:16:39.

reselection? In a sense, you come to it knowing that that is the deal. It

:16:40.:16:43.

is obviously different from being an MP. I think what has changed during

:16:44.:16:48.

my time there is that when I started, you were operating in a

:16:49.:16:53.

closed box. If you received very few letters. Now, particularly with

:16:54.:16:56.

e-mail, that has changed significantly. I have had over 500

:16:57.:17:07.

e-mails about the Article 50 Bill in the last week, expressing a wide

:17:08.:17:12.

range of opinion. Although people don't feel we are accountable in the

:17:13.:17:18.

same way as MPs, we feel that they are, or I feel, leaving aside any

:17:19.:17:23.

political or tragic campaigning, but I am exposed more to public opinion,

:17:24.:17:28.

is it where, and to individuals with views in which I speak and have done

:17:29.:17:38.

in the past. Crossbenchers contribute expertise, people from

:17:39.:17:42.

various backgrounds, medicine, University, military, for example,

:17:43.:17:45.

lawyers, and that is the contribution they make, it is not

:17:46.:17:51.

based on constituency work and most, not all, would never dream of

:17:52.:17:54.

standing for election, partly because they do not have time to do

:17:55.:17:58.

that but that is one might like to think about who to sometimes said to

:17:59.:18:02.

me that they feel they do represent a constituency and that is the

:18:03.:18:08.

bishops who are dealing... You may laugh but they do speak to people of

:18:09.:18:12.

different faiths who contribute their thoughts through them. People

:18:13.:18:18.

know they exist. Through their Diocese, which is a large area, they

:18:19.:18:23.

develop ideas. The questions they ask at question time are often based

:18:24.:18:27.

on their understanding of how things are within their dioceses. Of

:18:28.:18:31.

course, it is very easy to laugh at this but it is fact that they do try

:18:32.:18:42.

to represent their Diocese. Bishops being representative of different

:18:43.:18:50.

faiths... Well, the people I speak to say they are approached by other

:18:51.:18:55.

faiths, who know they are there and they contribute their ideas to them.

:18:56.:19:01.

Would you not be better to give those other faiths a voice? There

:19:02.:19:06.

are other faiths in the House. Lord Singh, and there are people other

:19:07.:19:16.

than that and the point I am making is the Bishop does not just

:19:17.:19:21.

represent themselves as individuals. But we could help by giving voice to

:19:22.:19:24.

other faiths within the House of Lords. They're there. I would

:19:25.:19:32.

welcome more faiths on the crossbenchers, it is a question of

:19:33.:19:35.

getting in and through the process and we have several better already.

:19:36.:19:45.

Thank you. I didn't get to where I wanted to be those questions but

:19:46.:19:52.

anyway... On more substantive questions about House of Lords

:19:53.:19:55.

reform, generally speaking, more incremental reform has been more

:19:56.:20:02.

successful than radical reform. I wonder from your perspective, each

:20:03.:20:06.

of you in turn, starting with Baroness Smith, for which you

:20:07.:20:13.

suggest is the next small essential Lords reform? I think there are a

:20:14.:20:16.

number of incremental reforms which could be easily achieved. The

:20:17.:20:23.

hereditary by-elections, we should end those, which are on nonsense and

:20:24.:20:26.

an embarrassment to the House. That could be done tomorrow. That could

:20:27.:20:30.

be reversed. Visit Private Members' Bill in existence. The Government

:20:31.:20:36.

takes a few should be consensus. To get complete consensus on anything

:20:37.:20:39.

is very difficult. To get a broad consensus is easy. Also on powers of

:20:40.:20:50.

blocking, I think Maccabi an easy one to do. In another paper, it was

:20:51.:20:56.

looked at revising powers and limiting blocking powers. Blocking

:20:57.:21:04.

powers are so rarely use it. I wouldn't get rid all together but

:21:05.:21:07.

you could extend revising powers, for example on NSIs. Also, looking

:21:08.:21:17.

at the size of the House, I think there is broad agreement the size of

:21:18.:21:21.

the House does need to be addressed. It has largely come about, partly as

:21:22.:21:27.

a result of the Coalition Government, David Cameron wanted to

:21:28.:21:34.

have more peers and appointed peers at a faster rate than 1958

:21:35.:21:40.

potted-mac I will come back to that point in a moment. But the

:21:41.:21:47.

incremental reform you suggest tips, ending hereditary by-elections, that

:21:48.:21:54.

is only going to gradually erode... It is not a numbers issue. That is

:21:55.:22:02.

one easy suggestion. Lord Newby? There is no consensus on virtually

:22:03.:22:13.

nothing. So, that means that. No absolute consensus. There is a broad

:22:14.:22:17.

consensus that we should reduce numbers House of Lords but there is

:22:18.:22:21.

no consensus thereafter on how to do it. Parties are differentially

:22:22.:22:24.

affected by virtually any reform we might care to make. In terms of what

:22:25.:22:29.

could become in the relatively short-term, without major

:22:30.:22:36.

legislation, you could strengthen the appointments Commission, as we

:22:37.:22:39.

have said, you could stop hereditary by-elections and you could have a

:22:40.:22:45.

moratorium so that at least you are turning off the tap temporarily. We

:22:46.:22:52.

could go a bit further in encouraging people to retire,

:22:53.:22:54.

although I think that scheme has worked pretty well, really, and it

:22:55.:23:01.

is now more acceptable for people to retire and I think more to do so in

:23:02.:23:06.

future. Alike can I count on retirement, I agree. There are

:23:07.:23:13.

people in the House that would retire, certainly on my side, who

:23:14.:23:17.

would consider retirement because our appointment level has been so

:23:18.:23:21.

low since 2010, they don't feel their numbers would be replaced, it

:23:22.:23:25.

would be replaced by someone from a Government party, so I think not

:23:26.:23:28.

just looking at size but the political balance of how the House

:23:29.:23:31.

works have to be part of the same debate. You both agree on a cap on

:23:32.:23:39.

size? Yes, an absolute cap or something doesn't ban but a cap on

:23:40.:23:46.

size. Regard it as part of my job to spread the message of retirement it

:23:47.:23:51.

is said that on the whole, our group is rather older than others. It is

:23:52.:23:56.

done to the way people coming and I have worked hard to achieve more

:23:57.:24:00.

retirements. Can I come back to hereditary peers?

:24:01.:24:08.

Dmrb In my case it is about 15% of my group. I recognise it is absurd,

:24:09.:24:16.

having the by-elections but if it is to be stopped, I would like the ways

:24:17.:24:21.

into the Crossbench group widened, otherwise I'm losing people in

:24:22.:24:27.

retirement and indeed mortality without replacements.

:24:28.:24:33.

It really must be a quid pro quo. It was always a temporary measure to

:24:34.:24:37.

hold the position until a proper reform of the House of Lords was

:24:38.:24:41.

achieved. So from my position, I don't think it would be right to

:24:42.:24:46.

just terminate it without looking at the consequences for my group.

:24:47.:24:52.

This is where there is an agreement across the House of Lords, there is

:24:53.:24:56.

an agreement generally in the House of Lords from what you all said that

:24:57.:25:04.

the House of Lords is too big. 200 more peers therein MPs at the

:25:05.:25:08.

moment. That is the general analysis. But there seems to be

:25:09.:25:17.

disagreement as Lord Newby said even amongst the emphasis that Baroness

:25:18.:25:22.

Smith put on the issue of the hereditary by-elections and the

:25:23.:25:27.

impact it would have as Lord hope has indicated on a particular

:25:28.:25:32.

subject. So I am wondering in this if you had to choose between making

:25:33.:25:37.

an argument for incremental change where there is a lot of disagreement

:25:38.:25:43.

about what the change is and putting a cap or a moratorium on new members

:25:44.:25:48.

or something along the lines, which of those would you choose as a crude

:25:49.:25:54.

mechanism to deliver some level of reform? I would like an absolute

:25:55.:25:59.

cap. But it depends on the co-operation of the Prime Minister,

:26:00.:26:10.

whose perogative is along with the appointments she makes. There was a

:26:11.:26:16.

vote and the total figure voting was 633. You test that against the

:26:17.:26:21.

nominal number of the membership which is over 800 and you can see in

:26:22.:26:25.

practice with the efforts to get people in we don't get anything like

:26:26.:26:30.

the 800 people coming in. So there is a question as to the working

:26:31.:26:35.

numbers as opposed to the nominal number that is worth considering.

:26:36.:26:39.

But I would go for a cap at around 600.

:26:40.:26:44.

Agreed? I may go lower. But the key thing is, you are right, there to

:26:45.:26:54.

say today oh, we can agree on this but on the hereditary by-elections,

:26:55.:26:58.

David says how it affects his group more, it would over 30 years when

:26:59.:27:05.

they have died out but anything we are look at has a different affect

:27:06.:27:10.

on different groups. But trying to get down to the issues there will

:27:11.:27:14.

not be one thing that is magic bullet. The moratorium would advance

:27:15.:27:22.

you to the younger party, those with older groups would gradually fade

:27:23.:27:26.

and the numbers would not perhaps improve the work of the lord lords.

:27:27.:27:33.

So getting the Speaker's Committee to look at this, to come up with a

:27:34.:27:39.

range of issues to get principles established, there could be some

:27:40.:27:42.

agreement. I think that we do agree that the

:27:43.:27:46.

House of Lords should be largely reduced. End of agreement.

:27:47.:27:52.

I think it is too simplistic to say that we only agree on that. I would

:27:53.:28:01.

put faith on the committee. We have Christine Crawley looking at this

:28:02.:28:04.

issue, it will take work but there must be a determination from all of

:28:05.:28:09.

them that although we think it should be reduced but also how to

:28:10.:28:15.

reach that. The effectiveness of the retirement

:28:16.:28:21.

system, has it exceeded your expectations or are you disappointed

:28:22.:28:26.

with the number of people that exited? Disappointed? I have

:28:27.:28:35.

colleagues on my side of the House that would retire if they thought

:28:36.:28:40.

that their work would be under taken by somebody else but don't see a new

:28:41.:28:45.

Labour appointment coming in. So if there was a cap on numbers and a

:28:46.:28:50.

political balance, there would be more retirements. I think in our

:28:51.:28:55.

group it has worked well. We have had people who have not

:28:56.:29:02.

participated, coming to retire, and others like Shirley Williams who had

:29:03.:29:06.

a high-profile, who took the view that given the age that they reached

:29:07.:29:12.

they thought to withdraw. As I say, for my group it's worked pretty much

:29:13.:29:18.

as I would have expected. It is true of the cross benchers but

:29:19.:29:23.

it requires effort to look around to people reaching that point. The

:29:24.:29:28.

numbers involved are low, it is not the cure-all. But it is something

:29:29.:29:34.

that can be achieved and continue to be worked on.

:29:35.:29:38.

One of the questions INAUDIBLE

:29:39.:29:41.

I think you may have answered it for me is that the numbers here last

:29:42.:29:52.

week were 633, is it really necessary, given all those efforts

:29:53.:29:59.

to get people here? The ab-Hewitt maximum is virtually 633.

:30:00.:30:05.

Somebody calculated that we need 450 to staff the committees and that's

:30:06.:30:10.

the starting point. But you need extra residue on top, which is why I

:30:11.:30:16.

go for about 600. There is a feature of the lord lords, that I noticed in

:30:17.:30:23.

my time. The more you emphasise on attendance and participation being

:30:24.:30:27.

necessary, there is less time for the people to speak in debates.

:30:28.:30:32.

There is timed debates, two minutes or one minute each, that is a

:30:33.:30:37.

feature of numbers. So it is one of these things where you must be

:30:38.:30:42.

careful what you wish for. But the overall numbers of 800 is bad for

:30:43.:30:48.

the image of the House and we could come down to 600 without diminishing

:30:49.:30:52.

really the participation of people who really do participate. So if it

:30:53.:30:57.

is image, you can reduce to 600 without too much loss of effort.

:30:58.:31:05.

I would agree with that. Would start not from reducing

:31:06.:31:09.

numbers but what is the number we need to fulfil the functions we have

:31:10.:31:14.

to do? We did a report from the Labour peers in March 2014, starting

:31:15.:31:20.

from the basis, when David said how many were needed to fulfil the

:31:21.:31:25.

committee places and to fulfil the work of the House, I think you are

:31:26.:31:30.

right just over 600 is the maximum to attend the House. Anyone who

:31:31.:31:34.

could walk last week was there, pretty much. But I don't think it

:31:35.:31:40.

shows the House in a good light. When the Government is proposing to

:31:41.:31:43.

reduce the House of Commons, to receive so many appointments into

:31:44.:31:46.

the House of Lords, I think is wrong.

:31:47.:31:52.

As long as the House of Lords is appointed, it makes sense for it not

:31:53.:31:58.

simply to be a House of full-time politicians, which means by

:31:59.:32:01.

definition you need more than you would otherwise need as you are

:32:02.:32:05.

having to spread it out. We have to all of us have to find people to sit

:32:06.:32:10.

on committees for example. Well, if people are doing other jobs outside,

:32:11.:32:15.

which we encourage, because that brings expertise in, the amount of

:32:16.:32:19.

time that they then have to do committee and other work in the lord

:32:20.:32:25.

lords is limited so you need other people to fulfil the positions.

:32:26.:32:30.

So you are agreed on capping the size but now you are talking

:32:31.:32:34.

yourself out of capping the size? No. The cap on size that we argued

:32:35.:32:42.

for when talking about an elected House in the last Parliament was

:32:43.:32:51.

450. But you need it to be larger than that for a full-time House. If

:32:52.:32:56.

there is a cap on size, the Prime Minister can't go above the cap that

:32:57.:33:00.

is the most critical point of all when thinking of numbers. It will be

:33:01.:33:06.

a full-time house but not all the members are full-time.

:33:07.:33:10.

An overwhelm majority in the House of Lords for a cap.

:33:11.:33:16.

Effectively a reduction in the size of the House of Lords and the three

:33:17.:33:20.

of you appear to support that view. So we now accept that the House of

:33:21.:33:24.

Lords could take 600 as being the figure. So 600 is what is wanted as

:33:25.:33:31.

the maximum in the House of Lords. What is the obstacle to achieving

:33:32.:33:37.

that? I have had discussions with the Government previously, they were

:33:38.:33:47.

not prepared to accept a cap. I was told you could not

:33:48.:33:50.

INAUDIBLE Because of prime easterly

:33:51.:33:53.

appointments, when I raised this the last time it was under a different

:33:54.:33:57.

leader in the House of Lords but the Government at that time was not in

:33:58.:34:02.

favour of a cap, so maybe things have changed but it has not been the

:34:03.:34:06.

position so far. Let's ignore the Government's

:34:07.:34:08.

perspective. The House of Lords think that there should be a

:34:09.:34:12.

reduction in the number of peers, you are coming to a figure of 6

:34:13.:34:16.

hundreds. That is the figure that the House of Lords wishes to

:34:17.:34:22.

achieve. What are the obstacles to getting there, ignoring the

:34:23.:34:26.

Government? The obstacle is agreement. I am optimistic than a

:34:27.:34:31.

Newburyie on this. We have the committee to meet to look at this

:34:32.:34:39.

now. I don't know if this will solve the problem or X will solve the

:34:40.:34:45.

problem. Retirement is there. But there are members in their 80s who

:34:46.:34:53.

make a great contribution. Then there are others in their 30s who

:34:54.:34:58.

you never see. So the committee will have to look at attendance,

:34:59.:35:03.

activity, whilst not ignoring the people that bring in expertise when

:35:04.:35:09.

they do come in. But a basic level of attendance. Some can be dealt

:35:10.:35:16.

with. If you don't attend you should be automatically retired. So some

:35:17.:35:20.

things must be addressed but I hope that the committee are looking at, I

:35:21.:35:25.

look forward to the report, to bring the issues and see the impact of

:35:26.:35:30.

them and coalesce around some to try to bring the size down.

:35:31.:35:38.

So you see a direct link between composition and the membership et

:35:39.:35:41.

cetera and the number, rather than just say 600 and then waiting for

:35:42.:35:46.

the numbers to drop to 600? I think yes to work to get the numbers below

:35:47.:35:51.

that level. So that the number is 600, and wait for people to die off

:35:52.:35:56.

to get to that number, it that is unacceptable.

:35:57.:36:00.

The answer is that you need leadership from Government. Not just

:36:01.:36:04.

legislation to do this. If you say you want a cap of 600, A you have to

:36:05.:36:11.

legislate for that. Then you need legislation probably in terms of how

:36:12.:36:14.

to do it. The deafily is in the detail in the House of Lords in

:36:15.:36:18.

terms of reducing it. As you have heard, all of the groups are

:36:19.:36:22.

affected by the different methods of reducing numbers. You need a lead

:36:23.:36:26.

from somebody. The only to give that lead are Government. They are going

:36:27.:36:32.

to have to be resolute. There will be opposition as we have seen in the

:36:33.:36:37.

past. Every single change proposed to the House of Lords, beyond

:36:38.:36:41.

probably the cap, which you could easily get a majority for but

:36:42.:36:45.

resolute leadership to push it through.

:36:46.:36:56.

Or the advantage from the Crossbenchers' point of view that

:36:57.:36:59.

the Crossbencher should amount to 20%. We achieve that with the

:37:00.:37:05.

numbers of 180. Today we are 177. I would have to shed about 30 members

:37:06.:37:10.

to bring myself down, 35, possibly, to the proportion within the cap.

:37:11.:37:14.

We will come back to the size of groups and the composition in a

:37:15.:37:19.

minute but the question on the obstacles that you see to achieving

:37:20.:37:26.

a cob sensus on the agreement? I come back to the figures, given my

:37:27.:37:31.

case, I am different to the other groups but if you regard the

:37:32.:37:36.

Crossbenchers as a 20% figure in the total membership of the House I can

:37:37.:37:42.

work on people in a variety of ways, attendance, age, state of health and

:37:43.:37:45.

participation and useful contribution. It could be within our

:37:46.:37:50.

group a question of persuading people to reduce but Lord Newby is

:37:51.:37:54.

right at the end of the day legislation is needed for a critical

:37:55.:38:00.

reason: We are all entitled to a writ somons when each Parliament

:38:01.:38:05.

starts up that gives us an unchallengeable right to attend.

:38:06.:38:08.

There must be something to stop that so that those people who are

:38:09.:38:13.

regarded as no longer worth, or who should no longer be a part of the

:38:14.:38:19.

House are no longer titled to waive their writ.

:38:20.:38:24.

Does anyone agree that there should be a retirement age? There is for

:38:25.:38:30.

the judges. In principle we agree. But the

:38:31.:38:34.

difficulty is look at the House, and some of the best expertise comes

:38:35.:38:40.

from the older members. There is the example of a retirement

:38:41.:38:46.

age to 80 but not applying to anyone above the age of 77?

:38:47.:38:53.

Everybody thinks there should be a retirement age, it's one of the

:38:54.:39:03.

problems we always have. Can I just pick up something? I don't think

:39:04.:39:06.

it's for the Government to take a lead on this. We would have got

:39:07.:39:15.

hereditary by-elections through the House, but the Government obstructed

:39:16.:39:21.

it, we would have to accept we are not going to get everybody to

:39:22.:39:24.

permanently agree on everything. So the Government has to say, if there

:39:25.:39:29.

is a broad consensus, they will work on this. On age, I'm not necessarily

:39:30.:39:38.

very representative of my group, but I would personally, and this will

:39:39.:39:43.

make me very unpopular with some of my colleagues, personally submit a

:39:44.:39:50.

retirement age. A question to look at is the age profile of people that

:39:51.:39:55.

come in. In my group, it's between 50 and 60, you have to think about

:39:56.:39:58.

that against the contribution they would want to make. If you come in

:39:59.:40:04.

at 60, I would have thought 15 years' service is a reasonable

:40:05.:40:07.

thing. It is a commendation of age and length of service. 15 years is

:40:08.:40:14.

three parliaments, and it could be made clear by the appointments

:40:15.:40:17.

Commission that that is what the expectation is. And you will be

:40:18.:40:26.

expected to retire after one or two of these factors come into play.

:40:27.:40:37.

I've got a solution to this manner which I'm sure you're not going to

:40:38.:40:41.

like. Why do we scrap the House of Lords and have a second chamber

:40:42.:40:45.

which is elected by the people of the UK, representing all the regions

:40:46.:40:51.

of the UK. That would seem to solve all of our problems. I agree! Most

:40:52.:41:01.

of the problems that Mr Flynn mentioned at the start would not be

:41:02.:41:05.

resolved by-elections. And certainly the very significant

:41:06.:41:09.

underrepresentation of the English regions, and of Scotland, and Wales,

:41:10.:41:16.

would be dealt with by-elections. The Liberal Democrats who oppose

:41:17.:41:20.

proposals for elections in the last Parliament, that we put forward, had

:41:21.:41:26.

a 15 year term of office. -- the Liberal Democrats's proposals. The

:41:27.:41:38.

chartists said people should be elected every year, but 15 years and

:41:39.:41:41.

not being able to stand for re-election has no accountability in

:41:42.:41:46.

it. I'm not a proponent of an elected house, but what I would say

:41:47.:41:50.

is that it changes the nature, so I think there should be, if you are

:41:51.:41:55.

looking at this, to look at how it impacts on the House of Commons as

:41:56.:41:59.

well. I voted for the abolition of the House of Lords when I was a

:42:00.:42:03.

member of Parliament because I did not support the proposals for an

:42:04.:42:07.

elected house or a hybrid house. It wasn't that I didn't support the

:42:08.:42:12.

notion of a second chamber, but we have to think quite carefully how we

:42:13.:42:15.

do that, and my reluctance is just to say, I would not want a second

:42:16.:42:21.

chamber to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. So if there

:42:22.:42:28.

are ways of looking at something, changes on that, I am relaxed about

:42:29.:42:32.

that, but I think it has to be looked at in the context of

:42:33.:42:35.

Parliament as a whole, and not thinking that by changing the House

:42:36.:42:38.

of Lords you can make a change that doesn't impact on the House of

:42:39.:42:47.

Commons. It would cease to elect if you made the body wholly elected.

:42:48.:42:52.

Our group contributes very substantially to science and

:42:53.:42:55.

technology, medicine, and so forth. But I am very much in favour of

:42:56.:43:00.

something that would increase the representation from elsewhere than

:43:01.:43:03.

London. I come from Scotland, travel down every week from Scotland, and I

:43:04.:43:09.

am dependent on my ?300 to pay my accommodation. That's all we get,

:43:10.:43:13.

apart from travelling costs. The question is, are people from

:43:14.:43:16.

Scotland or Wales and the remoter parts of England prepared to

:43:17.:43:20.

contribute to the work of the House, given that that's all they get out

:43:21.:43:26.

of it from the point of view of covering their costs, and the time

:43:27.:43:30.

and effort it takes to travel to and from the two places? We are short of

:43:31.:43:34.

representation from Scotland and Wales does not it would be

:43:35.:43:38.

determined by the number of members. We are not looking at electing 800

:43:39.:43:45.

or so people. So the numbers are going to come down substantially.

:43:46.:43:50.

Yes, I'm not quite sure how you are going to solve the problem of

:43:51.:43:56.

regional representation, without having something -- some greater

:43:57.:44:00.

effort in persuading people to take part in the establishment, in the

:44:01.:44:04.

institution. The numbers of people putting themselves forward to the

:44:05.:44:07.

Commission as far as I know are very much centred around this part of the

:44:08.:44:12.

country. Strangely enough we get more hereditary peers from Scotland

:44:13.:44:18.

than we do by appointments through the other channels. Won people ask,

:44:19.:44:34.

-- I think we do have to look at the Parliament as a whole, and I thought

:44:35.:44:40.

we were talking about incremental reform, that would be a major

:44:41.:44:48.

change, and I think we need to look at Parliament as a whole, and be

:44:49.:44:50.

clear that the last proposals put forward for an elected house, I just

:44:51.:44:55.

could not support. Maybe other proposals are good, but

:44:56.:44:59.

I thought the 15 year term was unacceptable. Did you see a future

:45:00.:45:08.

for 92 hereditary peers? In a macro I have been arguing that you could

:45:09.:45:13.

end the by-elections immediately. To be honest nobody knows really who

:45:14.:45:15.

are the by-elections immediately. To be honest nobody knows really who

:45:16.:45:18.

other hereditary peers and who are not. I think the differentiation we

:45:19.:45:24.

make in the House of Lords is between those who get on with a job

:45:25.:45:28.

of work, and if people don't they are drawn to attention. But for

:45:29.:45:32.

those who work, we don't know whether they are hereditary or not.

:45:33.:45:36.

I raised this in debate recently, the Minister said, he could only

:45:37.:45:40.

support incremental change, and that wasn't an incremental change. Well,

:45:41.:45:44.

given the change would take place over 30 years, I think that is

:45:45.:45:49.

pretty incremental. So I don't justify that. It was a deal that was

:45:50.:45:53.

done that was supposed to be temporary, has lived its time.

:45:54.:45:57.

That's not to criticise those who play a part in the House, across

:45:58.:46:01.

parties and crossbenchers, but the by-election system is indefensible.

:46:02.:46:11.

Lord Newby? I think the current -- the concern was expressed when the

:46:12.:46:14.

reforms were proposed during the Coalition about challenging the

:46:15.:46:20.

primacy of the Commons can be assuaged in part if the House of

:46:21.:46:24.

Lords is seen to have a very different basis of representation,

:46:25.:46:28.

which it would have had, namely people would have been elected on a

:46:29.:46:33.

regional basis. Our constitutional proposals go further than just

:46:34.:46:42.

electing the House of Lords, so in a sense they hang together. But I

:46:43.:46:45.

think that electing people regionally would give a very

:46:46.:46:52.

different background to their coming to this place, and I must say I have

:46:53.:46:56.

never found any difficulty when we've been looking to even appoint

:46:57.:47:01.

people from any part of the country to come to the House of Lords, it's

:47:02.:47:07.

not a place which people tend to shy away from if given the opportunity

:47:08.:47:12.

to come in my experience. I think an elected house would be more

:47:13.:47:16.

powerful. If I was standing for election to anywhere, I would hardly

:47:17.:47:21.

knock on doors to say, please vote for me because I want to be a member

:47:22.:47:25.

of the second chamber, so I can advise or express an opinion to the

:47:26.:47:28.

House of Commons. I think an elected house would want more power. So I

:47:29.:47:35.

expect -- except Dick's comment, I think it would challenge primacy.

:47:36.:47:40.

But there has to be a conscious decision for the way forward. There

:47:41.:47:49.

is another possibility, which is elected apart from the 20% who are

:47:50.:47:53.

crossbenches, who would be appointed. And you would preserve

:47:54.:47:55.

the expertise through the appointment system. Which might be

:47:56.:48:01.

more broadly spread around the regions.

:48:02.:48:07.

This doesn't sound like part of the sort of most obvious consensual next

:48:08.:48:12.

step. Given that there is consensus over the size, how can this be done

:48:13.:48:18.

without greater control over appointments? It was suggested on

:48:19.:48:30.

the 5th of December that it is not possible, and you agree with that

:48:31.:48:37.

assessment? Entirely. I think you come back to the prerogative, in so

:48:38.:48:42.

far as the people coming into the crossbenches are concerned, the

:48:43.:48:44.

numbers are so few year by year that it doesn't affect the overall

:48:45.:48:50.

numbers. So there is a cap on the size, and more control over the

:48:51.:48:53.

prerogative? We are making progress. Question six? My views are more

:48:54.:49:02.

radical than my question would imply... There are vested interests

:49:03.:49:11.

in every term, and a major vested interest is that of the Prime

:49:12.:49:16.

Minister. A more managed system implies greater limitations on the

:49:17.:49:21.

Prime Minister, she is understandably reluctant to

:49:22.:49:26.

surrender her patronage power. How do we overcome that conundrum? I

:49:27.:49:36.

don't think we move the Prime Minister's patronage altogether, but

:49:37.:49:39.

I think it's been an element of control and transparency and audit,

:49:40.:49:45.

and although -- at the moment it's a different process, as David has

:49:46.:49:50.

said, if you are a crossbench peer, you have undergone a different level

:49:51.:49:57.

of check-in -- checking than if you are a party appointed peer. Whilst I

:49:58.:50:08.

think -- I think issues... There could be a wider remit, and one of

:50:09.:50:13.

the things you could ask, and this would be for the House of Lords

:50:14.:50:18.

committee to look at, is say, can you suggest criteria who you think

:50:19.:50:21.

it would be -- that you think it would be appropriate to look at if

:50:22.:50:26.

you had a greater say, or a greater scrutiny role, on political

:50:27.:50:33.

appointments? And if that isn't happening, then I think there has to

:50:34.:50:39.

be a greater transparency. -- if that is happening. If they are going

:50:40.:50:52.

to do an effective job of scrutiny, they need the time and resources to

:50:53.:50:58.

do it in. I wouldn't say there is a suggestion of removing prime

:50:59.:51:00.

ministerial patronage altogether, but it can't just be "I'm putting

:51:01.:51:09.

these people in because I need to up my numbers." I think that has led to

:51:10.:51:13.

the current position we have where the House is so large. You still

:51:14.:51:19.

have prime ministerial patronage just as you have from the other

:51:20.:51:24.

party leaders, if you have a cap, but I think the two constraints we

:51:25.:51:28.

are suggesting we put on that patronage is firstly, on the

:51:29.:51:34.

numbers. And secondly, saying that anybody that the Prime Minister put

:51:35.:51:37.

forward would still have to go through a slightly more rigorous

:51:38.:51:42.

process with the appointments Commission, to make sure that they

:51:43.:51:47.

were people who we play a valuable part in the House of Lords, which

:51:48.:51:52.

clearly hasn't always been the case in the past.

:51:53.:51:56.

Migrant depends on the Prime Minister, first of all through the

:51:57.:52:00.

ten per Parliament route. -- my group. It is for her to decide let's

:52:01.:52:07.

say when a former Commons secretary should come in, but the Prime

:52:08.:52:11.

Minister also controls entry through the selection Commission, and it's

:52:12.:52:14.

quite interesting, David Cameron established the principle that they

:52:15.:52:17.

would be too per year coming in through that route, but it broke

:52:18.:52:21.

down towards the end of his period in his office, and those one year he

:52:22.:52:24.

didn't appoint anybody although there were recommendations. Four

:52:25.:52:30.

were then appointed to make up for that, in I think 2015, but we've had

:52:31.:52:37.

no appointments since then, although the apartments Commission have at

:52:38.:52:40.

least four people they have recommended. There has been a

:52:41.:52:44.

moratorium on this for some reason I don't understand, so there are two

:52:45.:52:47.

aspects to this, on the one hand you want to control the promised 's

:52:48.:52:52.

appointments of political groups, but at the same time to encourage

:52:53.:52:56.

more generous to show I say to the crossbenches, and in particular if

:52:57.:52:59.

you end the hereditary peers, we would have to ask the Prime Minister

:53:00.:53:03.

to be prepared to make up the gap if somebody dies who is a hereditary,

:53:04.:53:07.

to be replaced through the appointments Commission. So that

:53:08.:53:11.

side instability at as well. Couldn't the Prime Minister simply

:53:12.:53:16.

be removed from the picture? There are some automatic people, former

:53:17.:53:22.

Cabinet secretaries and so on. But the problem with the Prime

:53:23.:53:25.

Minister's appointments is not just for the House of Lords, it's with

:53:26.:53:29.

the House of Commons. Because it is a corrupting influence, is it not,

:53:30.:53:33.

that people in the House of Commons, some, are looking to the mission of

:53:34.:53:36.

the House of Lords, and will curry favour with the Prime Minister, and

:53:37.:53:40.

be obliging when it comes to resigning their seats at a

:53:41.:53:45.

convenient time of the Prime Minister can spot favourites and put

:53:46.:53:48.

them in safe seats. These things go on. Isn't that a major problem? None

:53:49.:53:55.

of our group come from that route. But appointments in general.

:53:56.:54:01.

It is the effect on the House of Commons as much on the House of

:54:02.:54:12.

Lords that, and indeed, the Blair and Cameron government,

:54:13.:54:17.

particularly. The Blair government was adept to slotting people into

:54:18.:54:20.

safe seats when they became available. One member what offered a

:54:21.:54:29.

seat, we understand, he was replaced in his seat and then was not in the

:54:30.:54:35.

House of Lords. He was angry. But these things damage our democracy? I

:54:36.:54:41.

think I am right in saying that all of the recommendations of the House

:54:42.:54:45.

have to pass through the hands of the Prime Minister to go through Her

:54:46.:54:49.

Majesty. One has to think about that right. In my case, in the

:54:50.:54:54.

Crossbenchers, we are not looking for people who have been in

:54:55.:54:56.

Parliament before. That's the point of the group. I'm not sure the point

:54:57.:55:03.

which I fully understand you are drawing my attention to, affects my

:55:04.:55:08.

group at all. I don't know if I can satisfy you but if there are clear

:55:09.:55:14.

criteria that somebody somebody has to meet as to what they bring and

:55:15.:55:21.

contribute. One of my worries and issues, looking at what was

:55:22.:55:25.

suggested that there should only be a 15-year term of who should stay in

:55:26.:55:29.

the House of Lords that encourages it to the last 15 years of your

:55:30.:55:34.

political life you go the House of Lords which is unacceptable but if

:55:35.:55:41.

there is clear criteria you are expected to fulfil X, Y and Z, then

:55:42.:55:47.

that happens. If some people go to the House of Lords to do the work

:55:48.:55:52.

required of them but from a House of Lords powerful I'm not terrible

:55:53.:55:56.

worried if they do the work but what I worry about is if people think

:55:57.:56:01.

that they can take it easy, or if they get the seat in the House of

:56:02.:56:05.

Lords, and I stand down. That influence. So my priority is it

:56:06.:56:15.

would not resolve the issue but I think a criteria of which there are

:56:16.:56:19.

expectations of which those that come in, the danger is that there

:56:20.:56:22.

are some people who promise anything to get in. So the steps we have

:56:23.:56:27.

started to take, that somebody does not tend a session, that they are

:56:28.:56:32.

gone, that should be looked at more by the committee looking at this.

:56:33.:56:38.

But always there will be an element of Prime Ministers having certain

:56:39.:56:42.

appointments but firm that up with criteria, that will help.

:56:43.:56:47.

And the great thing about the House of Commons, guilties Pete the fact

:56:48.:56:53.

that parties try to control selections, awkward individuals get

:56:54.:56:55.

into Parliament and make a difference. It is important to have

:56:56.:57:01.

people who are going to be grit in the oyster, people that challenge

:57:02.:57:05.

and not just go along. Now in the House of Lords that is almost

:57:06.:57:10.

impossible. Especially since the hereditaryis a going. They used to

:57:11.:57:16.

be more independent. Where I dispute that, once somebody

:57:17.:57:20.

is given an appointment in the House of Lords, they are beholden to

:57:21.:57:25.

nobody other than their conscious. In my group, people were thinking I

:57:26.:57:29.

was appointed by the Prime Minister, have must agree with that point of

:57:30.:57:33.

view but it doesn't work like that. There are numerous examples from all

:57:34.:57:36.

political parties in the House of Lords where people might have been

:57:37.:57:40.

expected to vote in a certain way, just don't.

:57:41.:57:48.

There is, I would have to say, perhaps say, a perception... There

:57:49.:57:51.

isn't the same whipping operation in the House of Lords as in the House

:57:52.:57:56.

of Commons. People don't feel the same way, they have party

:57:57.:58:01.

allegiances but that is not abroute. If you look at rebellions you find

:58:02.:58:05.

there is more independence in the House of Lords.

:58:06.:58:11.

That is one of the advantages of an unelected House. Moving on. Some of

:58:12.:58:17.

what is in front is covered. On the issue of the pure of the

:58:18.:58:22.

Prime Minister, the patronage. If we were capped at 600 and curtailed the

:58:23.:58:28.

Prime Minister's patronage in terms of appoint to the 600, should the

:58:29.:58:33.

Prime Minister still have the ability to appoint ministers over

:58:34.:58:40.

and above the 600 as a principle? I would argue no. My idea has always

:58:41.:58:46.

been a band where the ministers come from.

:58:47.:58:53.

Yes, no problem. Yes, I follow.

:58:54.:58:59.

There is agreement. Although I have suggested a band of

:59:00.:59:03.

a number but the Prime Minister can go below or keep a few in his

:59:04.:59:08.

pocket. No problem with that. Again. Yes broadly attempted a limit

:59:09.:59:13.

to the size of the House of Lords. But then the issue of the groupings

:59:14.:59:18.

within that number. What sort of principles should apply to how we

:59:19.:59:23.

balance between the political parties arched the Crossbenchers,

:59:24.:59:27.

and any future new political parties that may form? How do we go about

:59:28.:59:33.

dealing with the composition of the 600? We want it elected. That deals

:59:34.:59:39.

with it automatically. I do agree.

:59:40.:59:44.

But on the assumption it is not? If you are not going to do that, I

:59:45.:59:49.

think it would be possible, although I think it would be difficult to get

:59:50.:59:55.

a consensus on it, to reach a system under which you looked at results

:59:56.:00:01.

from possibly two or three cycles of elections and had some combination

:00:02.:00:04.

of votes and seats taken into account. I think any system has its

:00:05.:00:13.

short comings but I think that will be probably the best way of dealing

:00:14.:00:17.

with this. Of course at the moment we've got the situation that the SNP

:00:18.:00:22.

under the current rules refuse to be in the House of Lords. That means

:00:23.:00:31.

that is Askew in the system. So I think... You could say that the

:00:32.:00:35.

Liberal Democrats are overrepresented? Well, the Liberal

:00:36.:00:42.

Democrats throughout their last few decades have beened

:00:43.:00:45.

under-represented in the Lord's. Temporarily taking the House of

:00:46.:00:50.

Lords alone, we are overrepresented. Taking Parliament as a whole, about

:00:51.:01:00.

8%... But the principles that you think should apply? That is what I

:01:01.:01:05.

was saying you must look at a combination.

:01:06.:01:09.

Clearly on any individual election, any party as we know to our cost,

:01:10.:01:14.

can go up and down a bit. I think stability, this is not a Lib Dem

:01:15.:01:17.

point but stability in the House of Lords makes a lot of sense.

:01:18.:01:26.

Baroness Smith? Largely the same. The principles are about 3% and 20%

:01:27.:01:33.

Crossbenchers. The public think of independents in the House. They

:01:34.:01:39.

rather like that. And the other principles is that the governments

:01:40.:01:42.

should not have majorities. It doesn't mean that they can't be the

:01:43.:01:47.

biggest party but tend to become the biggest party over time. We were the

:01:48.:01:52.

largest party in 2005, this government have done it much more

:01:53.:01:56.

quickly because of the rate of the appointments that they have made.

:01:57.:02:01.

The Labour Party has always governed without a majority in the House of

:02:02.:02:05.

Lords. By and large it gets the business through because of the

:02:06.:02:10.

Commons. So I think that is quite a good principle. It challenges the

:02:11.:02:14.

Government make a better case and to engage in debate with the Commons

:02:15.:02:19.

when they have the final say. And there must be recognition of other

:02:20.:02:22.

political parties and off 1458 opposition. The Liberal Democrats

:02:23.:02:28.

are overrepresented. There is the SNP are under-represented and Ukip

:02:29.:02:33.

are under-represented as well. So I don't think that there can be a

:02:34.:02:38.

direct link with election. Up about I think if you look at probably two,

:02:39.:02:46.

three or four election cycling you would gradually move to ensuring it

:02:47.:02:49.

was not out of kilter from the House of Commons but neither a reflection

:02:50.:02:53.

of the House of Commons. I am sure that you will say 20%,

:02:54.:02:59.

Lord hope. But what about the remaining 80%.

:03:00.:03:02.

I argue against a hard and a fast line. One of the problems of an

:03:03.:03:08.

unelected House, you cannot be too precise. I say 20% but tomorrow I

:03:09.:03:13.

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

:03:14.:03:20.

that up instantly? I can't. Also there is movement across the groups.

:03:21.:03:28.

I receive one or two people who decided to leave the Liberal

:03:29.:03:31.

Democrats or the Labour Party. Some of the people do so in the case of

:03:32.:03:35.

the Tories and the Labour Party, they were appointed to be ministers

:03:36.:03:40.

without any previous party affiliation, they have served their

:03:41.:03:44.

time as ministers and would proffer to be on the Crossbenchers. So a

:03:45.:03:53.

certain amount of looseness. I am not a political animal, so don't

:03:54.:03:57.

know how it can be resolved without a discussion between the political

:03:58.:03:58.

parties. Lord hope I can press you on this.

:03:59.:04:03.

It is possible that there will be a proposal at some stage that may

:04:04.:04:08.

require you to exercise an opinion in one way or another sn. So what is

:04:09.:04:17.

your view? I don't think one can do better than to try to reflect the

:04:18.:04:22.

performance of the parties at the last election. But the problem is if

:04:23.:04:29.

there is a big switch in the parties for one or the other, how can you

:04:30.:04:34.

adjust it to reflect the performance of the election? But broadly

:04:35.:04:38.

speaking thinking of appointments coming in they should do their best

:04:39.:04:42.

to reflect the results of the election. That is ar pass ars can

:04:43.:04:47.

take it. A suggestion made is in order to adjust the size of the

:04:48.:04:52.

party groupings that the party groupings themselves.should have

:04:53.:04:59.

elections to elect from their own number the requisite number for that

:05:00.:05:05.

Parliament, be what it may what do you think of that proposal? That

:05:06.:05:14.

would suggest that one of the party groups which has lost heavily within

:05:15.:05:19.

the selection would have to asked a member of their party to leave to

:05:20.:05:25.

rebalance the positions. But to achieve that will be difficult

:05:26.:05:29.

without some kind of statutory backing. What about the principle of

:05:30.:05:36.

it? I can see the value of the principle but how to achieve it with

:05:37.:05:41.

people who like the position? Baroness Smith That is a reason I

:05:42.:05:50.

would not support, looking at a reflection of the elections, looking

:05:51.:05:58.

at the cycles. I think once you have the proportions decided and the

:05:59.:06:00.

committee hopefully will come up with something and we have to work

:06:01.:06:04.

to the numbers then there must be a discussion within the groups of how

:06:05.:06:08.

to achieve the numbers that they are expected to have.

:06:09.:06:12.

But it must be something repeated. It can't be a one off? It can't be a

:06:13.:06:21.

one-off but looking at a three year cycle, there won't be dramatic

:06:22.:06:24.

changes and all of us must agree that there is a churn. In our case

:06:25.:06:31.

it is members leaving, often not of their own volition. We have a number

:06:32.:06:38.

who can no longer attend because of ill health or have died. You do get

:06:39.:06:43.

that churn. Maybe you ask others if they are going to retire? I don't

:06:44.:06:48.

know how but to avoid dramatic changes from election to election.

:06:49.:06:55.

That is not how it is supposed to be reflected from election to election

:06:56.:06:59.

but over a cycle of elections. This is a more difficult problem for

:07:00.:07:08.

your party because of the way that the electoral diocese has fallen but

:07:09.:07:13.

you said earlier, you could agree on a reflection of cycles of elections.

:07:14.:07:20.

Is that where there could be consensus about the system of

:07:21.:07:24.

controlling the numbers? Yes, I think so. And we are great

:07:25.:07:29.

optimists. Our current position is a temporary blip. But I think that

:07:30.:07:34.

doing something over cycles makes sense. That is what we were

:07:35.:07:38.

proposing when we wanted the House of Lords elected, to be elected over

:07:39.:07:46.

three cycles for less volatility in composition than we had potentially

:07:47.:07:50.

in the Commons. I think that is the way you have to do it.

:07:51.:07:56.

So, two cycles, three? We proposed three before.

:07:57.:08:00.

Three? I said three or four. But I'm not opposed to three.

:08:01.:08:06.

So the number of cycles reflects your optimism or not of the future

:08:07.:08:13.

elections, perhaps? It reflects to manage stability of the House

:08:14.:08:18.

alongside. The problem for suss that our members were largely appointed

:08:19.:08:25.

during Tony Blair's years, during the Labour governments. As there

:08:26.:08:30.

have been so few appointments in 2010, the members are getting older.

:08:31.:08:34.

So you have to refresh and regenerate. Younger people being

:08:35.:08:44.

appointed. But there must be an understanding that there is work to

:08:45.:08:49.

be done. That you reflect on that and replenish and rejuvenate the

:08:50.:08:51.

members. So if there was a consensus between

:08:52.:08:57.

the parties reflecting membership to a number of electoral cycles, what

:08:58.:09:02.

would be the Crossbenchers's attitude? The figure of three seems

:09:03.:09:04.

sensible. But it is up to the political

:09:05.:09:14.

parties to decide whether they can work with that system. So we've

:09:15.:09:19.

already discussed the House of Lords Appointments Commission quite

:09:20.:09:23.

extensively, it has been suggested if it is to do more it needs more

:09:24.:09:29.

resources and more powers, on the question of, I mean, at the most

:09:30.:09:36.

limited extent, should it have a more interventionist role of vetting

:09:37.:09:39.

the appointments recommended by political parties and proposed by

:09:40.:09:47.

prime ministerial patronage? To what extent should it have a stronger

:09:48.:09:51.

role? I think it should have a stronger role. I think one of the

:09:52.:09:58.

key elements in that would be to seek assurances from people about

:09:59.:10:02.

the part that they would play. I think they're probably all parties

:10:03.:10:06.

can think of people who have been up -- appointed, who never had any

:10:07.:10:10.

attention -- intention of playing an active role at the point at which

:10:11.:10:20.

they were appointed. Incidentally, although crossbenches follow a

:10:21.:10:24.

different system, there have been some crossbenches who have taken the

:10:25.:10:26.

view that they were appointed but weren't intended to be very at --

:10:27.:10:31.

active until they had finished a particular bit of their career. But

:10:32.:10:36.

I think it is patently sensible to require people to give some kind of

:10:37.:10:40.

formal assurance that they are willing to take an active point --

:10:41.:10:44.

part in the House of Lords. Because I think that we deter some people

:10:45.:10:47.

from allowing their names to go forward. But how should that be

:10:48.:10:53.

done? With some kind of requirement to sign a statement of commitment?

:10:54.:11:02.

Should there be a list of activities that somebody is undertaking to

:11:03.:11:10.

perform over the role -- district -- a role over a defined period? How

:11:11.:11:15.

should it be done's I think that comes down to how do you define what

:11:16.:11:21.

the role is? I think you can see -- people can promise all kinds of

:11:22.:11:25.

things that they have no intention, and once they are appointed there

:11:26.:11:29.

has to be systems, if somebody does not attend, if they do not engage,

:11:30.:11:33.

they can lose their membership. We have that partially in place now.

:11:34.:11:39.

And I think we should look at people who take repeated leave of absence

:11:40.:11:43.

to do other things, and only intend to come back to the House of Lords

:11:44.:11:46.

when there is nothing else. I think that is abuse of the system. I think

:11:47.:11:52.

it would be a useful thing to look at the criteria they would look at,

:11:53.:11:55.

and I think you can probably gauge from the public and from those of us

:11:56.:12:00.

in the House and politicians, what our expectations would be if

:12:01.:12:04.

somebody's coming to the House, and what the expectation should be on

:12:05.:12:08.

appointment. So if somebody's been appointed simply because they have

:12:09.:12:12.

been a donor to a party, that would not be acceptable. As seen donors in

:12:13.:12:18.

the House who I think, on one occasion, not from a party, I've

:12:19.:12:21.

seen them speak once in the entire time they have been there. Whether

:12:22.:12:26.

they worked on committee I don't know, but that isn't probably the

:12:27.:12:29.

best way to do the job of work that is needed in the House. So I think

:12:30.:12:34.

there should be a published criteria, open to the public and

:12:35.:12:38.

parliament as a whole, of the expectations that should be

:12:39.:12:41.

fulfilled. There should be relevant experience, that kind of thing. That

:12:42.:12:47.

suggests to me, from the perspective of a chairman of a Select Committee,

:12:48.:12:51.

that there should be some kind of proper capri appointment hearing for

:12:52.:12:56.

each new pier. Just half an hour in front of -- proper appointment

:12:57.:13:01.

hearing for each new pier. What do you think about proposal.

:13:02.:13:18.

Lord Hope? You tend to find people who are suitable for the particular

:13:19.:13:25.

committee you are talking about. If you are looking at science and

:13:26.:13:29.

technology, you tend to look towards someone who has experience in that

:13:30.:13:34.

field. You have ad hoc committees, which we set up for being discussed

:13:35.:13:39.

at the moment to discuss particular topics. So there are particular

:13:40.:13:43.

types of committees. You could have a selection process for standing

:13:44.:13:47.

committees, so that when you have the ad hoc ones, you are probably

:13:48.:13:52.

best thing for people who are most suited to it, and we know each other

:13:53.:13:57.

reasonably well to be able to decide whether the particular person is

:13:58.:14:00.

suited to carry that through. We had one of the NHS, and it was somebody

:14:01.:14:06.

who is very qualified. But it sounds as though crossbenches are already

:14:07.:14:10.

doing this. But how good are the party leaders at appointing people

:14:11.:14:15.

but House of Lords Ashley needs? I think of the dearth of lawyers on

:14:16.:14:19.

the Conservative benches, despite the pleadings behind the scenes of

:14:20.:14:27.

successive leaders of the Conservatives in the House of Lords.

:14:28.:14:30.

Other examples like that in other parties? I have not been involved in

:14:31.:14:37.

any appointments in the party, but I haven't -- I think at the moment

:14:38.:14:44.

that may come because there is a lack of confidence in the

:14:45.:14:47.

appointments system. But if there was a public element that the

:14:48.:14:52.

criteria was published, and that people knew who they were, that

:14:53.:14:56.

might create a different atmosphere. So I haven't thought about that

:14:57.:15:00.

before, haven't got a view about it, it is something to consider. But at

:15:01.:15:06.

the moment I would quite like to look at the existing system, if it

:15:07.:15:10.

is more open, more transparent, I slightly worry about people who it

:15:11.:15:13.

is public that their names have gone forward, and they are rejected only

:15:14.:15:17.

because they do not fulfil the criteria at that time you have too

:15:18.:15:21.

many doctors or lawyers. That might be seen as something that is

:15:22.:15:26.

critical of them whereas is actually critical of the House, but their

:15:27.:15:30.

particular skills are not needed. But I personally would like to have

:15:31.:15:35.

a look at trying to beef up a Appointments Commission with more

:15:36.:15:38.

transparency, more public accountability, and trying to create

:15:39.:15:47.

more public confidence. Why aren't the advertisements or applications

:15:48.:15:54.

and interviews, like any other public appointment? I don't have any

:15:55.:16:00.

objections to that. I have most to do with Liberal Democrat

:16:01.:16:05.

appointments as Chuck -- Charles Kennedy's chief of staff. We had a

:16:06.:16:10.

system whereby a panel was elected by our conference representatives,

:16:11.:16:15.

from which the leader was required to make most of his appointments,

:16:16.:16:23.

and we had as it were a primary system for a list. And they had to

:16:24.:16:27.

stand for election and publish their manifestos become -- before they got

:16:28.:16:31.

on that list. And I think that was a very good system. There were still

:16:32.:16:35.

some scope for the party leaders who appoint people who've been from the

:16:36.:16:41.

House of Commons, but I have no objection in principle to having

:16:42.:16:45.

greater public scrutiny of opponents to House of Lords, given that people

:16:46.:16:48.

who come to the House of Lords as politicians completely avoid the

:16:49.:16:54.

public scrutiny that the selection process -- -- of the selection

:16:55.:17:00.

process that an MP requires. Finally, we have top a lot about the

:17:01.:17:06.

need for diversity. But if you have got a Commission like HOLAC, how

:17:07.:17:11.

capable is it of making anything but everything rather safe, and not

:17:12.:17:14.

having very exciting people coming into the House of Lords? Analyst

:17:15.:17:18.

party leaders take risks, and interesting people turn up as peers.

:17:19.:17:24.

We might not be approved by some establishment quango. -- at least.

:17:25.:17:30.

How do you keep the real diversity? You can have lots of people from

:17:31.:17:34.

different parts of the UK, and different backgrounds, but if they

:17:35.:17:40.

have all got political degrees from Oxford there is not much diversity.

:17:41.:17:45.

The crossbenches have among their number Lord Birt, somebody who never

:17:46.:17:51.

went to Oxford, who learned to read in prison. -- Lord Birt.

:17:52.:17:55.

But who would have appointed Lord Pearson of Rannoch, apart from a

:17:56.:18:10.

prior minister who liked him? -- a Prime Minister. Mr Chairman, I

:18:11.:18:15.

thought what you were proposing was that the party leaders would still

:18:16.:18:19.

make nominations, but in order for them to be ratified they would have

:18:20.:18:23.

to go through public process, not that the party leaders would be

:18:24.:18:28.

taken out of it altogether? Lord Pearson wrote to us and sent us

:18:29.:18:34.

copies of letters he had from the previous per minister, saying he was

:18:35.:18:37.

going to keep the representation of you kept under daily review

:18:38.:18:43.

virtually, and I mean clearly, Ukip is protesting -- publicly

:18:44.:18:49.

underrepresented in this House and your house. Of all the absurdities

:18:50.:18:59.

that we have in our Constitution now, do you think it is appropriate

:19:00.:19:03.

that the only one that the Government is going to put right

:19:04.:19:08.

with any urgency, is to reduce the number of elected members here,

:19:09.:19:14.

before the attempt to any of the other constitutional problems we

:19:15.:19:20.

have? We have a balanced constitutional Commission to look at

:19:21.:19:24.

all the problems that are there, and come up with some agreement, and

:19:25.:19:27.

wouldn't the House of Lords contribute a great deal to a

:19:28.:19:34.

rational constitution if they opposed the self interested decision

:19:35.:19:38.

by the Conservative Government to enact the only reform that would

:19:39.:19:45.

result in the election of more Conservative MPs? I think you have

:19:46.:19:49.

my comments earlier, but I think it's completely appalling that the

:19:50.:19:52.

Conservative Government is reducing the size of the House of Commons,

:19:53.:19:56.

whilst increasing the size of the House of Lords. You may recall that

:19:57.:20:02.

there have been numerous votes, I think the only all-night sitting I

:20:03.:20:08.

recall as a member of the House of Lords, was on the issue of the

:20:09.:20:12.

boundary spill, and indeed our last attempt to look at the boundary

:20:13.:20:17.

spill was on a Statutory Instrument whereby the Electoral Commission

:20:18.:20:22.

recommended that there should be delay in the effective date of the

:20:23.:20:27.

register, and we lost that vote, the Conservative Party won it. But I

:20:28.:20:37.

think the point you are making, Mr Chairman, about HOLAC, would it only

:20:38.:20:41.

appoint the great and the good, I think there is an issue that prime

:20:42.:20:44.

ministers would put their names forward to a committee. But I

:20:45.:20:48.

question whether it should be HOLAC at another committee would look at

:20:49.:20:53.

this. One of my concerns would be that if we are looking at people in

:20:54.:20:57.

the medical profession for example, we have a few surgeons. We don't

:20:58.:21:03.

have many nurses left, I think we have one, two only left in the

:21:04.:21:08.

House. If you are ensuring you have representation on the crossbenches

:21:09.:21:11.

as well from professions, it should be all levels, not just the highest

:21:12.:21:15.

levels. If the person can make a contribution to the work of the

:21:16.:21:20.

House. Do you think there is a new urgency, in that the overarching

:21:21.:21:23.

priority of politics here and elsewhere without -- throughout the

:21:24.:21:27.

whole world now, is the need to restore faith in politicians and

:21:28.:21:32.

political systems, because the alternative is the election of

:21:33.:21:36.

people like Donald Trump? And that that urgency should be expressed,

:21:37.:21:44.

and that we do go all out to restore the facilitation of politics? I

:21:45.:21:50.

think we are missing a trick, and misunderstanding if we think it is

:21:51.:21:53.

all about structures. In all my years as an MP, I think I had two

:21:54.:22:00.

people contact me about the House of Lords, but on issues like MPs'

:22:01.:22:04.

expenses there were many more. So I think we make a mistake if we are

:22:05.:22:10.

thinking we can address the issue of representation if we look at the

:22:11.:22:13.

structure of Parliament, I think it is far deeper than that. But you see

:22:14.:22:19.

my point, about the tendency for the establishment to achieve blandness.

:22:20.:22:24.

I mean, I'm going to ask the House of Lords Appointments Commission,

:22:25.:22:26.

how many Eurosceptics they have appointed during their period? How

:22:27.:22:31.

many Eurosceptics are there on the crossbenches? Yellow macro well, I'm

:22:32.:22:36.

not sure I can answer that. As convener, it is not my job to

:22:37.:22:41.

interrogate people. It was a rhetorical question! I might have

:22:42.:22:51.

asked the same issue about those who supported or opposed fox hunting. As

:22:52.:22:55.

I was struggling to get legislation through on that. I think there are

:22:56.:22:59.

political issues that arise that you would have asked that as a question,

:23:00.:23:03.

so in the years where crossbench peers have been appointed, nobody

:23:04.:23:07.

thought us, if Britain wanted to leave the EU in the future what

:23:08.:23:11.

would be a view? But as issues arise, perhaps that should be

:23:12.:23:16.

something fed into HOLAC on the Appointments Commission. My advice

:23:17.:23:19.

to somebody applying to be a people's peer would be to be very

:23:20.:23:23.

wary about the answer they gave. Anyway, moving on. Mr Hodkinson.

:23:24.:23:35.

About how to achieve a reduction in the size of the House of Lords. It

:23:36.:23:39.

seems this would be at the very least a political agreement between

:23:40.:23:44.

the groups in the chamber, so how committed are you personally to the

:23:45.:23:51.

idea of your group agreeing with other groups about reduction? We

:23:52.:24:02.

think strongly that the House is too large and we're very happy to have

:24:03.:24:10.

discussions with anybody in the search for an agreement. As you have

:24:11.:24:15.

seen this morning, there is some elements of an agreement that may be

:24:16.:24:21.

easily reached but others that are more contentious.

:24:22.:24:27.

We can't be committed to agreement if other groups, anymore than any

:24:28.:24:33.

other group can be committed to an agreement, unless other groups and

:24:34.:24:36.

we agree. How much would you like to achieve

:24:37.:24:40.

an agreement? Very much so. Is not the reality that each group

:24:41.:24:47.

would be affected and you can say as long as it's some other group, not

:24:48.:24:53.

my group, especially if it is overrepresented, is it not very

:24:54.:24:59.

difficult? I think you are making overall much of the legislation of

:25:00.:25:05.

the Lib Dems. We have significant reduced our numbers with elections.

:25:06.:25:10.

I don't think that is the relevant point. We would be happy to have

:25:11.:25:15.

discussions and reach agreement. The point that I have made several times

:25:16.:25:22.

is that on my experience of trying to make an agreement, have been

:25:23.:25:26.

found difficult in practice to achieve.

:25:27.:25:30.

Baroness Smith? All agreements require a compromise. To move this

:25:31.:25:36.

forward, to sit on a House that gets bigger and bigger each time the new

:25:37.:25:43.

Prime Minister wants to put somebody in, it is unsustainable and does not

:25:44.:25:47.

bring credit to the House. Also if it does not help the work we are

:25:48.:25:52.

doing it is difficult. If we see people on my side, say, we would

:25:53.:25:59.

retire but we would not get anyone to replace them, so they will stay.

:26:00.:26:04.

They are still fairly active in the House and do a very good job, so to

:26:05.:26:12.

inkeep increasing numbers for the Government party can't work. It will

:26:13.:26:19.

involve compromise. I am putting faith in the Lord Speaker's

:26:20.:26:25.

Committee. I know it is hard. But we are talking about under this system.

:26:26.:26:30.

I think we will all have to accept that all of our numbers have to be

:26:31.:26:35.

reduced and no group that can say I have not lost somebody that is

:26:36.:26:40.

valuable. That is a worry. That is why when I think we see the report,

:26:41.:26:46.

we look at it, establish the broad principles but narrow them to reduce

:26:47.:26:50.

the size of the House. Once we have those, we can say how can we achieve

:26:51.:26:56.

that. It may be a transition period over which we achieve it, we may not

:26:57.:27:02.

reduce it next week but it might be over two years. But I am putting

:27:03.:27:08.

faith in the committee. All parties on the Crossbenchers are on it. The

:27:09.:27:14.

bishops have said that they would accept a reduction on their numbers,

:27:15.:27:20.

so there is the onus on us all to reduce the numbers.

:27:21.:27:27.

Littered burn, a Crossbencher is well aware of the views of the

:27:28.:27:31.

Crossbenchers who have written in to him. I have encouraged members to

:27:32.:27:39.

write in and express their views, I am looking for his recommendations

:27:40.:27:43.

to achieve the reduction in numbers in our groups when I know what the

:27:44.:27:48.

figures are. To me it is a relatively straightforward process.

:27:49.:27:54.

If we reduce to 600, I will look to Lord burn's recommendations and on

:27:55.:27:59.

the basis of that, I will be strengthened in my work to reduce

:28:00.:28:04.

the numbers to reach that reduction. It is reasonable to do that.

:28:05.:28:12.

Briefly, we have interviewed two former Lord Speakers, Baroness De

:28:13.:28:18.

Sousa and it is clear from you too, that all of the changes you are

:28:19.:28:25.

prepared to tolerate are minor, marginal, incremental change, to get

:28:26.:28:30.

radical changes that they must come through parties and eelections and a

:28:31.:28:33.

party getting elected and doing something different. Is that the

:28:34.:28:41.

reality? Because there is such difficulty, as I have said, in

:28:42.:28:45.

getting people to agree, because I think different individuals have

:28:46.:28:48.

very different views. What does it take to get your groups

:28:49.:28:54.

to come with you? It depends if you are talking about major change,

:28:55.:29:00.

radical change or incremental change. Radical change, I agree it

:29:01.:29:04.

must come from the political parties. It must be the Government

:29:05.:29:08.

in power. It must bring forward legislation. So laying that to one

:29:09.:29:13.

side, in terms of bringing the groups with us, for my group if

:29:14.:29:17.

there is a reduction of numbers, I think that they will look to

:29:18.:29:21.

fairness. I think that they have an open mind on it. Some people are

:29:22.:29:26.

concerned... But the pain could be mitigated by the pace of the reform?

:29:27.:29:30.

The pace and how fair they perceive it to be.

:29:31.:29:34.

Yes. All agreed on that? Yes.

:29:35.:29:39.

Yes. Mr Flynn, sorry, John? Do you think

:29:40.:29:43.

that the initiative, though, should be coming from the House of Lords or

:29:44.:29:47.

from the Government? It's coming from the House of Lords now. The

:29:48.:29:55.

initiative in setting had you report has come from it.

:29:56.:30:00.

To take it forward you need to bring in legislation or change, should

:30:01.:30:03.

that initiative come from the House of Lords rather than than from the

:30:04.:30:07.

Government? All of the initiatives from this come from the House of

:30:08.:30:11.

Lords. The Government takes the view that unless there is not just broad

:30:12.:30:15.

agreement but absalute consensus on something. That is not an assailable

:30:16.:30:24.

position if legislation is needed. But all change requires legislation.

:30:25.:30:30.

The miner changes have been done by privately members' bills. You could

:30:31.:30:34.

do things by private members' bill... A couple have been blocked.

:30:35.:30:41.

I was about to say that the problem is that it's a very uncertain path

:30:42.:30:50.

is a private members' bill, start in the House of Lords not least because

:30:51.:30:54.

it most come from the other place. If you are to have substantive

:30:55.:30:59.

change you're going to need Government support for it anyway. So

:31:00.:31:05.

if they took the lead and made any legislative change in a Government

:31:06.:31:12.

Bill, that would be more likely to succeed than the private members'

:31:13.:31:20.

bill. INAUDIBLE

:31:21.:31:24.

Can I say that the purpose behind the Better than's committee's

:31:25.:31:28.

Appointment is to achieve something that has a reasonable prospect of

:31:29.:31:35.

being accepted by Government with a view to Government legislation...

:31:36.:31:41.

For various reasons that's the best way to achieve that to find

:31:42.:31:45.

consensus across the House for Government to agree with that to

:31:46.:31:49.

agree on sufficient support to be passed.

:31:50.:31:59.

You said Lord Flynn that there was influence by monarchy? Do you

:32:00.:32:04.

believe that there is a role in the Monarch? The Monarch? The martyr of

:32:05.:32:12.

monarchy being given to, I mean, check the but you said there was

:32:13.:32:17.

this further check, the appointments had to be approved by the monarch?

:32:18.:32:24.

Please, don't misunderstand me. That is figure rative. Every peer

:32:25.:32:30.

receives a patent, that is under the signature of the Monarch. The

:32:31.:32:33.

recommendation must go through the Prime Minister to the Monarch.

:32:34.:32:41.

Are you suggesting that she takes any other part? But acts in the same

:32:42.:32:51.

way as she does with the honours. And the only time she did was to

:32:52.:32:59.

opponent out at one time when she was to appoint somebody who was

:33:00.:33:02.

actually dead. The key person is the Prime Minister

:33:03.:33:06.

and the speed at which things are done and the names put forward

:33:07.:33:10.

depend on the initiative of the Prime Minister.

:33:11.:33:14.

That's a relief. What could be achieved without

:33:15.:33:18.

legislation? Could progress be made without legislation? If the Prime

:33:19.:33:23.

Minister agreed to a cap on numbers, then I think you would find, I think

:33:24.:33:28.

we could find a route to reduce numbers. Part of the obstacle has

:33:29.:33:32.

been, especially with the discussions from the former leader

:33:33.:33:38.

of the House is that no party is willing to reduce numbers if they

:33:39.:33:42.

can be increased beyond that number whether in a year or five years, so

:33:43.:33:47.

the cap on numbers is something that the Prime Minister could say and

:33:48.:33:53.

serve as impetus to the parties to agree on a reduction.

:33:54.:33:59.

Is that like offering a to the opposition a rod for your own back?

:34:00.:34:05.

It is not necessarily so. If the Prime Minister were to agree that of

:34:06.:34:10.

any party, any government, that they would be have to be reassured that

:34:11.:34:16.

what they perceive as the imbalance against them inherited from the

:34:17.:34:19.

previous Parliament would be redressed? This Government has done

:34:20.:34:23.

that. They managed to become the largest party in the shortest space

:34:24.:34:26.

of time. Yes, and we are in this endless arms

:34:27.:34:33.

race. If you terminate elections, you

:34:34.:34:36.

would have to address the question of the writ of summons, dealt with

:34:37.:34:42.

in the 1999 act. You cannot have a system where we have agreed of

:34:43.:34:48.

everything and then somebody turns up with a writ and has a right to

:34:49.:34:54.

come in anyway. Yes, it can be interrupted by

:34:55.:34:59.

individuals? Yes, you have to allow for that possibility.

:35:00.:35:04.

And to allow for the possibility, eve finance the parties agreed,

:35:05.:35:08.

voluntarily to put pressure on people to retire or bring down the

:35:09.:35:11.

side, there is nothing to stop the member of one of our groups opting

:35:12.:35:16.

to become an independent in order to avoid pressure from their party

:35:17.:35:23.

group. So, it's a very imperfect system unless it is underpinned by

:35:24.:35:26.

legislation. How do you deal with the

:35:27.:35:30.

independents in the legislation? Well, that's a challenge. But you

:35:31.:35:34.

would have to deal with the independents as otherwise you could

:35:35.:35:39.

just get a seepage out of the independents and they would end up

:35:40.:35:44.

by being a big, uncontrolled group. I can see the lawyer on this panel

:35:45.:35:50.

is itching to kick in a definitive answer. I think we have to show

:35:51.:35:55.

leadership within the groups. It is a very fair point.

:35:56.:36:02.

There are a number of people who cheese to be non-aligned. And choose

:36:03.:36:08.

to be. -- there are a number of people who

:36:09.:36:17.

choose to be non-aligned. Could a law define categories of

:36:18.:36:24.

peers, according to a party that they are affiliated to when they

:36:25.:36:30.

first arrived in the House? I don't know if you can do it illegally but

:36:31.:36:35.

a quirk of the system is that somebody Khan change party in life

:36:36.:36:39.

but in death, if they are hereditary, they revert to the party

:36:40.:36:42.

of which they were originally a member. So that if somebody, as has

:36:43.:36:48.

been in our case, somebody was a Liberal Democrat hereditary but is

:36:49.:36:53.

now a Crossbencher but on his death, the election for his successor would

:36:54.:36:59.

be as a Liberal Democrat. Could this be addressed by the

:37:00.:37:03.

standing order of the House rather than legislation? By-elections would

:37:04.:37:10.

solve the problem! If there is nothing further anyone would like to

:37:11.:37:16.

add? A brief one. This House has be-latedly got rid of

:37:17.:37:23.

wigs, when is the House of Lords going to end the practice of

:37:24.:37:28.

dressing up looking like playing cards and looking like a pantomime

:37:29.:37:37.

and come into the 21st century? I think we are in the process of

:37:38.:37:43.

changing that position on wigs for our clerks to bring out ofs into the

:37:44.:37:47.

line with the House of Commons. What about the silver stick in

:37:48.:37:54.

waiting, does he still exist? I don't know who the silver stick in

:37:55.:38:00.

waiting is? Oh, dear. Robin Hood? We are going back a bit!

:38:01.:38:08.

I have one very brief final question, relating to the point

:38:09.:38:13.

raced earlier by Mr Flynn. How are the party groups to vote on the

:38:14.:38:17.

boundary of the proposals when they come to your House? We are not going

:38:18.:38:22.

to block them. We will vote for them.

:38:23.:38:28.

The boundary proposals to reduce the size of Commons, how will your group

:38:29.:38:32.

vote on that proposal? I have no idea. As a group we have no

:38:33.:38:37.

corporate view on anything. Baroness Smith? As I understand it,

:38:38.:38:44.

if it is legislation passed, there is not a constitutional reason for

:38:45.:38:48.

us to vote against them, as much as we think that they are appalling

:38:49.:38:53.

proposals, the bill is passed so, that all is left is legislation...

:38:54.:39:00.

So you will not oppose it? Well, thank you very much. It has been a

:39:01.:39:05.

very illuminating session. If I may say so, the degree of courtesy and

:39:06.:39:11.

corporation between the three party groups is a great example of why

:39:12.:39:16.

your House is so effective and a lesson to our own House. Thank you

:39:17.:39:18.

very much. Order. Order. August 2013, and the Government

:39:19.:39:57.

loses a vote asking Parliament for permission to vote -- bomb Bashar

:39:58.:40:08.

al-Assad's forces in Syria. It is clear to me that the British

:40:09.:40:12.

Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to

:40:13.:40:16.

see British military action. I get that, and the Government will

:40:17.:40:21.

accordingly. The vote was a serious blow to the Prime Minister. But he

:40:22.:40:25.

didn't need to hold it to commit

:40:26.:40:27.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS