My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on producing this Bill, which gives us the opportunity of expressing our views on Lords reform.
Happily, the Bill is firmly based on the principle of a wholly appointed House, an option that was ruled out by the Government in yesterday’s Statement, in spite of their expressed wish to achieve consensus. A fully elected House would get rid not only of the hereditary Peers, but also of all life Peers, spelling the end of this House as a unique reservoir of expertise and experience, as my noble friend Lord Listowel pointed out.
In the short time available, I shall comment on two aspects of the Bill, the first of which is the Appointments Commission. While I fully agree with the need for a statutory commission, its members, including the chairman, should not be nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons, albeit in consultation with the Lord Speaker of this House. It would give too little influence to this House. The commission should be composed entirely of serving Members of both Houses. It should be made up of three Members of the House of Commons, one from each party, plus five Members from this House, one from each party and two Cross-Benchers. It would have eight members in total, each chosen by their party or group. They should appoint their own chairman.
Secondly, serious consideration should be given to whether service in the House of Lords should be for life, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has just mentioned. The alternative would be to have a limit of, say, 15 years for length of service, and/or possibly an age limit of, say, 80. That would generate a larger turnover and would make controlling the size of the Chamber much easier. A special emeritus category could be introduced to which those exceptional personalities who are continuing to provide valuable service at the end of their term could be selected by their fellow Peers to give them an extension of up to, say, five years. Finally, looking into the future, there will be nothing to prevent the Appointments Commission appointing, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, suggested, one or more hereditary Peers on their personal merit. They would not need to receive a life Peerage, and would provide a link with the past.
The real reform of this House of Lords took place in 1999. The second stage is one of tidying up, which the Bill seeks to address. To replace the present House with a 100 per cent or 80 per cent elected chamber would be an act of vandalism, destroying a unique institution which serves this country well.
House of Lords Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cobbold
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 20 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on House of Lords Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c505 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:04:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412970
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412970
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412970