My Lords, I welcome the Bill as a positive, timely and useful initiative towards making progress on a problem that has been outstanding for so long. It is not going to go away, and we should grasp the opportunity now to make real progress towards a solution. The Bill recognises the pre-eminence of the other House. It strengthens the legitimacy of this House. The work of the commission, when appointed, will secure a membership that will reflect the diversity of society and a diversity of expertise, all under the pre-eminent criterion of merit. It will not be representative in the strict sense of membership; that result is plainly not desirable. The reflection of the diversity of society and the collection of expertise is a result that no electoral system could ever achieve. Of course, there may well be details in the Bill that will require attention at a later stage. I just noticed that while there is power in the commission to determine its rules and procedures, there is no provision for its support, administration, financing or staffing. It may be that some provision would be needed for that.
Life peerages will now carry with them a responsibility, not just an honour. That is not a new idea. The precedent was created in the 19th century on the creation of the Law Lords. They were appointed as life Peers to do the judicial work of this House. When we see that all life Peers will be working Peers, it is simply a development of that principle, which was started 150 years or so ago. The question is whether that needs to be expressed. The responsibility will come with the appointment.
Another parallel perhaps with the Law Lords is compulsory retirement. Judges now have a compulsory retirement age; and judges who are as old as I am are now considered incompetent to form judicial decisions. There may well be a precedent there for the introduction of an age limit for life peerages.
While these parallels are there, it is a curious irony that the Law Lords, who provided the model or the precedent for the working life Peers, are now to be removed from this place to start a new life elsewhere. I strongly approve of the Bill in principle. Let us get on with it.
House of Lords Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clyde
(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 c520-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:03:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412990
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412990
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412990