---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, the second version of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, would implement some essential principles for a modern legislature. First, an Appointments Commission for such an important task should surely be statutory, and it must be right to set out criteria for eligibility, including a regard for the diversity of our population. The present non-statutory commission has already honoured that regard with distinction. I am not so sure about the resonance of the term ““merit”” as a criterion—not of course that your Lordships are not all meritorious people—but the implication of deserving a reward moves away from the responsibilities of a working Member of a second Chamber, and I hope any commission would focus on aptitude and experience for the task. In that connection, I am disappointed that such membership is still termed ““peerage”” in the Bill. ““Peerage”” has a fuzzy hereditary association. It is that sense of a fuzzy edge which makes me think that while there are steps forward in this Bill we need to have a bigger picture in mind. In introducing his first Bill the noble Lord said, if I may quote him: ““I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me””.—[Official Report, 20/7/07; col. 487.] I submit that it is essential to have a firmer grasp of the distant scene if we are to make the right steps towards it. That distant scene will include proper reform—election of at least 80 per cent. The noble Lord’s Bill safeguards an independent 20 per cent of Members, and I hope that this will be fully considered by those drafting the complete reform. It goes comfortably with the diversity imperative. I do not think we should run scared of the big picture in the distant scene. It will not go away just because we deny it; but nor would it rock our foundations. Indeed, I suggest that party lists would probably yield people very similar to your Lordships. Why would the parties want to have a different kind of animal? Indeed, they might, if similar explicit criteria were rather more firmly embedded in the system, produce an even more luminary membership, if that were possible. It is difficult to imagine, I know. I also think that there is a case for allowing the party leaders to influence the composition of any party lists, at least by drawing up a long list for a commission to look at. The big picture requires consideration of much wider factors, and in much more depth. It requires consideration, for instance, of matters like the details of workable balance and control which Dr Meg Russell set out so interestingly in one of my noble friend the Leader’s seminars, and, of course, all the essentials of a second Chamber which has a democratic colour, role, powers, conventions—even that Members themselves could vote in a general election, which is, rather surprisingly, not in the noble Lord’s Bill. The prospect of change to a truly democratic basis has caused consternation among some of your Lordships. But we now take for granted many democratic elements which were regarded as outrageous in their time, such as equal application of the law (the Levellers) and secret ballots (the Chartists), to name but two. I wonder if those of your Lordships who fear the distant scene shiver in the words of TS Eliot: ““They all go into the dark … The captains, merchant bankers, eminent men of letters, The generous patrons of art, the statesmen and the rulers, Distinguished civil servants, chairmen of many committees, Industrial lords and petty contractors, all go into the dark””. But, not necessarily so. Those who add value to the legislature can still be with us under a new democratic dispensation. I therefore hope that the best measures in the noble Lord’s Bill will be taken forward instead as part of much wider provisions.