---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3: 3: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— ““PART A1 Second chamber of Parliament Committee to determine name of second chamber (1) There shall be an independent committee which shall prepare a report setting out at least three options for the naming of the second chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members. (2) The committee shall be chaired by the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords. (3) The remaining members of the committee shall be appointed by the Lord Speaker who shall ensure the representation of— (a) Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench members of the House of Lords; and (b) independent experts who are not members of either the House nor of any political party. (4) The committee shall report within six months of the coming into force of this Part. (5) The report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”” The noble Baroness said: Some of the ground in my amendment has already been covered, so I hope to be brief. Following the interesting debate that we have just had and consistent with the points made by my noble friend Lord Richard, my amendment is not intended in any way to pre-empt the White Paper but to encourage a debate on an important aspect of reform—a debate which I hope will continue during the life of the White Paper. Nor is my amendment intended to undermine the aristocracy or do away with the time-honoured titles of the nobility; it is aimed simply at severing their link with the legislature, as the noble Earl said, in name as well as in function. It would also apply in the case of a wholly or partly elected Chamber. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs might achieve a similar aim. However, insofar as it contains the name ““Lords””, the same confusion is perpetrated, which I should like to avoid. Some may say that once all vestiges of the hereditary principle in membership of your Lordships' House have gone, my purpose would be achieved, as the British political genius would enable any arrangements, no matter how contrarily named, to be pragmatically and effectively operated. But our constitutional arrangements are a part of our culture. They are for all our citizens to understand and value, and are of particular importance in the current climate of disaffection with politics. They are taught in schools. There is widespread confusion about what the House of Lords is all about, neatly encapsulated in the typical cartoon of the ermine-clad, coroneted old buffer, which is of course completely inaccurate. I am for a much more transparent and intelligible name for the second Chamber. The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, might fit the Bill. When the matter was canvassed during Harold Wilson’s Government, the most popular name was ““senate””. As noble Lords have said, it is a common name for a second Chamber in francophone countries and in the USA. But a change of this nature happens only once in a very long while, and we should apply ourselves to seeing whether there is not a feasible British term. I propose that the Lord Speaker should set up a committee; then we can see what British constitutional genius can come up with. I beg to move.