---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

Very possibly; it would be difficult for all of us. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers about the exclusion of the Lords Spiritual from membership of the committee. Perhaps the noble Baroness had a specific reason for excluding them, but I think that we should always hear from them. In my experience, theologians are without parallel in finding words to bridge gaps. On the question of who should chair the committee, I, too, am convinced that the Lord Speaker should not be the person to choose the committee. I would be prepared to agree that she could chair it, but to give the chairman power to appoint his or her committee is not good practice. How large should this committee be and who would decide on behalf of each party group who should be the members? The noble Baroness suggests that the Lord Speaker should decide, but the Lord Speaker is not intimate in her knowledge of the Conservative or Liberal Democrat groups, or even the Cross Bench groups in this House. A Conservative or Liberal Speaker would have exactly the same difficulty with other groups in the House. Should the names come from leaders, chairmen or convenors of the groups, having consulted with their members as appropriate? In short, the amendment seems to set up an elaborate machinery involving people from outside Parliament over whom your Lordships’ House will have no control either as a House or through party groups to do relatively little. If we need a new name, the field of choice is relatively small. Surely when the time comes we should grasp the nettle, debate it and decide it ourselves. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she sums up, will withdraw her amendment; and, if she wishes to proceed, she should consider further how it might work, taking into account the points raised in this short debate. I am happy to join her and others in coming to a finer conclusion as to how this could be moved forward.