The Earl of Dundee (Con)

My Lords, within this grouping, Amendment 26 would enable a review of the impact of this Act on the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. Your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House, and thus, conversely, that future membership composition should be designed to serve that priority aim. If, within the temporal membership of a reformed House of 600, the political Members were to be 450, the non-political representation appointed either by HOLAC or by Parliament itself would then be 150 Cross-Bench Peers. As a result, within that total of 600 temporal Members, respective proportions could then become: the government and opposition parties at 175 political members each; next, the independent, non-political Cross-Benchers at 150; and, next, all other political parties at 100. These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying out our present high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House. Your Lordships may well additionally consider that, rather than direct public elections, indirect elections of 450 political Members would, in the first place, the better ensure continuity of high standards of legislative scrutiny. That is because direct elections of 450 political Members would instead lead to conflict and jockeying for position between the House of Commons and a reformed House of Lords. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Leader of the House, favoured parity of numbers between the government and opposition parties, such as perhaps 175 each; while the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord True, observed that each of the Government and Opposition should have more political Members than the Cross-Benchers would have non-political Members, such as maybe reflecting an appropriate respective ratio of 175 for each of the government and main opposition party to 150 for non-political Cross Bench membership. Also in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, pointed out in particular that a reformed House must be properly representative of the regions and nations of the UK; and that, in general, the public ought to be consulted on different options for House of Lords reform. Does the Minister therefore concur that a key option to be put forward for public approval or otherwise should be the implied prescriptions of Amendment 26? These comprise, first, that the high standard of legislative scrutiny demonstrated by the present House should continue in a reformed House; if so, and secondly, that indirect elections would assist that purpose better than direct elections. Thirdly, that also assisting this aim is parity of numbers between the government and main opposition parties at perhaps 175 each; fourthly, that equally sustaining legislative scrutiny quality as well is the inclusion of independent non-political Cross-Benchers at 150, thus at one-third of all temporal and political members at 450. I beg to move.