Contribution
My Lords, I have been increasingly concerned over the years about the preoccupation with numbers. It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse. We should be looking at whether the House of Lords functions, what its function is and whether it functions as well as it should, and then base the numbers on our assessment of that position.
I believe that getting rid of so many Peers, particularly the Cross-Benchers, would be a mistake, because it would reduce the ability of the House of Lords to function as well as it does, particularly with its forensic examination in Committee and subsequent stages of Bills, and in the work of the Select Committees. Those Select Committees produce reports which are revered way beyond this House and they have an important role in helping guide government policy or in throwing a spotlight on issues which have been neglected by Governments. I believe that the way we are now going forward to reduce the numbers will affect the effectiveness with which this House performs.
Let us remember also that, when it comes to considering Bills in detail, the House of Commons has long since given up any pretension of looking at Bills in any detail. When I was a young MP—God knows how many years ago now—it was an important part, but over the years that has diminished and diminished, and I suspect that the newer intake of MPs do not even realise that that was an important function. In my view, it should still be.
I am concerned particularly about the impact on the Cross-Benchers, which has already been alluded to. I am very unhappy about it. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, pointed out that a measly two Peers are appointed each year. I would like to hear from the Leader whether this will change, because to me it is extremely important that this is revised. Indeed, I would go further: I would like the commission to be made statutory and given proper powers, but that is perhaps going wider than we should at this point.
On having an age limit, I remember how as a young woman I was told, “Oh, you’re much too young to do that—you haven’t got the experience. No, no, no”. But before you can say knife, you are too old. So, I am not happy with any kind of limit. I fully agree that we need to deal with the relatively small number of Peers who are incapable. However, it certainly does not deal with the pre-80s who may be functioning and may attend the relatively easy amount of 20% but still contribute pretty little. They will have a free rein, whereas there are so many—I confess that I am well over 80, so I am pretty soon for the chop if it goes ahead—who give of their wisdom, experience and knowledge, and I would be very loath to see that go.
Your Lordships will therefore not be surprised to learn that I am opposed to the suggestion that we should help ourselves by a resolution. I also take the point that we are on very difficult legal ground. I think it was the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Redwood, who gave cogent arguments against relying on doing it ourselves, saying that it should be done by legislation. I agree with that. It is right and proper that that should be the case. It was the Government’s decision to put it in their party manifesto at the election, so they should take it forward in what I regard as the proper constitutional position. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am not prepared to help the Government in any way to build the guillotine by which I and so many others will be decapitated.