Lord Norton of Louth (Con)

My Lords, the most important words in the report of the Select Committee are not in the conclusions but in the opening summary: “We are bound by our remit.” As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said earlier, form should follow function. The Government have focused on form. That has tied the hands of the committee. Good law is a public good. That must be front and centre in addressing what this place is for. This House is core to ensuring that Bills brought forward by government are as good as they can be to deliver what the measure seeks to achieve. This is a task that, if not fulfilled by this House, is not going to be carried out at all. An arbitrary age limit will remove some Members who contribute significantly to legislative scrutiny, bringing to bear experience that is exclusive to them, while retaining Members who make no significant contribution. Expecting Members to attend for a certain percentage of sittings may remove some who are not making much of a contribution but, again, it is a blunt weapon. It is not sufficiently calibrated to deliver the core task of the House. It would make more sense to have more sophisticated participation criteria, focusing on quality rather than quantity. If we go for targeted, qualitative participation, as recommended by the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, we both achieve a reduction in numbers and enhance the meaningful participation of Members. The Select Committee has come up with formulas for retirement and participation that could be delivered by the House. There is an obvious principled objection to that; namely, that it should not be for the House to use its procedures to deliver government policy. We have heard the argument that implementing the committee’s recommendations means that we are in control of what happens, but that is akin to a kidnapper letting the victim tie their own hands. If the Government introduce legislation, that will provide us with the opportunity to use the Bill to deal with a problem that is not within the Select Committee’s remit but is addressed by the Labour Party’s manifesto. Any reform focused on composition must address how Members come here and not, in isolation, how they leave. Simply removing Members at a certain age creates the opportunity, as we have heard, for the Prime Minister to fill the House with new nominees. That is open to criticism from the perspective of sheer size. Much more importantly, it is objectionable if those nominated do not have the skills and commitment necessary to contribute to the work of this House, especially in the core task of legislative scrutiny. We need workhorses, not grandstanders or theatregoers. A Constitution Unit survey some years ago found that the public rank trust in the appointments process as the most important factor in determining the legitimacy of this House. We should be driven by what is in the best interests not of this House but of the nation in delivering good law. I have three questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, does she agree that form should follow function? Secondly, does she recognise that the public attach more importance to the process by which Peers are appointed than to how they leave? Thirdly, given that, can she tell us what the Government will do to implement their manifesto commitment to reform the process by which people are nominated for peerages? That is the most pressing issue.