Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness who spoke in the gap. She knows that I have the highest admiration for the work she does, and the utmost affection for her. She has been and continues to be an outstanding ambassador for Parliament as a whole, not just for this House, especially in the work she does in Latin America. I am in awe of the service that she has given. Notwithstanding that this is a government manifesto commitment, these Benches have decided that this is now a House issue. Thus, if it comes to a point where we will be making decisions on a way forward, each of my colleagues will vote on their own judgment rather than there being a whipped line. There is, however, widespread support among my colleagues for the work that my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lady Suttie have done on the committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—not only for the conclusions that the committee has reached but the means by which it has done so and the consensus it has sought. My noble friend Lady Parminter spoke succinctly and clearly right the beginning of this debate, a number of hours ago, and I agree with every word she said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very politely pre-butted a speech I was not intending to make. Our country’s legislatures should be democratically chosen, and we on these Benches believe, as others have mentioned in the debate, that there should be an opportunity for this House to be fundamentally reformed. In this debate about these proposals, some—the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and others—have asked what the problem is that we are seeking to solve. Indeed, they were asking what the problem is of this House. A number of years ago, the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election had come to that conclusion and answered the noble Lord’s question: “We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence”. Perhaps the problem that continues to burden us is that of legitimacy and public confidence. We have heard of the need—and I agree with it—for a second Chamber to be efficient. Many made the case for reform; others, however, said it would be wholly wrong to break the link between a life peerage and a lifetime right to sit in this House. As with most debates about our House, as we have had today, there is rarely much that is new. The House previously passed, after seven days of debate, a resolution which stated the following: “That a strong and efficient Second Chamber is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is necessary to the well-being of the State and to the balance of Parliament … That such a Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords … That a necessary preliminary of such reform and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a Peerage should no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 21/3/1910; cols. 413-23.] That was in 1910; the last part was almost identical to what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, was calling for in this debate today, and I agree with him. Moving the debate on that resolution was the Earl of Rosebery from the Cross-Benches at that point in 1910. I want to quote more of what he said in introducing it, because we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord True, and others that to change the link between the peerage and the ability to sit in this House by right and not alter that, either by retirement or by participation, would be constitutionally improper and anomalous. Lord Rosebery said: “After all, nothing can be so anomalous as the British Constitution itself. We are afraid to introduce new principles into it. But, really, when you come to analyse the Constitution itself one might be inclined to think that a little novelty might to some extent improve it”.—[Official Report, 14/3/1910; col. 165.] It indeed is a novelty that we are seeking to improve it; 116 years later, this novelty is perhaps a little overdue. More recently, for 50 years, some who sit in this House have served under age limits as a result of an innovation. I personally do not believe there should be reserved seats for the established Church of a nation south of the border where I live, but, as with judges, for Bishops there seems to have been a settled view that age limits are appropriate and connected to efficiency and effectiveness. Indeed, the debates in the synod in 1975, which I read, were sensitive and pragmatic and came to a conclusion that retirement linked with sitting in this House was appropriate. That was 51 years ago. Similarly, the reforms introduced by a Conservative Government in 1959 to impose age limits for senior judges were debated sensitively but pragmatically and with a degree of self-awareness. In the kindest possible way, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who indicated that we sometimes should see for ourselves the reality of how representative we are in society. In 1959, the then Conservative Government decided that for senior judges the retirement age of 75 should be put in place. Of interest in that debate, as we have heard today, it was the settled will that this was the appropriate age in that profession for those who apply the law. We are simply suggesting that we should consider it for those who make the law also. The Lord Chancellor Viscount Kilmuir in introducing the measure said: “I would also put this point … that there is no more difficult problem in life than to judge one's own dispensability and expendability. We all find it, and some of us find that the problem gets more difficult as the years advance. But I ask your Lordships to face up to the existence of that psychological problem”.—[Official Report, 8/12/1959; cols. 125-26.] We need to do that in this House today also. We have done it for those who apply the law and we should also do it for those who make the law. This inevitably will mean that some valued colleagues will be retiring, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his shrewd contribution, as all of his are, asked us to consider the time when we might have to cope with life without him in this House. I personally will grieve when he leaves this House, because I am a great admirer of his. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, indicated that the family of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, might have to cope with him being with his family on retirement. We have had both sides of the argument, but I am certain that both this House and the family of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will manage to cope in both of those circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made the point that this reform should not be simply about making space, but it should fundamentally be about effectiveness and efficiency, and I agree with that. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Burns, about previous attempts for reforms about the size of this House. We have always shared that view. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the size of the Liberal Democrat Benches is now exactly what it would have been if the Burns review had been implemented in full. I am certain both noble Lords would not wish the size of our Benches in particular to be diminished for any reforms going forward. I am sure that they will agree with me with on that one. On the issue of age, I have to confess, I was not expecting Dolly Parton to be mentioned in the debate today, but the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, did so. I was trying to think of something witty to say, but I am thinking that us working nine to five might be a bit of a stretch. Yes, okay, I will move on. We heard about the difficult issue of how representative we are as a non-elected Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point, and I share it, that the elderly are a key part of our society and need to be represented. However, I think we should be a touch cautious about saying that the elderly in society can only be represented by the elderly in this House. We cannot persuasively make that argument unless we also argue that young people can only be represented by young people in this House. If you hold that argument, when I entered this House, I was only one of two Members of the entire House under 40, so both of us would have had to share the burden of representing 49% of the country’s population. We cannot automatically make a direct link between our age profile here and those whom we represent in society. We must also be cautious of the argument that, if the committee’s proposals are taken forward then we will enter a constitutionally wrong type of expulsion—culls, sackings and purges have been referred to. Obviously there will be a collective view about what an appropriate level of participation would be, as well as those who would be participating in it. The committee should be commended for doing a difficult task that has beset us for many years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, indicated: what is the appropriate means by which we recognise ourselves as legislators, not a voluntary think tank? The setting of a 20% participation rate over two Sessions is reasonable. I personally believe that in future that should be the floor, not the ceiling, of what we should expect participation to be in a Parliament, because we have a great responsibility to be legislators and active participation is required. We on these Benches will work constructively going forward. We wish to see reform and we will try to reflect the way that the committee worked constructively to try to find a way forward with the correct tone, sensitivity and a degree of pragmatism, but we will approach it as much as possible in the consensual way that the committee established. I commend it for its work and I hope to see progress.