Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
LORD JAY
OF EWELME
22 JULY 2008
Q1 Chairman: Let me call the Committee
to order and welcome our witness this morning who is Lord Jay
of Ewelme, formerly Sir Michael Jay, Head of the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office. I am afraid with this job to which you have been nominated,
comes the task of appearing before us in this new world of pre-appointment
hearings. I hope you do not regard that as an onerous burden;
we regard it as pure pleasure.
Lord Jay of Ewelme:
I welcome it, Chairman.
Q2 Chairman: Thank you very much.
We thought if we had some exchanges with you for an hour or so,
then we would be able to form a view about your nomination. Is
that acceptable?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, indeed.
Q3 Chairman: Would you like to say
anything to us by way of introduction, or shall we just ask you
some questions?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I am very
happy to answer your questions.
Q4 Chairman: Thank you. Let me first
of all ask you why on earth you wanted this post?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I believe
that an effective Second Chamber is an extremely important part
of our constitution, our democracy; and having taken quite an
active role over the last two years that has confirmed me in that
view. I think appointments to the Second Chamber are a very important
part of our democratic settlement too, particularly at a time
of reform. I think it is an important job; I think it is a really
interesting job; I think it is quite a challenging job; and I
think it is something to which my experience and background can
bring something, and that is why I chose to apply.
Q5 Chairman: Did the job find you,
or did you find the job?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: It was a bit
of both. I had seen the advertisement and was reflecting on it
when I got a call from the head-hunters saying would I be interested
in applying? I talked it through with them and decided I would
and did. I talked it through with them again and then the process
took over from there.
Q6 Chairman: You are quite an active
cross-bench peer at the moment, are you not?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I am, yes.
Q7 Chairman: Your predecessor has
always taken the view that he should not be an active presence
in the House of Lords—I think he has rarely been there,
and hopes to do more now—but you are already active. What
view do you take on this?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I would propose
to continue to be an active peer. I am enjoying my time in the
House or Lords. I believe I am making a contribution to debates,
to legislation and to the committees on which I sit, and I would
want to continue to do that. I think that would have the advantage
too of enabling me, if I were appointed to this job, to "be
in touch" with the temper in the House, if you like, as it
evolves during rather an interesting and difficult period in the
approach to reform. I hope that would be an asset to the work
of the Commission.
Q8 Chairman: Have you discussed with
Lord Stevenson his view that he should not be active there?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I met him
yesterday and he explained his role and the view that he took.
Very early on in my life, I was given advice by a very senior
Treasury civil servant when I was about to go for a job I was
frightened about and he said, "Never forget, there is no
right way to do the job, it is just the way you think you can
do it best". I think this is the way I could do this job
best would be to continue to be an active member of the House
of Lords.
Q9 Chairman: As you know, we have
had some involvement with the work of the House of Lords Appointments
Commission in recent times over all the fuss about nominations
for peerages and so on, and in a sense we have praised the work
of the Commission for their independence in resisting dodgy names
that were sent up to them. What we want to know is: are you the
kind of person who can resist dodgy names?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, I think
I can. For me that was the most important question I was asked
at my interview; the most important question because it was the
one I have thought about most since, because it is a natural thing
for people to say, "You've spent 40 years kowtowing to ministers,
how are you now going to stand up to them?" I do not see
it quite like that. In fact, five or 10 years at the top of the
Civil Service means you spend quite a lot of your time standing
up to ministers, and sometimes in quite robust ways, but it does
not always get out into the press—at least, you try to make
certain it does not get out into the press. I think I have had
enough experience of ministers and parties to be able to stand
up to them. I hope my record in the House of Lords over the last
two years has shown, when I think the Government is right I will
support it, but when I think the Government is wrong I will argue
against it and vote against it. That is the view I would take
in this job. I think it is very, very important for the reputation
of the Commission, and therefore for our democratic process, that
it is seen to be robustly independent. I would hope that is a
view which all members of the Commission would take. This is of
course not just me, it is a full Commission of seven people. That,
I am sure, is a view which the Commission as a whole would take
and I would certainly encourage them to take.
Q10 Chairman: Let me just explore
one more area with you before handing over, and it comes out of
what you have just said. When the Committee produced its own report
recently on the whole cash for peerages affair, a report called
Propriety and Peerages, we say along the way, and I just
quote it, "We believe there is a fundamental problem with
the House of Lords Appointments Commission's aim to judge party
nominees to the House of Lords on their credibility, but not on
their suitability. We do not see a difference of anything but
degree between suitability and credibility. A candidate is credible
if he or she is sufficiently suitable; we see no other means of
measuring it. We cannot visualise a candidate who is credible
but unsuitable". What I would like to know from you is, have
you mastered the distinctions between "credibility"
and "suitability"? Can you tell us, in relation to that,
what you think "propriety" is, and therefore what you
think impropriety might be, and how would you recognise it?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I have swum
into this rather dangerous territory quite recently, Chairman,
so I cannot claim that I have a very clear view in my mind as
to exactly what the distinctions are. It is clear to me, there
is overlap between propriety, credibility and suitability. It
seems to me that propriety is what has been set down, as I understand
it, to be the criterion by which the Commission should judge appointments,
rather than suitability. It seems to me that the three criteria,
as I understand it—of good standing in the community, very
good standing with the regulatory authorities, and the ability
to enhance the working and reputation of the Lords—are three
good, strong criteria. But I am conscious that this is an area
which will be of interest to your Committee; and I am conscious
that this is something I would imagine would be an issue for the
new Commission, when it is formed, to discuss and take a view
on.
Q11 Chairman: The Prime Minister
sends the Commission a name, a person who is not in bad standing
with the community, a person who is not in trouble with the regulatory
authorities, but on any test would not seriously add to the reputation
of the House of Lords, some kind of time-server. On these criteria
that would raise difficulties, I presume, for the Commission,
yet in practice, it does not because all these people get nodded
through routinely, unless they have some sort of dodgy financial
history?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think that
goes to the heart of what is the difference between suitability
and propriety. I think it would be very difficult for me now as
I say, having come into this area quite recently, to take a very
clear view on that.
Q12 Chairman: But you are being asked
to. This is the job you have signed up for?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, I will
be asked to.
Q13 Chairman: You are going to judge
these people on whether they add to the reputation of the House
of Lords or not?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think that
is an important criterion. I think enhancing the reputation of
the House of Lords at a time of change is going to be an important
criterion. It is one of the three criteria.
Q14 Chairman: I am asking you, if
the Prime Minister sends out names you are quite likely to write
back, are you, and say, "Irrespective of any questions about
donations [and all the rest of it], on my view this person does
not add to the reputation of the House of Lords. Would you look
at it again"?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I cannot say
whether I would do that. This would be a matter for the Commission
as a whole. All I can say is that it does seem to me that those
three criteria, including enhancing the reputation of the House,
are important ones. That is clearly what we would need to take
into account.
Chairman: Okay. I am sure colleagues
will come back to this. Thank you for that.
Q15 Mr Walker: Lord Jay, you have
been in the House of Lords now for a couple of years so you have
had a chance to look around—candidly, what weaknesses have
you identified on the benches, do you think, as far as representation
is concerned?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: On the cross-benches,
and I have only been there two years, there have been some marked
changes over the last couple of years. The cross-benches strike
me a being active, effective, playing an increasingly important
role in the business of the House, and to be reasonably representative.
If you are asking me, do I see gaps in, as it were, the representation,
I am struck, as far as I can tell, by the absence of any member
of the Chinese community, for example, in the House of Lords at
the moment. That strikes me as an interesting gap. There are one
or two areas in skills where I am conscious there are not as many
voices as I would expect to see: sport is one; I am not sure how
far small business, rather than big business, is represented.
This is anecdotal rather than the result of a proper survey as
to where gaps are.
Q16 Mr Walker: What is more important,
representation or the quality of peers?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think both.
Clearly what you are looking for, it seems to me, would be to
have good quality peers who could enhance the reputation of the
House but, at the same time, are broadly representative of the
nations, the religions, the faiths, the businesses and so on of
our society. That does not seem to me to be an impossible goal,
given the quality of people that there are throughout the country.
Q17 Mr Walker: You are going to be
taking your new appointment at quite an interesting time. There
was a recent statement in the Commons on Lords reform. What is
your view on a fully appointed House compared to, for example,
a House which is 80% elected and 20% appointed?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: In the debates
we had in the Lords last year I voted against a fully appointed,
against a fully elected and in favour of 40, 50 and 60% elected.
I was and remain in favour of an at least partially elected House,
but against a fully elected House.
Q18 Mr Walker: Say we go to an 80%
elected House that will reduce the number of spaces for appointed
peers. How will you manage that challenge, do you think?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I am not clear
that that would be an issue for the Commission. First of all,
I think there is a lot of water to flow under that particular
bridge before we get to that stage. Having read the White Paper,
if it is the 80:20 option, there are a number of options put forward
for how and over what timescale you would reduce from the present
number to, I think, 90 out of 450.
Q19 Mr Walker: It obviously would
mean there are less slots to fill with appointed representatives?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes. It seems
to me there is the question of, what do you do between now and
reform starting; and then how do you manage the transition from
the House as it will be when reform starts, to the House at the
end of the reform period? From the point of view of the Commission,
to which I hope to be appointed, which is an appointment for five
years, our main interest is going to be with the appointment of
peers between now and, as it were, the start of the reform process.
You could I suppose argue: do we need any new peers at all, given
that we are going to have a reduction if the reform goes through
over time? It seems to me that there are strong arguments for
continuing to have further peers appointed over the next few years,
otherwise the age balance will get out of kilter, and you risk
getting a bit of sclerosis. I think there should continue to be
peers appointed.
| 
