Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
LORD JAY
OF EWELME
22 JULY 2008
Q60 Kelvin Hopkins: Does this not
undermine the case for appointment rather than election? Even
with election, of course, minorities are squeezed out to an extent
as well. With appointment the control is always in the hands of
the Establishment, in a sense, ultimately, and they will not appoint
people it seems who take a different view?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: As far as
appointment and election are concerned, as I said to the Chairman
earlier on, I personally voted in favour of a partially elected
House and I think that is the right thing now. As far as the diversity
of appointed peers is concerned, I go back to some of the conversations
we had earlier on. I think we do need to widen the pool of people
who apply so that there can be proper representation among the
independent cross-bench peers.
Q61 Kelvin Hopkins: You said earlier,
and I agree with you, that people in the population in the general
want to feel that their kind of people are, to an extent, represented
in the political field. I may say, I could appoint a House of
Lords myself which was perfectly representative of the whole country
in terms of women, ethnicity and faith but they would all have
the same political view. Is it not even more important to make
sure that people who have strong political views feel that they
have stake in democracy?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, I think
it is. If there were to be a partially or largely elected House
of Lords I think that would encourage that. Let me say, you go
to the House of Lords sometimes and you see cross-benches, and
they usually packed because people do on the whole take, a very
active role in the House of Lords, and you look around and it
is a pretty diverse lot. I do not know what their political views
are because at the moment they are not allowed to vote in General
Elections, but my guess is that among the appointed peers, there
are people who have in their past voted for one party or another,
even though they are not members of parties. Certainly I get no
sense of an undiverse cross-bench; but as you were saying earlier
on we need to go further.
Q62 Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not the
case—it is certainly the case in the House of Commons—that
those who take a slightly left of centre view, social democratic
or democratic socialist view in the House of Lords are getting
older and diminishing in number, because those who are coming
in are carefully screened? Is not the same process happening in
the House of Lords? The radicals, are they not elderly and gradually
dying out?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: It does seem
to me that is a conversation to have with the political parties
that propose, rather than the House of Lords Commission that looks
at nominees to cross-benches.
Q63 Kelvin Hopkins: Is this not something
you could raise with the Prime Minister and say, "Look, Prime
Minister, this is not healthy. There should be a wider range of
political views in both Houses, including our House. Can I suggest
to you, that you actually put forward names representing a wider
range of political view"?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I have not
yet met the Prime Minister to discuss this, and I have not yet
decided what I am going to say to him. I think what I will say
to him is how important it is that those who are put forward should
very clearly meet the criteria and, in particular, should in the
future play a really active role in the House of Lords. I think
that is the crucial thing as we move toward reform.
Q64 Kelvin Hopkins: Paul Rowen raised
this question of the whistleblower reveals secrets of honours
list and the quote about "political searches" being
made. Could you not actually say to the Prime Minister, "If
this ever happened it should never happen again"? We should
not be screening out people who are not Establishment supporters.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I was not
aware of that, and one thing I have learnt is not to comment on
things which you hear about or see for the first time. I think
I would want to look into that before giving any commitment as
to how I would respond to it.
Q65 Kelvin Hopkins: It was The
Sunday Times.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: It was some
time ago and I do not always read The Sunday Times.
Q66 Chairman: One thing that comes
out of Kelvin's questioning is a proposal that has been floating
around, indeed, we have made it in one form, which is that the
parties would put lists of names to the Commission for their appointees,
and that the Commission would make the final selection to try
to get balance against the criteria that it has set. What is your
feeling about that?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I had not
heard of that suggestion before. I had not realised that had been
a proposal. It is something I would want to consider and discuss
with the Commission, but it is not something I had come across
before. It seemed to me it would be a very different kind of role
for the Commission. I am sure that if that is what the Commission
was asked to do it would do it; but it would be moving into a
different sort of sphere.
Q67 Chairman: I should warn you that
the Government has had ideas of this kind, and we have had other
ideas of this kind, so they are around.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I had not
myself been conscious of them, and I would certainly want to think
further about that and discuss it with the Commission.
Chairman: I hope you will. I hope you
will think positively about them because it is one way of handling
some of the issues that we have raised with you.
Q68 Mr Walker: Lord Jay, at the end
of the day, you are not a social engineer, to be honest. You have
a very important job to put qualified people in the House of Lords,
a House that legislates and, at the end of the day, does a lot
better job on occasions than the House of Commons does when it
comes to scrutiny of legislation because it is a repository of
experts. There are some people there who perhaps should not be
there but, on the whole, they are people who have achieved in
their life, and done great things. They may have come from working-class
backgrounds, but they are not there because they are working-class;
they are there because they have achieved great things in their
careers. I am slightly concerned, that you are talking about appointing
people "on promise"; because once you are in the House
of Lords you are there for life. You could say, "Mr Walker,
you represent what is called a `safe seat' in Hertfordshire. You
are there for life, what is the difference?" The difference
is that I can be deselected. If my Association think I am a lazy
so-and-so they can get rid of me. I am concerned that in trying
to please everyone you will start to put people in the House of
Lords who, quite frankly, might be extremely nice people but are,
in the words of Lord Stevenson, ill-equipped to cope with the
huge responsibility that is placed on their shoulders. It is not
a gentleman's club, it is a legislating chamber.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I do not disagree
with that. You are right, of course we cannot be involved in social
engineering, but what you do have to do, it seems to me, is to
get the balance right to try to ensure that the House of Lords
is seen to be broadly representative of the nation, but is also
able to perform the functions which it should perform as a Second
Chamber, as a revising chamber, as a debating chamber with effective
committees.
Q69 Mr Walker: It will always be
able to perform those functions, it is with what degree of ability
and success it performs those functions?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: If you were
to ask, what at the end of five years, would I hope that this
Commission has achieved if I were appointed to lead it, it would
be robust independence, which we discussed earlier on, and it
would be the clear perception of a House of Lords which is broadly
representative of the nation but is even more effective than now
in doing the job it is there to do.
Q70 Mr Walker: Broadly representative
in what sense? Broadly representative because it has everyone
in there regardless of what they have achieved in their life,
or based on the colour of their skin, or their sexuality, or what?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: This goes
back to the discussions we were having earlier on. Are there groups
who are not represented at the moment? Is there a sense in the
country that there should be more women; there should be more
ethnic minorities; there should be more faiths? These are issues
which others are raising. I think the Commission has to respond
to those. If people are saying, "The House of Lords has not
changed; it is still just a club of middle-aged white men",
then clearly we have all failed. Exactly how far down the road
towards full representation you can go, these are matters of judgment.
We are only talking about comparatively small numbers of peers
over the next few years. It does seem to me that the issue of
the representativeness of the nation is one which should be in
the minds of the Commission.
Q71 Mr Walker: I would love to see
a bus conductor in the House of Lords, but not by dint of the
fact that he or she is a bus conductor; but by dint of the fact
that they have been community leaders in the inner city; that
they save lives through running charities that help youngsters
get into work and get off drugs. Do you see what I am saying?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Absolutely.
Q72 Mr Walker: I do not want to see
people in the House of Lords because they are good bus conductors;
it should not preclude them from being in the House of Lords because
they are bus conductors, but they have to have hugely succeeded
in some other role?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I do not disagree
with that at all.
Q73 Mr Walker: You mentioned "promise"—people
should be put there on promise. What is the definition of "promise"?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I did not
say they should be. I said at the moment there is a criterion
which is a record of significant achievement. I think there is
a question as to whether you could loosen that a little bit and
if there is somebody who clearly has achieved a certain amount
and shows real promise whether that is the sort of person who
might be a good member of the House of Lords.
Q74 Mr Walker: I just do not get
that. If they are achieving why not give it five years to see
if they deliver?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, that
would be another way.
Q75 Mr Walker: You mentioned "promise".
Nobody here mentioned "promise".
Lord Jay of Ewelme: No, I did.
Q76 Mr Walker: Please tell us what
would qualify someone on promise to go to the House of Lords?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Certainly
in my career and in other appointments I have been involved in
there are times when you have somebody who is clearly of huge
promise and you think will make a really good contribution to
the organisation, whatever it is, but who may not have had a really
significant level of achievement. The question I ask myself is:
if such a person were to be nominated and should be interviewed,
would he or she be turned down on the grounds that, though having
achieved a certain amount and having a huge amount of promise,
they did not at that point meet the qualification of significant
achievement? It is a question I ask myself when thinking about
this. It is not a proposal, but it is just a question I ask myself.
It seems to me that it is an issue which we might look at.
Q77 Mr Walker: But a promise of what
to do in the House of Lords? What promise? I am still confused.
A promise, what, as a legislator, a promise as a good egg? What
promise will they bring to the House of Lords because, if they
do not deliver on their promise, you have lumbered the taxpayer
ultimately with someone they are going to have to subsidise for
perhaps the next 40 or 50 years?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Well, of course,
and a crucial criterion, as I said earlier on, is that they should
play an active and effective part in the House of Lords.
Q78 Mr Walker: But you cannot get
rid of them if they do not.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: No, which
is why it is important to make certain that there is a commitment
to do so when they are appointed.
Q79 Chairman: Perhaps we should have
asked you at the beginning, when you told us how important you
thought the House of Lords was, what you thought it was for.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Well, I think
it is a revising Chamber. It is there to look at, to revise and,
at times, to initiate legislation which goes through Parliament.
It is to debate the issues of the day, it is to hold the Government
to account through its committees, but I would say, more than
anything else, it is a revising Chamber and its real job is as
a crucial part of the Legislature.
| 
