Lord Peston, Lord Barnett and Baroness Gould of
Potternewton
We must start by saying how much we appreciate the
difficulty of the Committee's task especially with the need to
maintain objectivity.
It is by no means clear what the objects of the draft
bill are. One purpose of the Committee must be to establish what
they are and to assess them.
The authors of the Bill have not thought through
the central problem of the powers of the House of Lords (HoL),
let alone the more difficult one of the relationship between the
two houses. It is obvious if a substantial elected element is
included in the new HoL; they will demand more powers and will
not regard themselves as subservient to the Commons. All this
will be complicated if a non elected element (not least the bishops)
remain.
Our central view of a reformed house is that it should
be wholly appointed. In addition, a much smaller house is needed.
We recognise that it is not easy to devise a way of getting from
here to there, especially as the powers that be continue to create
more life peers. This is a task that the Committee itself must
undertake.
If the new HoL is wholly appointed, its central role
must be one of scrutiny with powers and conventions much the same
as now. This is the only way that the House of Commons can retain
its primacy.
It is naive to believe that future Prime Ministers
would give up their power to appoint new peers.
As an example of the nonsensical nature of the draft
bill is the fifteen year electoral proposal. No possibility of
re-election means there will be no accountability.
Since we do not favour elections, the electoral system
is irrelevant. What is relevant is the devising of a system of
moving to a smaller appointed house, and a workable retirement
scheme for this house. We understand that the Government has already
declared that there should not be a financial incentive for existing
life peers to retire. If they wish to be taken seriously
on this aspect of their proposals, they should think again.
No priority should be given to bishops or other religious
leaders; their membership should be decided on individual merit
and usefulness like every member. Obviously, there will be Ministers
appointed in the HoL. Existing hereditary peers should stay but
not be replaced. Appointed peers should continue to receive allowances
as at present, adjusted by a suitable index to maintain relative
real value.
If newly appointed peers
later on are to be encouraged to retire later on, then consideration
of a financial incentive scheme cannot be avoided.
For the appointed house we favour the Parliament
Acts will still apply. For an elected house they will be irrelevant.
11 October 2011
| 
