---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, the noble Lord has not been listening to what I have been saying. I did not say that we would use our majority to effect a change in composition; I said that there would be a free vote on composition—certainly on our side of the House. As far as the other parties in the House are concerned, it is a matter for them to determine whether or not they have a whipped vote. I know that the noble Lord's party favours an elected element in this Chamber. On the West Lothian question, we take the view that every MP elected is an MP for a Parliament for the whole of the country and should vote on all the issues that affect the country. We will seek to build consensus as we move forward with reform. I would very much welcome the involvement of the Cross Benches in the building of consensus. I regret that Mr Oliver Heald—who appears to be one of a number of Conservative spokesmen on this issue—has accused the Government of contempt and arrogance because we have repeated what we said during the course of the election subsequently, as the proposals that we have advanced in relation to constitutional reform. If I can identify who amidst the welter of new Conservative spokesmen is the appropriate person to discuss constitutional reform with, I will be happy to engage with him or her. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in his response to the gracious Speech: "If the Government move to reform with a real generosity of spirit and real desire to make something that sticks and gives a proper and good governance, they will have our support".—[Official Report, 17/5/05; col. 20.] I welcome that approach. However, I understand from a speech made last week by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and by his colleague, the right honourable Mr Charles Kennedy, in another place, that the Liberal Democrats have decided to abandon, unilaterally, the Salisbury convention. I thank them for giving us notice of that. Is it not an irony that the party of Lloyd George should determine that it should arbitrate on which parts of an elected government's manifesto should get through Parliament, and which should not? How do they come by that particular conclusion? Perhaps they could let the country know the percentage figure a government need for the Liberal Democrats to refrain from exercising their veto in the Lords. How popular must a policy be before it passes the McNally test? I have outlined a substantial—