---

House of Lords: Reform

My Lords, what a typically intriguing suggestion from my noble friend. As the noble and learned Lord, with Mr Straw, will be setting up those meetings, it may be up to him to issue the invitations to whomever he would like to come along. Those examples—the Cross-Benchers and the Lords Spiritual—are just two ways in which there is a world of difference between a 100 per cent elected House and an 80:20 House. There are many others. The noble and learned Lord and his colleagues are fond of telling us that the elected House has spoken and we must obey. He did not go down that route today. He said that there is the possibility—I would argue, a likelihood—of a new White Paper, possibly even a Green Paper. He may well wish to consider that during the next two days. There may be a new Joint Committee or even a new royal commission.He will, I understand, also wish to study the80:20 option, which also commanded a majorityof 38. The lack of detail in the Government’s White Paper showed how much still needs to be thought through. I should perhaps make it clear that we in my party could not accept the idea that an elected second Chamber should be elected by PR. So far as we are concerned, there should never be election-on-party lists, that grotesque entrenchment of party patronage which this House rightly tried so hard to prevent for the European parliamentary elections in 1998 and 1999. There is so much more that needs to be debated and resolved and on which there is much disagreement. There are, as I mentioned, the methods of election as well as the date of election. Why should the election be held on the European election day? Then there are the terms, certainly the non-renewable ones, and the question of constituencies. Perhaps the latter should be cities and counties and not the remote European regions suggested by Mr Straw, where Scotland and Wales are themselves constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has come up with a substantial estimate of the costs incurred by pay, pensions and office support. Do the Government agree with him? If not, what is their view on this critical matter? Other issues include how to encourage independence from party in an election and during service; the related right or otherwise to move from one House to another; and relations between Members of the two Houses in routine constituency matters and where there is disagreement on legislation. The size of the House is also an issue; surely a fully elected House of 540 could not also sustain 600 life Peers. What has happened to the commitment made by the noble and learned Lord at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere that all life Peers should continue for life? Life means life—or does it any more? What about the name of the House, if Lords are no more? None of these things is adequately settled by the White Paper, and all will need to be addressed afresh or anew. On top ofthis, Ministers have hinted that the powers of the House might need to be put under tighter restraint if the House were elected. However, that simply willnot do. The excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, and his committee thwarted the Government’s aim to limit the powers of this House. The Government say that we do not need to revisit those conventions, which they say must stay just the same to stop an elected House from challenging the other place. I am afraid that that defies the logic ofthe noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. This goes right to the heart of the debate, which is not about the rather sterile and abstract votes that we will be having on Wednesday afternoon on the 60:40 or 80:20 options. Most important are the power of this House and the authority to use it. That is what is at stake. An elected senator would inevitably use the powers of this House more assertively than Members of the current House do, just as this House has done since 1999. I have no complaint about this, as I want a stronger House with the authority to use those powers. The Government’s position could not be more wrong. If reform does not serve to strengthen this House—and Parliament as a whole if another place is also reformed, which, as my right honourable friend Mr Cameron has so rightly said, is an urgent necessity—it has no purpose and will fail. We have a House that most of us think has worked well since 1999, but the Government were not content with the huge reform accomplished then by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in ending the right of anyone to sit here by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Now that they have had their votes in another place, it is likely that things will never again be as they once were. Those of us who know, love and understand this House know how vital it is to seek to preserve what we may of its ethos, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, wisely enabled it to be preserved in 1999. We know how essential it is to proceed by consensus. How enormous, therefore, is the work that needs to be done if the votes in another place are to become the basis of government legislation? Think of the length of the Greater London Act to shape a new Mayor. Shall a Bill to unmake half a millennium and create a new House in place of your Lordships’ House be any simpler? It is vital that the Government and all Parliament hear the practical wisdom of your Lordships on the questions that would arise from any reform. The noble and learned Lord has in the past said that he is unsure what I stand for; I think that he knows, and I will vote for it on Wednesday. My view has been consistent and, before the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, points it out, has been consistently unpopular with many of your Lordships and many of my noble friends.