---

House of Lords: Reform

My Lords, I believe and have long said openly that if we are to continue to have reform—for all the force of argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, whom I so greatly respect—in the 21st century, it can be only on the basis of election of political Peers. That would strengthen the authority of this House to require the other place to do its job properly, not just in the occasional gallant and noble gesture as on control orders, jury trial or ID cards but consistently. So if there is to be a stage 2 reform, unless this House is to sink into a backwater, as it was perhaps before the reforms of 1958 and 1963—and, arguably, as it was before 1999—I believe that a new House should be an 80:20 House, for which I will vote, for its own sake and as a signal to another place that it would be a major error to remove the Cross Benchers and the Bishops as the 100 per cent option would. We shall have a free vote. I do not predict a stampede behind me. However, whether we like election or not, we all have a duty to require the Government to think the option out far better than they have done so far. Over the past nine years, every initiative and deadline has been made and set by the Government. So, too, has almost every mistake on this issue. When this began I said that if you uprooted the boundary stones between the two Houses, as the Government did, and set them rolling down the hill, no one could know where they would come to rest. The law of unintended consequences would apply, and so it has proved. The settlement of 1911 and 1949 was torn up, despite a Conservative reform in 1958 that brought life Peers here—that is within the memory of some noble Lords in the Chamber today. The 1999 Act put the 1958 House on notice. The 2007 vote in another place has put the 1999 House on notice. We still do not know what the settlement of the 21st century will be, but we know it has probably come closer. I hope that the Government will show some humility in this debate and that there will be more understanding from another place of this great House and what it means. I also hope that we, here, will not lift the drawbridge against reform. The White Paper may have failed. The threat that it presented has gone, but a new process has begun. It will take time, need much wisdom and involve some pain. I ask noble Lords to see the opportunity as well as the danger. I am proud of what we have done together in the past nine years to hold the candle for individual liberty and freedom. I know that, given more authority, we could have done far more. Reform offers the opportunity to take that authority, and that is why I shall vote for it on Wednesday.