---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, I was not able to be here in July when the Bill was first introduced. I am therefore particularly glad to be able to support it today. However, having read the earlier debate, and like other noble Lords, I find it hard to find anything new to say that has not been said already. I thought of making a collage of all the best bits from the speeches of those who spoke on that occasion, but although the whole may well have been greater than the sum of its parts, it would hardly have made for an original speech. The Government have made much of the vote in another place, but much doubt has also been cast on it. That vote is a matter of record but, in the language of statistics, there is room to question both its validity—whether it was an accurate reflection of the view of the House of Commons—and its reliability, raising the question whether you would get the same result if you ran the vote again. It is not uncommon for majorities, sometimes even two-thirds or 75 per cent majorities, to be required in two successive meetings for major constitutional change within the organs of civil society. If the Government are so confident that they have a mandate for a 100 per cent elected House of Lords, perhaps they would like to try the experiment of running the vote a second time. But those matters, which touch on a final solution to the vexed question of Lords reform, are not for today. The Bill is about introducing a small number of limited, common-sense and relatively non-contentious reforms. They represent, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said in July’s debate, the kind of pragmatic approach to reform that would, in a world where common sense prevailed, ensure a rapid passage on to the statute book. However, so far the Government have not shown much interest in them, which obviously limits their chances of success. I hope that the Government, who claim to be in listening mode, may think again about that. Why should they do this? There are two good reasons why they should and one very good reason why it would be a big mistake not to. As for why they should, the Bill contains a number of reforms around which there is a broad consensus. The Government say they wish to proceed by consensus, and these reforms are certainly worth having. By closing off the possibility of further accession to this House by right of heredity, the Bill would go a long way to fulfilling the long-held aspiration of many and implementing Labour’s recent manifesto commitments. Speaking of the piecemeal reforms that have taken place over the past century in her lecture in the Leader’s series recently, Dr Meg Russell of University College London’s constitution unit said that, "““each of these reforms was seen at the time as inadequate and long overdue, but in retrospect was enormously important. Indeed all of them (even the removal of the veto) have proved in practice to strengthen the Lords””." The reason it would be a mistake not to accord the Bill a facilitative response is that House of Lords reform will otherwise be stalled. There is unfinished business from 1999 as well as some momentum and an appetite for reform. We are promised a White Paper next year—but in what year have we not been promised a White Paper or something of the sort? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I shall not be holding my breath. Indeed, on the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, which I personally found devastating, attempts to deliver a final solution in one gigantic hit are unlikely to succeed for at least a decade, if not two. Until then we are staring into a void, and nothing is done to refresh the outdated and out-of-touch image of this place as full of old has-beens got up in ermine, who are here only because their ancestor knew the sovereign or as the result of a tap on the shoulder from the Prime Minister. Worse than that, though, we know only too well from previous attempts how easily exercises in big-bang, comprehensive reform at a stroke can unravel. The Government believe that the Commons vote has built up a head of steam behind their final solution, but that is before any consideration of matters such as powers, electoral systems, the length and renewability of terms, the balance and size of the House, financial packages and so on. Reform could soon get bogged down in any one of these, let alone in all of them together. How robust would that vote be then, and what would the Government have to show? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that all the difficulties of timing, phasing and balance that he sees as attending the present Bill will attend more radical reforms in equal if not greater measure. The Government would do well to listen to Meg Russell again: "““The lesson from the past hundred years or so is that large-scale House of Lords reform doesn’t happen. What does happen, sometimes, is small-scale reform on narrow points which are in practice unarguable””." This essay in incremental reform closes nothing off. It offers a positive way forward, containing some important components of reform that the Government could be pretty sure of getting through if they got behind them. The alternative is the House that Jack seems bent on building, based on straw votes, which could well come tumbling down.