---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, one word that I hear repeatedly in the House of Lords is ““expert””. I do not really like that word because if you use it, it means you do not know what you are talking about. I tend to prefer the word ““amateur””, which in England is often derogated. Someone will say, ““Oh, he’s a bloody amateur””. But the word actually means someone who knows and loves his subject. There is another word I often hear. I once asked the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who I see is in his place, if he could give me the definition of ““vermin””. I think it was to do with the Hunting Bill. He said, ““No, there is no definition of vermin. The Oxford English Dictionary therefore prevails””. So I went to the OED. The first definition it gave was ““small brown animals””, and the second was ““politicians””. I stand here today as a bloody amateur who does not know what he is talking about and who must be subservient to the noble Lords on the Benches beneath him, such as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who have served here longer than he has. But I am actually the longest-serving Back-Bencher, with only 45 years’ service. I have been there, done it, seen it and never got the t-shirt. I would like to expose a few things now. This is not the ““Lord Steel Bill””. It is the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—a gentle and honest man of great integrity who felt he was too amateur to introduce a Bill, so he needed a politician. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, was selected to introduce something. This is not really a Bill. It is yet another debate on a subject that will not go away. Here we are, the longest-serving House in the world, in the greatest Parliament in the world, worrying about our own future rather than deciding it ourselves. The old method of introducing people was to make them stand up here in black hats, wander around and be looked at; you looked at the chaps who were introducing them and then you wandered by and bowed. Beforehand, though, I had to go to the noble Lord, Lord Lyon King of Arms, and he told me, ““You’re not with us, you’re without””, because I am a Scot. You then had to choose not only your name, but also your ““of””, which is terribly important. A certain noble Lord on the Benches opposite will not mind me telling the House that he asked whether he could possibly have ““of Jerusalem””. He was told, ““No, not unless you’d owned it or sacked it””. What I am about to suggest is heresy. As you go through, you then shake hands with the Lord Chancellor and everyone says, ““Hear, hear!””. If we are to have a statutory commission, I propose that we should have the right to say ““nay”” and that anyone put forward by a commission must come before the House and have ““aye”” or ““nay”” said against him. It is called blackballing, and I believe that it is a good way to do it, because I do not trust commissions. In my years here, having done masses of research, I have bored the House rigid. I have probably the greatest database of your Lordships’ House, in which I have great pride. I have also done a recent analysis of ““how they got in””. My own codes for this are slightly difficult. They are: ““bought their way in””, ““wormed their way in””, ““screwed their way in”” and ““how did they get in?””. However, once they are in, they do not want to get out; they have gone down a worm hole and really do not want to leave. So they are not being honest when this matter is debated. I have a certain degree of integrity: I am an elected hereditary Peer. I sit on what is called the Barons’ Bench. I am one of the few Members of this House who was elected. I did not approve of the method of election. I did not expect to be elected. I was away at the time and I knew that there was a Front-Bench fix whereby they all voted for the Front Bench. I asked the bookies about it and they said: ““It’s very easy. If 10 people all agree to vote for each other in the first 10, they get in anyway. It doesn’t matter how many candidates there are””. I am here, and I really believe in this place. It is a strange love that I have for it; I have affection for everybody. However, it is very easy to change the situation. We are talking about not allowing the secondary election process. If, by voluntary agreement, the elected hereditary Peers and those who are on the waiting list agreed that this system should be replaced by placing all those on the waiting list on a list before the commission, it would solve the problem. It does not need a complicated Bill. This Bill provides a good opportunity for debate. I have enjoyed myself in my few minutes, and I am grateful to anyone who listened to me.