---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment No. 1 and to speak in opposition to other amendments in the grouping, not as to the merits of any single amendment but to the common factor which relates to changing the composition of your Lordships’ House. That, under the Cranborne deal which was accepted by the Government and thus is to be honoured, is not possible until stage 2 of the reforms. That is because it is a part, but not the whole, of the essence of the deal that your Lordships’ House as constituted shall remain until stage 2. So your Lordships will be relieved to hear that this will not be a long speech on the tangled vineyard in which the grapes cannot even ripen until stage 2. We are not concerned either with the merits of the Cranborne deal. Amendment No. 1 destroys affinity with the monarch as to the creation of a life peerage under the royal prerogative, which is also slighted by other provisions in the Bill, but I shall not take your Lordships’ time to go through those at this point; there are quite a few of them. The Oath of Allegiance, taken on grant of a written summons of attendance, will presumably go, thus making another change to the composition of the House. It would change it from a wholly appointed Chamber into a wholly elected Chamber, which cannot be achieved under the Cranborne deal. We enter very choppy seas in this debate in Committee. Is Clause 10, which reneges on the deal, to stand part of the Bill? This was discussed at Second Reading and need not be discussed at this point in the Committee stage. Are Clauses 14 to 17, which foreclose on the peerage for life granted under the Royal Prerogative to stand part of the Bill, albeit, as recognised by Section 2 of the House of Lords Act, no enabling provision as to implementation under standing orders is given to this Act—prime legislation which operates direct? It is contrary to convention as recognised by the House of Lords. How can we know whether the ship of state will weather these seas today. The Bill has been drafted and brought forward by a series of well-meaning volunteers who really represent no one. One has to take that into account in a venture which is, in essence, not particularly constructive. The Government have affirmed for the fifth time, from 1999 until the Second Reading of this Bill, that they propose to honour the Cranborne deal. Is not the reality of the situation that whatever amendments are made to the Bill, should it reach the other place there will be an objection and the Bill will fail— the fate of any Private Member’s Bill which is not taken up by the Government? I oppose Clause 1 and I shall oppose in due course, for these reasons, many other amendments.