---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am delighted to hear that Members on all sides of the Chamber seem to have real concern about the amendment proposed by the noble Earl and the group attached to it. The noble Earl is in some haste to make considerable progress in a backwards direction. We should be careful about moving as fast as he appears to wish us to do. Some people might say, ““What’s in a name?””—but surely in the House it is clear that names are very important. This whole building is about semantics. Sometimes we hear people complain that a matter that we discuss here is a matter of semantics, but words are important. I remind the Committee of the occasion when the Post Office decided to change its name to Consignia, which some of us thought would mean that it would actually modernise its practices and offer a better service to the country: far from it, nothing of the sort. Very soon afterwards, the Post Office had to revert to its previous name. What is serious about the noble Earl’s amendment is that it will give an impression that there has been a radical change in the role and responsibility of the House, when that is obviously not the case. In that sense, it is wholly premature. Reference has already been made to the report by the Select Committee in the other place, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, rightly drew our attention to a particular paragraph. I endorse a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: this is an issue of considerable importance to this House. Not only has the other place not discussed this report yet and not only has there been no response to it yet from the Government, but it is hot off the press with regard to this House. I wonder how many noble Lords, if I asked them, could say that they had read all 150 pages of the report and evidence; I suspect that some of us would have to admit that we have only skimmed through it. It is obviously premature that we should look at that issue raised in the report, even when it is not intended that it should comprise legislative proposals, merely small changes. The noble Earl’s amendment, Amendment No. 72, talks in terms of a divergence of the membership of this legislature from the peerage. That is a completely new issue that is totally outwith the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Steel, and I very much appreciate what he said just now. It would be extraordinary if we went down that path without a great deal more careful consideration in this House. Other issues still await the complete and comprehensive reform proposals that we are looking to hear about from the Minister in a few minutes’ time. I take one example, hot from the press today: the Senior Salaries Review Body issued a statement of which I have only the BBC’s analysis and summary, but it is of relevance. It is headed, ““Some Lords ‘would like sick pay’””. I do not know which Members of the House made that suggestion to the SSRB, but it is relevant to this debate that the SSRB, as the BBC summary reports, says: "““Any ‘fundamental’ changes to the system of allowances should be considered as part of wider reforms of the Lords and not before””." That is yet another way in which we in this House must clearly realise that there is no way in which tinkering with the issues will assist the real comprehensive reform to which we all look forward. There are, in the amendments, some other matters to which the noble Earl may not yet have given his attention. I take one at random; it may interest the right reverend Prelate, who is on the Bishops’ Bench. It is suggested by the noble Earl that, in future, we are all to be called senators in a fully appointed House. Are the Bishops to be called senators? I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who had to leave the Chamber just now. The role of the Bishops in the House is completely missed by the amendments.