---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

I speak in support of Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and to emphasise that in my experience of constitutional reform there are a number of requirements for such progress. It is never a good case that the constitutional reform is undertaken by those who themselves are to be reformed, because that does not result in an appropriate constitutional context for that activity. Constitutional reform has to proceed by a consensus and understanding of the process. Perhaps the most pertinent point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who emphasised the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny for any sensible discussion about the reform of this House and the relationship between this House, the House of Commons and other assemblies within these islands. We cannot proceed effectively through a reform of this House by seeking to produce a Bill of our own making that we then present to the House of Commons as a package and say, ““This is what we want done to ourselves; please can we have your support?””. That seems to be a totally impossible avenue, especially given the history of the issue over the centuries, as we have heard. I therefore support strongly the emphasis in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that a proper report has to come from the Government based on an indication of the policy of the UK Government and the support of the House of Commons. I do not see how it is possible to proceed without that. As part of that, I also argue that the time has come to take the debate into a much more serious pre-legislative scrutiny than perhaps we have normally for legislation in both Houses of the UK Parliament. That is to open up the matter to a proper public discussion of the role of the upper Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have had reports from Government, but we have not had the proper democratic dialogue about what the House could and should do. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, presents us with the opportunity that any report emanating from the Secretary of State should be the subject of a proper public scrutiny. By that I do not mean a No. 10 website into which people send e-mails. I mean proper electronic consultation and debate throughout the kingdom about the role of this House and then perhaps there can emerge a public consensus about what a 21st century second Chamber looks like in the context of the United Kingdom. I hate to disagree among the college of retired or about-to-be retired presiding officers of assemblies in these islands, but the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is premature in the matter.