---

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

My Lords, I first make two declarations of interest. The first is that I was a member of the Government that consistently brought back proposals for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 per cent of Members of this Chamber or its replacement to be elected. The second declaration is that I voted against every such proposal on every occasion. I did so for two reasons. First, it was not self-evident that such a change would increase the efficiency of government. More importantly, as I had spent my life in the House of Commons, I wanted to protect the primacy of the House of Commons. It was obvious that it was impossible to bestow democratic legitimacy on a Chamber that was widely perceived as being slightly more mature, both in years and wisdom, and certainly more full of expertise, and in all practical terms to stop it becoming the senior Chamber. I still believe that. When I look at Clause 2, which the Leader of the House has read out, it reminds me of the simple fact that you can have a clause that calls an elephant a camel, but that does not make it a camel. You can have a clause that defies all the practical circumstances of the world, but that will not change the world. Therefore, in a sense, we have to do a service, not only to this House, but to the House only 100 yards from here, by pointing out in, our wisdom and maturity, that it is inevitable that, if you choose a second Chamber by democratic means and those democratic means—that is, proportional representation—are considered at the highest echelons of this Government, meaning the Deputy Prime Minister, as being more legitimate than first past the post, and if the term of office of those elected by those democratic legitimate means are three times as long as those of the Members of the other Chamber and their constituencies are much bigger, you will not find 300 fools in this country who will, on that basis, come here and say, ““We are lesser than the other Chamber””. Everyone who comes here, with the expertise and the maturity enhanced by democratic legitimacy, will say that it is they who ought to be the primary Chamber—and they will be right—just as the Senate in the United States, with the enhanced powers of democratic legitimacy, as was pointed out by my noble friend on the other side, became the premier House in the United States. That is the reality. The second reason that I gladly support my noble friend’s amendment is—this is one thing that the Leader of the House forgot to highlight in the difference between the Motion and the amendment to the Motion—that the Motion currently before the House allows for the consideration of the previous report but does not require it to be considered. If the complexion of the Committee was such that it was inadvertently composed—I speak hypothetically—of people who supported these proposals, there would be no requirement on them to take into account the deep study and the full implications of that report. My noble friend’s amendment includes an instruction to the Committee that it must take that report into account. Therefore, there is not just a rhetorical difference between the two sides but one that would have huge practical implications for this House. The only way that we can ensure that the fundamental findings of the previous report—on which there was unanimity here and in the other House—are taken into account is to ensure that this amendment is incorporated. Outside of that, all is rhetoric, as nothing practical will be required; the members of the Committee could nod in assent and in deference to that report without taking it into consideration at all. The least that we ought to expect, on the basis of the report that was formed by that Committee, is that the new Committee will be required to take that report into account.