House of Lords Reform

There is not the kind of majority that there used to be, but there is still a predominance that does not reflect the situation in the country, as it was at the last election. Let us consider the habits of the other place when the Conservatives are in government. The largest number of defeats of a Conservative Government by the House of Lords took place in the dog days of the Thatcher Government, when there were 82 in total in a Parliament. The fewest was 26 in the 1970 to 1974 Parliament. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that elections by themselves somehow encourage the other place to disagree. In addition, the suggestion that elections will automatically result in the other place achieving equivalence with the House of Commons is refuted by the experiences of other countries. The excellent work of Dr. Meg Russell makes it quite clear that in many countries with a wholly or predominantly elected second Chamber, the second Chamber is effectively subordinate to the main Chamber. It is true that most of those countries have written constitutions, and, as we all know, Britain is an exception in that regard, so there are not many places that have constitutional arrangements that we can compare with ours. So far, we have managed to achieve the things that countries with written constitutions have achieved, and I see no reason why we should not do so in relation to reform. I was glad to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Her proposition that we elect people in a different way to represent what I called in an article that I wrote in 1999 ““constituencies of the mind”” has a great deal of merit. I do not believe that the only constituencies around which we organise our lives are those on the ground. Our relationships and our attitudes are important factors and, for the first time, new technology makes it possible to envisage alternatives to geographical constituencies. There is an urgent need to decide the principal matter, but I supported the initial proposal from my right hon. Friend Leader of the House for a preferential voting system. It did not survive our great traditions in the House, but it is peculiar, to say the least, that the party that argued for such a system and that would presumably have included proportions such as 50 and 60 per cent., however unsatisfactory, on the ballot paper, is not prepared to vote for those options as well as its preferred options tomorrow. I shall do so, even though I do not like them any more than the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), because we cannot allow the problem to last for a century. In two years, a century will have passed since it arose, and that is not acceptable. People often ask me to speak about this subject. If feels as though I am on a seesaw with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), because we often face one another as opponents. I soon run out of things to say—I am glad that there is a time limit on speeches in this debate—because I have only one argument. The people of this country are the best people to decide who should make its laws and who should hold the Government to account. There is no better authority than the people of this country, and if we start to undermine their authority and suggest that there are alternatives to it, we do not deserve the power that they give us in Parliament. We have a responsibility to make a decision, and to make a democratic second Chamber. I would prefer it to be wholly elected, but I will tolerate a Chamber that is largely elected, mostly elected or even 50 per cent. elected, because that is the way to come to a solution.