House of Lords Reform

I am afraid that, for the reasons I gave earlier, I will not. I have only two or three minutes left, so I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. If there is greater democracy in the upper House, primacy may well come into play once more, but we can deal with that challenge, as the House has in the past. I refer to the comments made earlier by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), along with the comments made recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). There are some who express anxiety about the future, on the basis that we do not know what the consequences of a more democratic upper Chamber will be. There is the argument that says, ““If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”” Those who uttered such sentiments included my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). He was supported in his concern by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). There are others in the House, such as the hon. Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) who said that the House should first address the concerns of this Chamber, rather than the upper Chamber. For my part, I will vote tomorrow for an 80 per cent. elected upper House, because I believe that that will bring more democracy and legitimacy and a greater breadth of membership, while still allowing, through a 20 per cent. appointed element, a great depth of expertise and experience. I hope that our deliberations and tomorrow’s votes will lead to a reformed House that is truly capable of questioning and amending legislation and that is democratic and accountable while, at the same time, providing expertise and independence. Let us have an upper House that is truly ready to address the challenges of the 21st century.