House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, I will also be very brief. The aims of the Bill have already been admirably set out. Yesterday’s Statement by Jack Straw was somewhat dismissive of the Bill, although in fairness to the Minister, his replies to questions were rather less so. The Bill is indeed limited in its ambitions, but the reforms that it proposes are both useful and necessary. My noble friend has already quoted Dr Meg Russell of UCL, and we know that a restoration of public trust in governance is needed. So, too, do the Government, if we are to believe the proposals in the very comprehensive document, The Governance of Britain. Many in this House will feel that the reforms proposed in the Bill are not only necessary but enough. Others will feel that they are necessary but not enough. That divergence of view is a matter for another day. The point of the Bill is that it has achieved what the Government, and Ministers in this House, say they wish to achieve but have so far signally failed to achieve; all-party consensus on reform of the House of Lords. In that sense, the Bill is historic, although its scope is modest. Those working on it set out to achieve consensus across the House on reform, where that could be done without upsetting the balance between the Houses and without in any way threatening the supremacy of the elected House. It demonstrates that progress can be made on the basis of consensus when a real effort is made to accommodate all honestly held convictions and to take account of them. For that reason, it should be welcomed and not belittled. Consensus is the new watchword in constitutional reform, as even a cursory examination of The Governance of Britain should reveal. The aim of that document is an ““inclusive national debate””. It does somewhat grandly claim that the cross-party talks on Lords reform have built up, "““a significant degree of consensus””." That is obviously not the case, as the vote on 14 March overwhelmingly demonstrated. The Government have now offered consultation on Lords reform with the majority of Members of this House, who support an appointed Chamber. That, in the spirit of the Bill and today’s debate, is to be welcomed. It will, I know, be welcomed by members of the Association of Conservative Peers. General progress on further reform may be made if the Government’s desire is backed up by practical arrangements. In the mean time, the Bill deserves support, not only for what it proposes but for what it has already achieved in the spirit of real consensus.