House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the skill and tact with which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, introduced this Bill, making it clear that it was an independent initiative but deftly keeping within the realms of party policy as well. I noticed yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke to the Statement in this House, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the Labour Party, and my noble friend Lord Tyler for these Benches. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is in the lead again. I am not sure whether that is because he wishes to have a Stalinist hold on this policy or whether he is the only Member on the Conservative Benches willing to advocate it. We will see. I speak from a certain position of strength in that I am the only party leader who, when we debated this in March, had the majority of his flock voting for party policy. It is worth reminding the House of that. Although I address this House with some trepidation, the most hostile Chamber that I addressed was during my early days in your Lordships’ House when I gave my opinion that fox hunting should be banned. I remember the waves of hostility, particularly from my left, on that day. Today, I feel more like a fox hunter addressing a House of foxes, and I know that some very foxy people are dealing with this issue. The balance of how this Bill will be judged was put very well by the wise commentator Peter Riddell, who said in the Times: "““The Government is wary about the Steel Bill partly because most of its supporters favour a wholly appointed House””." However, he fairly went on to say: "““There is a strong case for an interim measure to address anomalies, not least in the light of the cash-for-peerages affair. But this cannot, and should not, be seen as an alternative to resolving the basic question””." That is really where we are. Are the Government willing to see this measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has argued, as a useful first step or, as Peter Riddell hints, will it be used as a cunning ploy by the refuseniks to try to close the matter to further debate? Frankly, if a number of years pass without the issues being addressed, I worry that this House, which is held in high repute, will lose some of that respect. I worry also that because so many Peers have been appointed in the last 10 years—and as we have been reminded today, the average age is 68—we could quickly become a House of nearly 1,000 Members with the majority of that membership aged over 70. A House of Struldbrugs is not going to be attractive to the British people or be seen as particularly representative. Also, as the Bill rightly reflects, there is the continuing problem of the linkage between the peerage and the need of political parties to raise millions of pounds to conduct their affairs. We have to break that linkage once and for all. The Bill has considerable merits, although it is a matter of political judgment whether it is carried forward within the lifetime of this Parliament. But what is not reflected in the debate today is an awareness that a political Rubicon was crossed when the Commons voted for 80 or 100 per cent. I have heard the rationalisations, but I have not seen them reflected in opinions down the Corridor. Members of this House have to realise that when you get a number of factors coming into play—a Prime Minister committed to reform, all three major parties committed to reform and an overwhelming vote of the House of Commons committed to reform—there is a need to move on from working out how to delay reform to working out how it can be facilitated. I add to that one more thing that is contained in the Statement and certainly would be reflected in my own party. We will take to our party conference in September a restatement of our policy, which will, if carried, go into our party manifesto. What will this House do if all three major parties fight a general election committed to reforming this House on the basis of a largely elected Chamber and that proposal is carried in the other place? What will the reaction of this House be to such a progression of events? We have had, as they say, a very good 100 years of discussion but, for those who absolutely refuse the idea of progress on the matter, I think that the time has come to draw stumps and look at some of the practicalities that would allow reform to go ahead. I would like to see wider consultation. One of the best ways would be for the Government to bring forward as soon as possible, certainly within this Parliament, a draft Bill that could go to a Joint Committee of both Houses for proper consideration. There are other ways, as the Leader of the House has shown with her initiative today, where we can involve Back-Benchers in both Houses and thus widen the discussion. So I hope that the Lord Chancellor reads this debate carefully and that some of those who have contributed will think hard about the realities outside what is often the rather cosy cocoon of this House. We must look at the scenario that I have set out, in which political parties go through the democratic process, first internally and then with the electorate, and bring a mandate to this House that has been carried through the democratically elected House of Commons. That could be a very short time away. In the mean time, perhaps I may be permitted one commercial. In the spirit of public service broadcasting, at 4 pm next Tuesday in Committee Room 4A, the Liberal Democrats will be reshowing the film made by my noble friend Lord Glasgow about the battle for reform of this House in 1968. I invite noble Lords along. They might hear some of the same arguments, made, indeed, by some of the same people.