Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, I am not too keen on the amendments in this group either, which is unusual, because usually I am strongly behind anything that my noble friend Lord Grocott puts forward. Although I have not long been a Member of this House, some noble Lords, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, portray me as a dinosaur who is anti-reform, lives in the past and does not want any change. I will come to that in a couple of minutes. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I will say a word in favour of party Whips—all party Whips. Sometimes when I see some of their performances, it strains my faith in the importance of Whips, but in general I am in favour of them performing their duties. They do it very well; they organise the place and make it work. The popular image that they get people in corners and inflict pain, both physical and mental, is simply not true nowadays. My noble friend Lord Prescott has fond memories of one of the greatest Whips in history, Walter Harrison, who almost single-handedly carried the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 with no majority. He did extremely well. I am a reformer and I believe that there can be change in the House of Lords. There can be change in the House of Commons as well, but in this context we are dealing with the House of Lords. To imply that I am against all change is not true. The older one gets, the more experienced one gets. I am in favour of slow change. Something should be done to curb the increasing number of Members of the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been looking at ways of getting people to retire and giving them the opportunity to leave early. That is fine. I am astonished that the Conservatives, who in general are more traditionalist than Liberal Democrats or Labour Members, do not see that they are overseeing the wrecking of this place. They seem not to realise that over the past 17 hours we have crossed the Rubicon and things will never be quite the same again. There is danger here. I do not regard it with pleasure or joy, but as a red light signal about what could happen. Majorities can change. I think that if the boundary redistribution goes through in its current form, it will be to the disadvantage of the Labour Party, but opinions vary on the effect of the change. However, one thing is certain; we will be back in government one day. I am not sure when that day will come and will make no rash threats or promises—it has taken us 18 years before, and it took the Conservatives 13—but our turn will come again. The danger is from the damage to consensus. This has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Prescott. Those who want to fight not the class war but the war against political opponents will come to the fore and say, ““The Liberal Democrats did it to us, now we will get our revenge on them””. I would regret that attitude—and that would be nothing to what those on the Labour side would do to the Conservatives if they got back in power. That is the damage that is being done. I have a lot of respect for many traditionalist Conservative Peers. They have been extremely kind and courteous, and I have no word of criticism for them. Damage has been done, however, and, once power changes hands after an election, the seeds of damage will have been sown. There will be less tolerance, less give and take and less of the usual channels. The call will come to inflict damage on the electoral prospects of the Conservative Party, which I would oppose; and on the electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, which ultimately I would oppose but it would take me a wee while. That is where the damage is being done. I will mention the expertise, knowledge and judgment of the Cross-Benchers. I am still making my transition to this place. Some Peers have come up to me and said, ““I heard you say such and such. Perhaps you could say it differently and not use that language””. More Cross-Bench Peers have approached me in the past few months, looking to help and guide me, than Peers from any other party or party grouping. They bring that expertise. I have seen and heard the knowledge displayed by Peers on all sides of the House but particularly by the Cross-Benchers, who do not have an overtly political angle. It is desirable that the Cross-Benchers should remain an integral part of the House. The biggest damage has been done since the election. Again, I find it astonishing that traditionalist conservative Peers would go along with it. I am big on party loyalty and I understand it in other people, too. However, the proposed reforms ride roughshod over the House of Lords, where the chemistry and alchemy have changed because the Government have a majority. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have tried to maintain the fig leaf that they are not one unit and that the Government do not have a majority. I wish that they would be more open and honest and say, ““Yes, we do have a majority””. This fact of life has been shown over the past 17 hours; the Government as a unit have a majority. It would be a lot better if they recognised that and were more honest about it. That is where the biggest damage is getting done. There are elements of the Liberal Democrats in particular who say, ““We are the masters now””. Yes, the Government are the masters, but it will not last. Reinforcing that by increasing of the number of new Peers is damaging. I do not care which Government they are; when a Government know that they have that power, especially in the House of Lords, where it has not happened before, it affects their approach to the Opposition and to legislation, and that arrogance of power does damage. Ultimately, it will do damage to the Conservative Party in particular. We have seen that in the behaviour of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am sorry to say this because of his good personality. There are aspects of, ““We are in charge and we are riding roughshod over you. We are not consulting. We are moving Motions that are entirely unprecedented””. If there are complaints about alleged filibustering, take it up with the usual channels and get a response. It is extremely short-sighted desperation to try to get this Bill through under any circumstances and at any price. The alchemy mixes up arrogance with being able to get a majority in this place. Ministers do not seem to realise that that is affecting them. However, they have that alchemy, chemistry or mix to put things through. It is affecting the atmosphere of the House, and within that are the seeds of self-destruction. I do not say that with any joy, because this country needs a balance by having a right-of-centre and a left-of-centre party. We do not need a party that is totally obsessed with voting systems and nothing else, an obsession that I have never understood. I have always understood that the Conservative Party wants power and I have always understood that my own party has struggled to get that power. That is the to-ing and fro-ing of British democracy and politics which has worked. The House of Lords is an integral part of that. The vision put forward by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth shows what happens. I say that with great respect to my noble friend—I have always got on with him and I always will. It shows that, when you start thinking about systems, and despite this small liberal idea about tinkering with the House of Lords to make it more democratic, the place works, as the past 17 hours have shown. That is not to say that it cannot be altered here and there, gradually and slowly. I definitely would not go along with all the various systems that have been discussed for too long in intellectual circles. I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friend Lord Knight’s proposal, and I am sorry to say that on this occasion I could not support the proposals of my noble friend Lord Grocott. My last appeal is to Conservative colleagues and perhaps my Cross-Bench colleagues. I do not see any faces that I can appeal to among the Liberals, but I would certainly ask traditionalist Conservative Peers and Cross-Benchers to watch this situation carefully.