Skip to main content

House of Lords: Reform

Volume 690: debated on Monday 12 March 2007

The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper The House of Lords: Reform (Cm 7027).

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an historic debate. We debate this issue after the other place voted in favour of a 80 per cent-elected and 20 per cent-appointed second Chamber by a majority of 38, and for a 100 per cent-elected second Chamber by a majority of 113.

On an issue of this constitutional significance, it is right that the lead in the national debate should be in both Houses of Parliament. The views of both Houses must contribute to this debate. We in this House have an obligation to express our views and to contribute to and lead, with the other place, that national debate. This is not the time to say that because the other House has voted in a particular way, that should determine how we vote or debate. The votes in the Commons do not determine how we vote. Their votes were important, but we, too, must express our views and put our arguments. The views of both Houses are entitled to respect.

I welcome the extensive participation in the debate in your Lordships’ House. I anticipate that the quality of the debate today and tomorrow, and the votes, will influence the path of reform. We may express different views and reach different conclusions from the views and conclusions reached in the other place. After all, our purpose and our effectiveness come from the fact that we are different from the other place, but the current strength of our Parliament is that both Houses work together and produce solutions.

It is not for me to anticipate the views and votes in this House, but after our debate, we all—Government, Lords and Commons—need to consider whether a basis for progress emerges from the debates in both Houses. I believe that the opportunity is there for a consensus to emerge. It requires us all to be prepared to identify those things on which we agree, to be swayed by debate and to put the interests of our country and its constitution first. This is an issue beyond party politics.

We will, after Questions on Wednesday afternoon, have the opportunity to vote on seven Motions put down in my name and on a separate Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which is that there should be no change to the current composition of this House. The first Motion in my name proposes a fully appointed House, the second supports 20 per cent elected, the third 40 per cent, the fourth 50 per cent, the fifth 60 per cent, the sixth 80 per cent, and the seventh an all-elected House.

While all these are votes on principle, I invite the House to vote on each Motion in my name on the broad basis set out in the White Paper. So, for example, voting for an all-appointed House means a fully appointed House without any hereditary Peers, adopting some form of statutory appointments commission. I say “broad basis”, because all the details would need to be discussed and agreed subsequently. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, allows noble Lords to vote for the preservation of the hereditaries. The House will have the opportunity to vote for his Motion last in the list of Motions.

In the debate on Lords reform, powers and composition cannot be considered in isolation from each other. Only when we know what we want the second Chamber to do can we address the issue of composition. There is no disagreement about the desire to preserve the primacy of the Commons and there is no disagreement on the current powers of this House and the extent to which those powers are exercised in accordance with conventions that govern the relationship between the two Houses.

There are, from time to time, significant disagreements between the two Houses on particular issues of legislation. The Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling, described the conventions on how the disagreements are resolved.

The relationship between the two Houses has changed because the composition of the House has changed since the removal of 90 per cent of the hereditary Peers by the 1999 Act. The House has moved from being one where the Tories were the dominant party and exercised restraint in challenging the Commons—less restraint when a Labour Government were in power compared with when there was a Tory Government, for reasons that are obvious—to one where no party has a dominant position and the Government are vulnerable to being defeated where the two other parties coalesce against them on an issue.

In the context of this newly configured House, the Government sustain regular defeats or opposition amendments to government Bills are passed. It is right that this should continue, whatever party forms a Government in the future. Sometimes the other place will agree to the changes because they are uncontroversial and improve the Bill; sometimes, even though the changes are controversial, the other place will accept them in whole or in part; or the other place will hold out. Normally this place will give way.

The consequence is that the Government get their business but sometimes in a form that they had not initially envisaged. This process of scrutiny and change is effected in the main without significant delay and without gridlock between the two Houses. It is a beneficial part of our constitution. From time to time, the process is attended by tensions between the two Houses, but the conventions are observed. Legislation is amended by your Lordships’ House and the Government get their business.

The tensions make us unpopular with the other place from time to time, but the process works; the conventions hold. The Joint Committee described in a unanimous cross-party, cross-House report a relationship that has widespread support among those charged with making our system work. This broad relationship between the two Houses is one that I would wish to see continue, and there is widespread support for this relationship with the other place and for the role for the House of Lords that I have described.

The debate on composition should, I believe, be conducted on the basis that there is a consensus in support of a House with the role and powers described by the Joint Committee. The White Paper and the Motions that we are debating give this place three broad choices on composition: all appointed, all elected or a hybrid House. All three options, including an all-appointed House, will see the end of the hereditary legislators. If this House votes for an appointed House in accordance with the first Motion in my name, it will be doing so on the basis that the hereditaries are removed and that there is a statutory appointments commission.

At this point, I want to refer to the undertaking that my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg gave to this House when he said that the hereditary Peers would remain until stage two of reform took place. There have been suggestions—and there may well be again today—that this meant a pledge to introduce an elected element into the House. It did not. Any of the seven propositions in my name would be sufficient to fulfil the terms of the pledge because any of them would constitute stage two of the reform.

The all-appointed option set out in the Motion in my name would not, I anticipate, materially change the conventions that the Joint Committee has described, so this option would achieve a more modern basis for an all-appointed House. It would allow for the process of appointment to produce a more representative House without threatening the current working of the House, but it would still leave the House with no democratic element.

Our House is able to make the substantial changes to legislation that I have described. We are a partner with the other place in passing legislation in a substantive and real way. In the context of our democracy, because no one would deny that legislation must be approved in a democratic way, is it sufficient that the democratic element comes from approval by the Commons of the final form of the Bill? The Government’s view is that it is not sufficient. As we said in the White Paper at paragraph 1.4:

“In the Government’s view, it is difficult, in a modern democracy, to justify a second chamber where there is no elected element and in which the public has no direct input into who sits in it”.

We are utterly different from the civil servants who draft Bills, or pressure groups that propose amendments. We are also completely different from the judiciary, which has its own functions in the constitution. Elections for the judiciary would be inappropriate; its legal conclusions can always be changed by legislation. We, in this House, are partners in making legislation. Our role in scrutiny is vital, effective and far-reaching. We are not a quango; we are a legislative Chamber. We need democratic connection. If that is right, should that democratic element take the form of a wholly elected House or a hybrid House?

If the reform adopted is for an all-elected House, we will be embarking on a wholly new sort of Chamber. There will be no ambiguity about its democratic connection. It will not run into the complications of hybridity, which are real, although I believe surmountable. While there would no doubt be a long transitional period and current Members—or at least some of them—would be able to stay until the last of what would be the waves of introductions of a wholly elected House, first and foremost the question would be raised on the extent to which the new all-elected House would operate in the context of the current conventions.

There is no appetite for a House that seeks parity with the other place. In the context of a wholly elected House, the primacy of the Commons could be preserved only with a detailed and accepted definition of the relationship between the two Houses. I say that for two reasons. First, an all-elected House is, by its nature, a complete break with the current arrangements, so the institutional acceptance of the existing arrangements would be lost. Secondly, the basis on which the elected second Chamber was compelled to accept that its election gave it less validity than the first Chamber would need to be spelt out to give the first Chamber confidence that its primacy was sustainable.

Written-down arrangements can, no doubt, be devised, but they would involve a very significant change to our constitutional arrangements. That would be produced by a big bang, with inevitable effects on how the other place did its business. A big bang would have two further effects. The first would be the removal of the appointed Cross-Bench element; we would lose expertise that has marked us out as different from the other place. The second would be that the right reverend Prelates would leave; the relationship with the church would go and it could not be replaced by an arrangement whereby the established church stayed in some form but other faiths had representation as well, through appointment, because there would be no appointments.

The proposal for an all-elected House is the one that achieved the biggest majority in the other place—a very substantial majority. We must take that vote at face value. It will be on the record for generations to come. The ramifications of adopting that course need to be identified and considered. I have identified the more obvious consequences. There will no doubt be others and, beyond that, the unforeseen consequences, but they would all need to be considered. They would go beyond reform simply of your Lordships’ House. Maybe the nation is ready for that, but we cannot assume that to be the case, and certainly not without the most careful consideration of the consequences.

The other alternative is a hybrid House. There would be two types of Peer: elected and unelected. Hybridity produces both democratic connection and connection with the existing institution. The transitional arrangements identified in the White Paper can play a significant part in ensuring continuity, which has always been an important part of our constitution, so that the conventions of the existing institution, with proper support, have more prospect of survival. Parliamentarians have, in the main, no appetite for confrontation between the two Houses. Nor, I believe, do the public; they want the constructive approach that comes from working together.

A part-elected House is a much more fertile landscape within which, if there is good will and active support from all three political parties, the conventions could be preserved in a way that does not require the black-letter changes to the constitution that a fully elected House would require. What percentage should be elected? The more who are elected, the greater the democratic connection, but the greater the threat to the conventions on legislation and probably the greater the use of the Parliament Acts. Those are the three main choices. There is also the choice given by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

At the conclusion of this debate, we will need to consider what has been said in both Houses of Parliament. We will reconvene the cross-party group, to which we will present working papers. We will consider a further White Paper. In accordance with the promise given in paragraph 4.17 of the current White Paper, we will evaluate, in the light of the debates, the extent to which the various options that emerge from these debates affect the conventions, and we need to make proposals for how the preservation of those conventions may be promoted and achieved. We may decide to publish a further White Paper. We will then publish a draft Bill.

I await the debate today and tomorrow with real anticipation. We will have different views, one from the other, but from this debate I have no doubt will emerge a quality and a clarity that will assist in identifying the way forward. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper The House of Lords: Reform (Cm 7072).—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

My Lords, I offer the noble and learned Lord my commiserations and, indeed, admiration because, as noble Lords will have seen from the speakers’ list, not only is he opening this debate but he will close it tomorrow evening. That, in itself, is no mean feat. We have a record number of speakers—nearly 130. The number of speakers has fluctuated a little, but it is certainly the longest list I have seen in my 21 years here. It shows well the stamina of the noble and learned Lord, although there is another explanation: when he asked for volunteers, no one stepped forward—how unlike the response of my own noble friend, the shadow Lord Chancellor, who leapt at the chance to make the winding-up speech for these Benches, to which I very much look forward.

The list may be long, but feel the quality. My eye is drawn to the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who is making his maiden speech from the Back Benches.

Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I wish to spend a few moments on last week’s votes in another place, especially the vote on Mr Straw’s preferred option of a 50:50 hybrid House. That option was given a humiliating drubbing by a majority of 263 votes and proved the least popular option. Although it was not clear from what the noble and learned Lord said, I assume that the 50:50 House is dead in the water, and I hope that life will not be breathed into it again.

However, from their television appearances at the end of last week, you would be forgiven for thinking that Mr Straw and the noble and learned Lord had always been in favour of a wholly elected House. They said they were delighted with the result and that it was all just as they had wanted it: the Government were delighted, everybody was delighted, even the gargoyles in the Palace of Westminster were delighted. However we come at this huge question, which has intermittently engaged Parliament for well over a century, however you look at last week’s votes, and regardless of whether you argue that there was not a majority in this or that party or whether you think that the final vote was affected by tactical voting, those votes have changed things dramatically.

In the most public way possible, the other place has voted for only two options to be considered. In both they say that all political Members of a new House must be directly elected by the people. The elected House has said, therefore, in two Divisions that it sees no objection in principle to two elected Chambers and has firmly rejected the idea of an all-appointed House. Many will find that fact—Ministers profess delight in it—painful and surprising, yet when you look at the breakdown of the votes, nothing is as clear as we first thought. Labour MPs voted against every option except the all-elected option. The Cabinet voted for an all-elected House by a majority of six—the smallest margin of the day, but with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the holders of the three great offices of state abstaining, and Mr Straw, among others, against them.

There was no consensus among Conservative MPs either; in fact, there was a majority of them against every option. The only main party not to split on the options was the Liberal Democrats. Those clever Liberal Democrats have worked out that, under proportional representation, they get to control the second Chamber. Is that what the Government want?

Most of this House will profoundly disagree with another place on the value of an appointed House, and another place will have to reflect deeply on your Lordships’ views, but those votes have created new realities with which we must now grapple. I agree with the noble and learned Lord: we can no more dictate our model to the other place than it should seek to impose one on us. There was talk last week of an early Bill—another Bill, just as last week's Bill was being shredded—and of readiness to use the Parliament Acts. I ask the noble and learned Lord to say unequivocally that the Government will not use the Parliament Acts to impose unilateral legislation in this Parliament.

That is not to ask for a Lords veto, as some Ministers have put it; it is a matter of constitutional equity. There was no proposal in the Government’s 2005 manifesto for an elected House, and in this Parliament this House might legitimately consider resisting a Bill to introduce one. To lift the threat of the Parliament Acts would be wise. We could then use the time until the end of this Parliament to work out the implications of those votes—as the noble and learned Lord suggested, there are many—and to seek real consensus on the way forward.

Time is essential. When Mr Straw moved to close the cross-party talks at the beginning of this year, which he had conducted with such characteristic courtesy and skill, I asked the Government to allow more time in view of the many questions still unresolved. They refused, but I welcome the commitment today that those discussions should be restarted. Those talks will be hard. The Houses are divided; the parties are divided; and, in so far as the nation thinks about it at all, which I fear is not very much, the people themselves are divided.

We also have two very different prospectuses from the other place. In one, with which I would agree, independent Cross-Benchers would remain as life Peers in this House; in the other, they would go. In one, with which I again agree, the right reverend Prelates would remain in this House; in the other, they would go, with all the immense implications for the establishment of the church. It would not be disestablishment, as the Queen would remain Supreme Governor of the Church, but it would hew a mighty stone out of the arch.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but on cross-party talks, given that the parties are divided would it be possible in future talks to ensure that a range of views in the parties is represented?

My Lords, what a typically intriguing suggestion from my noble friend. As the noble and learned Lord, with Mr Straw, will be setting up those meetings, it may be up to him to issue the invitations to whomever he would like to come along.

Those examples—the Cross-Benchers and the Lords spiritual—are just two ways in which there is a world of difference between a 100 per cent elected House and an 80:20 House. There are many others. The noble and learned Lord and his colleagues are fond of telling us that the elected House has spoken and we must obey. He did not go down that route today. He said that there is the possibility—I would argue, a likelihood—of a new White Paper, possibly even a Green Paper. He may well wish to consider that during the next two days. There may be a new Joint Committee or even a new royal commission. He will, I understand, also wish to study the 80:20 option, which also commanded a majority of 38.

The lack of detail in the Government’s White Paper showed how much still needs to be thought through. I should perhaps make it clear that we in my party could not accept the idea that an elected second Chamber should be elected by PR. So far as we are concerned, there should never be election on party lists, that grotesque entrenchment of party patronage which this House rightly tried so hard to prevent for the European parliamentary elections in 1998 and 1999.

There is so much more that needs to be debated and resolved and on which there is much disagreement. There are, as I mentioned, the methods of election as well as the date of election. Why should the election be held on the European election day? Then there are the terms, certainly the non-renewable ones, and the question of constituencies. Perhaps the latter should be cities and counties and not the remote European regions suggested by Mr Straw, where Scotland and Wales are themselves constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has come up with a substantial estimate of the costs incurred by pay, pensions and office support. Do the Government agree with him? If not, what is their view on this critical matter?

Other issues include how to encourage independence from party in an election and during service; the related right or otherwise to move from one House to another; and relations between Members of the two Houses in routine constituency matters and where there is disagreement on legislation. The size of the House is also an issue; surely a fully elected House of 540 could not also sustain 600 life Peers. What has happened to the commitment made by the noble and learned Lord at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere that all life Peers should continue for life? Life means life—or does it any more? What about the name of the House, if Lords are no more? None of these things is adequately settled by the White Paper, and all will need to be addressed afresh or anew. On top of this, Ministers have hinted that the powers of the House might need to be put under tighter restraint if the House were elected. However, that simply will not do.

The excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, and his committee thwarted the Government’s aim to limit the powers of this House. The Government say that we do not need to revisit those conventions, which they say must stay just the same to stop an elected House from challenging the other place. I am afraid that that defies the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. This goes right to the heart of the debate, which is not about the rather sterile and abstract votes that we will be having on Wednesday afternoon on the 60:40 or 80:20 options. Most important are the power of this House and the authority to use it. That is what is at stake. An elected senator would inevitably use the powers of this House more assertively than Members of the current House do, just as this House has done since 1999. I have no complaint about this, as I want a stronger House with the authority to use those powers. The Government’s position could not be more wrong. If reform does not serve to strengthen this House—and Parliament as a whole if another place is also reformed, which, as my right honourable friend Mr Cameron has so rightly said, is an urgent necessity—it has no purpose and will fail.

We have a House that most of us think has worked well since 1999, but the Government were not content with the huge reform accomplished then by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in ending the right of anyone to sit here by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Now that they have had their votes in another place, it is likely that things will never again be as they once were. Those of us who know, love and understand this House know how vital it is to seek to preserve what we may of its ethos, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, wisely enabled it to be preserved in 1999. We know how essential it is to proceed by consensus. How enormous, therefore, is the work that needs to be done if the votes in another place are to become the basis of government legislation? Think of the length of the Greater London Act to shape a new mayor. Shall a Bill to unmake half a millennium and create a new House in place of your Lordships’ House be any simpler? It is vital that the Government and all Parliament hear the practical wisdom of your Lordships on the questions that would arise from any reform.

The noble and learned Lord has in the past said that he is unsure what I stand for; I think that he knows, and I will vote for it on Wednesday. My view has been consistent and, before the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, points it out, has been consistently unpopular with many of your Lordships and many of my noble friends.

My Lords, I believe and have long said openly that if we are to continue to have reform—for all the force of argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, whom I so greatly respect—in the 21st century, it can be only on the basis of election of political Peers. That would strengthen the authority of this House to require the other place to do its job properly, not just in the occasional gallant and noble gesture as on control orders, jury trial or ID cards but consistently. So if there is to be a stage 2 reform, unless this House is to sink into a backwater, as it was perhaps before the reforms of 1958 and 1963—and, arguably, as it was before 1999—I believe that a new House should be an 80:20 House, for which I will vote, for its own sake and as a signal to another place that it would be a major error to remove the Cross Benchers and the Bishops as the 100 per cent option would.

We shall have a free vote. I do not predict a stampede behind me. However, whether we like election or not, we all have a duty to require the Government to think the option out far better than they have done so far. Over the past nine years, every initiative and deadline has been made and set by the Government. So, too, has almost every mistake on this issue. When this began I said that if you uprooted the boundary stones between the two Houses, as the Government did, and set them rolling down the hill, no one could know where they would come to rest. The law of unintended consequences would apply, and so it has proved. The settlement of 1911 and 1949 was torn up, despite a Conservative reform in 1958 that brought life Peers here—that is within the memory of some noble Lords in the Chamber today. The 1999 Act put the 1958 House on notice. The 2007 vote in another place has put the 1999 House on notice. We still do not know what the settlement of the 21st century will be, but we know it has probably come closer.

I hope that the Government will show some humility in this debate and that there will be more understanding from another place of this great House and what it means. I also hope that we, here, will not lift the drawbridge against reform. The White Paper may have failed. The threat that it presented has gone, but a new process has begun. It will take time, need much wisdom and involve some pain. I ask noble Lords to see the opportunity as well as the danger. I am proud of what we have done together in the past nine years to hold the candle for individual liberty and freedom. I know that, given more authority, we could have done far more. Reform offers the opportunity to take that authority, and that is why I shall vote for it on Wednesday.

My Lords, I welcome the spirit in which the Lord Chancellor opened this debate and the courage with which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has announced to his Back-Benchers how he intends to vote. I thought that he left all Benches in this House with a very important message, which I hope will carry through to Wednesday’s vote; that is, this House should not lift the drawbridge on reform. We have a long debate ahead of us, so perhaps it would be useful if I start by saying that my Chief Whip, in his usual gentle but persuasive manner, has invited colleagues on these Benches to vote, as did our colleagues in the Commons, for the 80 per cent and 100 per cent elected options, and for no other.

We do so because voting on those lines fulfils the pledge made in our last manifesto, which is in line with that of our predecessor Liberal Party. That pledge has stood for nearly 100 years and its intent is to substitute for the House of Lords as it presently exists a second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis. Seeing that near 100 year-old pledge and realising that I would have to persuade colleagues on my Benches, I thought I would consult Lord Crewe, the Leader of the Liberals in the House of Lords when that 1911 Bill went through. It is an interesting read, and this quote is about the Liberal Benches. He said:

“this small team was neither easy to control, nor always dependable. Some peers would suddenly fall ill before a big debate; others begged off on the plea of seasonal country occupations; others again would quixotically embark on lengthy Mediterranean cruises without so much as warning the … Chief Whip. And in a situation where every vote counted, the Liberal peers continued to act with all the freedom and personal eccentricity which in the past had reduced the party to a state of anarchy”.

It makes me feel how fortunate I am today. But of course I realise that not all colleagues will be with me. I understand, for example, that my noble friend Lord Steel is going to do a kind of St Augustine in reverse. Having lived a life of unblemished sanctity on this matter, he has decided in the autumn of his years to give sin a twirl.

The headlines in the national newspapers, not to mention the cartoons, suggest that Lords reform has been settled once and for all by the votes last week in the other place, but those of us who know how Parliament works know that that is far from the reality. Given a constructive response from this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated, we are at the beginning, not the end of a process. I hope I can persuade noble Lords that this House has survived for 800 years because it has known when to bend and not to break.

I have brought with me today the three documents which, together with the votes last Wednesday in the other place, show us the way forward. They are the Wakeham royal commission report, the Cunningham committee report on conventions and the Straw White Paper. Within their pages there are answers to the very legitimate concerns held in both Houses and among the wider public outside about the future powers and composition of this House. The Cunningham committee report demonstrates that it is possible to work out the conventions between the Houses in a way that ensures the continuing primacy of the House of Commons. Indeed, we would argue from these Benches that there could be a permanent conventions committee which would also act as a resolutions committee as an alternative to ping-pong in order to resolve differences between the two Houses. I agree with Mr Straw that the Cunningham conventions provide the template for relations between the two Houses for many years to come, and to suggest otherwise is just an attempt by the opponents of reform to frighten the horses. I believe in the primacy of the House of Commons and I find it slightly bizarre that those in the Cunningham committee who argued most fervently for that primacy will argue over the next two days that we should now ignore the opinion of the Commons. Primacy can and will be protected.

The other great concern is that this House will lose the quality and expertise which comes through nomination, particularly to the Cross Benches. Here I believe we find our solution in both Wakeham and Straw. Both accept the wisdom of what I would call a glide path to reform. The elected element would enter this House over a period of three elections and a Cross- Bench element would be retained and refreshed by a statutory Appointments Commission. As colleagues know, I am not an unalloyed supported of the concept of Cross-Benchers. I am a strong supporter of people joining political parties. It is the joiners who make our democracy work, and indeed I am like Elizabeth Taylor and marriage: I am so enthusiastic about the institution that I have tried it more than once. However, we should retain a Cross-Bench representation of about 20 per cent of the reformed House by nomination via a statutory Appointments Commission, and I do not think we should underestimate the ability of independents of quality being elected if the method of election adopted is by proportional representation, especially if it is by the single transferable vote.

So let us be clear. What is on offer at the moment is a decisive view from the House of Commons and an invitation from Mr Straw, repeated by the Lord Chancellor today, to negotiate next steps. It is, of course, open to this House over the next couple of days to organise a train wreck, but to do so would be the most pyrrhic of pyrrhic victories. I ask noble Lords to give pause for thought before they take that course.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the views of both Houses are worthy of respect, but the House of Lords cannot have the veto on this matter. The Commons vote changes the nature of the debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated. The vote of the House of Commons makes it abundantly clear that the status quo, or anything close to it, is simply not an option. All three parties had specific commitments to Lords reform in their most recent manifesto—as has been pointed out, the Conservative Party’s was even more specific than that of the Labour Party. The leader of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and the Labour Party leader-in-waiting all voted for 80 per cent elected. If noble Lords opt to wreck this process in the face of those realities, the best they will achieve is a delay until after the next general election. I hope that in that event, all three parties will put in their manifesto a specific commitment to Lords reform, coupled with an equally specific commitment to use the Parliament Act to get it through.

Of course delaying tactics are an option. But those who argue that delay is better than constructive negotiation should ponder on what has happened in the past seven years to the offer on Lords reform. We started with the Prime Minister committed to 100 per cent nomination; Wakeham proposed 20 per cent elected; Straw suggested 50 per cent; now the Commons has voted for 80 per cent and 100 per cent elected. The other place is becoming more radical in its demands, not less. I believe that those who argue for defiance of the Commons will lead us down a very dangerous path and miss the chance to negotiate from relative strength. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated, your Lordships have much to be proud about when it comes to how this House has worked, particularly since the first stage of reform in 1998.

I agree with the writer in the Guardian who recently said that one of the great paradoxes of our time was that whereas in the 20th century, the two great reforming Governments—Liberal in 1906 and Labour in 1945— had to face a recalcitrant House of Lords, in the 21st century, it is this House which has been the defender of civil liberties and human rights against an increasingly authoritarian Government.

The “if it works don’t try and fix it” argument does not wash, any more than the ploy of calling for Commons reform first. The reality, which we have to face, is that we are a House of patronage and appointment. Patronage and appointment have become linked in the public mind with sleaze and corruption. That is a major reason why the other place acted so decisively last week. There was a strong desire on its part to draw a line under the whole grubby business of cash for peerages. I think that the other place is right to do so. One way that such a line can be drawn is for the Government to announce that there will be no further nominations to this House until after the next stage of the reform is agreed and thereafter only via a statutory Appointments Commission to the Cross Benches. Dealing with existing life Peers in a fair and honourable way while phasing in the elected Peers will be difficult enough without adding to the problem. If they bother to read the White Paper, noble Lords will see that the Straw proposals are exceedingly fair to existing life Peers. More than 380 life Peers have been created over the Blair years. They will all get older and it will be difficult to manage. What better way for Mr Blair to demonstrate his personal commitment to reform than by forgoing his resignation honours list?

In this country, the battle to replace patronage and corruption with democratic accountability has been a long one. One hundred and eighty years ago, the Times newspaper won its accolade of “the Thunderer” because it thundered for reform. Indeed, 40 years ago my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, wrote a book called The People into Parliament. I believe that once again this is a debate about the extension of the franchise. It is interesting that the arguments are the old ones. The arguments against trusting the people have always been the same—that people of quality would not submit themselves to the democratic process and that, even if they did, the electorate are ill suited and ill qualified to make the right choices. If those arguments had prevailed, the Member for Old Sarum would still be sitting in the House of Commons. But they have not prevailed. The task before this House during the next two days is to consider our response to a clear and settled view from the House of Commons. I urge noble Lords to reject options which will bring us into open conflict with the other place and instead adopt responses which will allow for constructive negotiations.

I urge noble Lords to listen carefully. There is a noise coming down that Corridor. It is a noise which this House has heard before. It heard it in 1832; it heard it in 1911. It is the thunder of reform, and this House ignores it at its peril.

My Lords, this is a debate on the whole of the Government’s White Paper, with a view to the House giving, on Wednesday, its opinion about its future composition. It is a debate not just about arithmetic. We could do quite a lot of it by looking at the votes in the other House and at recasting them in certain ways, but I am not talking about that. I want to stress that there are many other elements in the White Paper which have not been debated but should be because they determine the nature of the House when any changes are made. I refer, for example, to the role of the statutory Appointments Commission, the method and timing of voting, which is absolutely essential to the nature of the House, and how to ensure diversity. That has not been mentioned today, but it is an objective and it would be much more difficult in a wholly elected House. All those points are of importance.

In the earlier discussions and in the White Paper, the Government expressed themselves in favour of the search for consensus. For example, the foreword to the White Paper stressed that broad agreement on some of the key issues is highly desirable. It also stated:

“Deadlock would be easy to achieve; the prize of progress means moving forward gradually and by consensus”.

Indeed, the model presented in the White Paper was intended to be one around which consensus on the issue might be achieved. I strongly hope that the Government have not gone back on their commitment to seek consensus. One might get the impression that that will be very difficult to achieve following votes in the House of Commons last week and votes here this week. However, in the aftermath of the votes in the House of Commons, it would be quite wrong to forget that what we are trying to achieve is consensus. It may take time, but that is what we should be trying to do.

I shall concentrate my remarks on some key points in the White Paper which go wider than, but are directly relevant to, the all-appointed, all-elected or part-elected composition of the House. It will be no surprise that, as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, I shall make reference to the value of the independent element in our dominantly political parliamentary system and to the generally favourable public opinion of the independent role.

The House of Commons decided last week not to have a preferential vote, but simply to vote for or against a number of Motions, giving its opinion on the composition of the House. It voted in favour of two Motions: one for a largely elected House—the 80:20 option—and one for a fully elected House. We are quite entitled to take account of both those decisions in our debate today and tomorrow, although our decisions are for this House alone.

My first point is that there would be a substantive difference in the relations between the two Houses if we were to move from an appointed to an elected House. Although the House of Commons would retain the powers given by the Parliament Act, the public would quite soon begin to judge the prospects of new legislation by the likely reception not only in the House of Commons but also in this reformed House with its new democratic mandate. We might not be given more power, but it would obviously accrue to this House.

Secondly, the Labour Party manifesto of 1997, which is of course engraved on my heart, said:

“We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers”.

Then the royal commission report of 2000 and all the various bodies, government White Papers and proposals agreed that at least 20 per cent of the membership of a reformed House should be independent, non-party-political Peers, who would be appointed under a new system by a statutory Appointments Commission. I think that most of my colleagues on these Benches are strongly in favour of that, as it would be a step forward; but the definition of an independent Peer and the role of the statutory Appointments Commission are very important points for the future.

The most recent statement is in the White Paper that we are debating today, which says in paragraph 6.20:

“As to the proportion of non party-political members to form part of the reformed House, the Wakeham Commission suggested this should be at least 20%, and the Government agrees”.

We see no reason to doubt that the Government’s agreement would be reflected in any legislation that they might put forward. I note that Mr Gordon Brown voted for the 80:20 option and did not vote for the fully elected option. Wise man!

Thirdly, we have to recognise that if there is to be any elected element, almost all the most important questions are not settled by the simple vote on membership. For example, how long would the transitional period be? For practical purposes, it would obviously be very long, although some of us older folk might want to compare it with our likely lifespan, which does not seem to be totally clear.

Then there are all the elements that are the essence of a democratic system. For example, do the public vote for their Members in the second Chamber on the same day as they vote for their Members in the other House? Why not? I am in favour of that, as it would maximise the public’s participation, which we should be in favour of. Should there be a list or a first-past-the-post system? Should it be done on a regional or group-of-constituencies basis? Where would the Ministers come from, if we ever did have a fully elected House? Obviously, they would come from the Members of this House—they could not come from the Members of the House of Commons.

Finally, while ending any hereditary-basis membership of the House, how do we ensure that continued membership on a non-hereditary basis is possible for those Peers? It would be quite crazy in my view—and I am not a hereditary Peer—to lose their experience and ability.

To sum up, treating with only a few major points, consensus must remain the Government’s objective as they have always stated, despite the vote in the House of Commons last week. Let us see whether this can be achieved. We need some time, because we have many things to settle, to which I have referred. We should stand by the commitments that at least 20 per cent of the membership of a reformed House would be independent, non-party-political Peers, and any move to a partly elected House could be properly judged only when the essential questions of the timing, the type of election, the length of transition and all the remaining points that have hardly been debated have been looked at and agreed. The answers to those questions are the preconditions to any sensible discussion of an elected House and any argument for change.