The Duke of Wellington:

Moved by The Duke of Wellington

8: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Altmann, for signing the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would have done so if she had been in time.

I have stated in previous debates that although I will be immeasurably sad to leave, I do not feel able to oppose the Bill. I have always recognised that the matter was in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech, and was passed by the House of Commons unamended. But before I and others leave, I want to try to persuade His Majesty’s Ministers to go a little bit further than the Leader has already indicated.

I suspect that some of the reforms—for which there is probably quite wide support in this House—will require legislation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is being a bit pessimistic about the risk of legislation coming from this House to the House of Commons on reforming some of its aspects. If it comes having reached a consensus in this House, I think it very likely that the Leader would be able to persuade her ministerial colleagues that the Government should back it in the House of Commons.

The Leader announced earlier in the debate that she was proposing to recommend that the House sets up a Select Committee, but she initially referred only to it considering retirement and participation. I suggest that there are other matters in the manifesto, and indeed other matters still, that ought to be considered by the Select Committee, such as the removal of disgraced Members, an improvement in the regional balance—a very good point—and of course the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on the size of the House. I believe that there is considerable support across the House for a number of those reforms.

The Leader will not like me to say this, but it is more and more assumed across the House that, once the Bill becomes an Act, which it clearly will soon, there will not be the stamina or courage on the part of the Government to attempt another piece of legislation on House of Lords reform. The Leader indicated a few minutes ago that the Select Committee could consider what would not require legislation and what might require legislation, so I think she implied it would therefore lead to some necessary legislation. I hope that the Leader might be able to go a little further towards the intent that there should be legislation where it is required to carry out certain reforms that were in the manifesto and other ideas that are around.

We cannot pretend that the removal of the hereditary Peers will improve the effectiveness of the House; that simply cannot be proven. However, I believe that other reforms, about which there is considerable consensus, could improve the effectiveness of the House. My Amendment 8 is deliberately non-specific. Other amendments, both those we debated earlier and those we will address later, are very specific, but mine is deliberately non-specific. I do not wish to tie the hands of either the Government or the House as to what further reforms could be brought forward. I have deliberately stated “two years”, which gives the Government time to devise the next piece of legislation.

I believe that the amendment could be supported by all the political parties, both here and in the other place, and the Cross Benches, because we surely all want to improve both the effectiveness and the composition of this House. I understand that the length of time taken to get to this point with the Bill will make any Government very nervous about attempting any further legislative moves. I hope that the Leader will have the ability and courage to move towards, and to declare, a greater intent for further legislation, and I think that would be broadly supported by the House. It would not be right if the Government went into the next general election telling the country that they had reformed the House of Lords simply by removing the hereditary Peers. In the meantime, I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to my Amendment 29, which would link the exclusion of hereditary Peers to a stage-two proposal. In Amendment 29, I have set out what ought to be included in a Bill. There is merit in saying to the Government that the hereditary Peers should not be excluded from this House unless and until the Government have brought forward stage-two proposals—that is the simple purpose of my amendment.

My Lords, in theory, my Amendment 14 ought not to be in this group because it would do something quite different. I did not ask for it to be degrouped because I did not want these Benches to be accused of trying to have separate groups of amendments to pad it out.

I say to the Leader that I listened carefully—on the monitor because I could not get in here—to what she said in her opening speech. She did not mention consultation, but in Committee numerous Ministers on that Front Bench told us that retirements and attendance could not be addressed in the Bill because they needed to consult on it, they needed to get more expert advice and there were lots of loose ends to be tied up. The noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, did most of that. That is a separate matter that I just wanted to put on the record.

Those of us who were here for the whole of Committee stage knew there was widespread support for a retirement age of around 85 and some tweaks, as we have heard. There was widespread support for removing the minority of Peers who never turn up or turn up so infrequently that their contribution to the House is not essential. A couple of speeches per annum from a grandee who never serves on a committee nor does any of the other heavy lifting in this House does not, in my opinion, justify attendance. That is why I support Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, which we will deal with next week.

There is also limited support for a participation requirement, but that is much more difficult and technical and would require a lot of Peers to give thoughtful consideration as to how it would work.

I say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton that I, too, do not like our retirement age, but the Government have said that one of the justifications for the Bill is that there are too many Peers and they have got to reduce the size of the Lords. Therefore, a sensible retirement age is a far more moral and legitimate way to do it than evicting hard-working hereditaries.

On the first two points, on retirements and attendance, I believe there is a majority view in the House that we should do something about it. I believe that view is just as strong on the Labour side. I think Labour Peers want to act on it, but they accept the government line that there cannot be any amendments on this issue since that would open up the Bill to all other amendments. In Committee, the Government said they needed to consult on it, but now they have suggested that a Select Committee do that consultation and all the heavy work and then they will bring forward a new Bill in due course to implement those requirements on minimum attendance, participation requirements and possibly even tightening up the removal of disgraced Members. Today, we have seen a masterful stroke from the Leader in her opening remarks, offering this special Select Committee to look at these matters.

But, if this House and a Select Committee come up with solutions, does anyone seriously think the Government will implement them? I will give way to any noble Lord or Lady who will say that they are absolutely confident that this Government or any Government in the future will bring forward new primary legislation on changes to the composition of this House. I do not think it will ever happen. Any new primary Bill will be subject to getting all the amendments which have been tabled for this Bill. I suspect the Public Bill Office would even accept amendments—because they are quite wide-ranging—on the reintroduction of hereditary Peers, which we would debate for days on end. It is far too dangerous for any Government. With the pressure on the Government over the next few years with all the legislation proposed, I do not see it happening.

My amendment says that we need to build in a mechanism to introduce any changes this House wants to make in a tightly constrained statutory instrument. That is the guts of my Amendment 14. I say to government Peers in particular that there is nothing in my amendment which sabotages the thrust of the Bill to get rid of hereditaries, utterly wrong though I think that is. My amendment would not open up the Bill to a myriad of other amendments. It simply says that, if a resolution of this House establishes or changes the age at which Peers must retire or imposes a minimum attendance level or a participation requirement, then the Government must, within 12 months, implement that resolution by laying a draft SI first.

I envisage it working as follows. On retirement, for example, this House would set up a special committee of the great and the good and try to thrash out a retirement regime. It may take us 12 months, two years or we might never agree on it. If we came up with something, it would come before this House as a resolution. If we approved it, the Government would have to implement it within 12 months in an SI. I trust the Government not to change it.

If, hypothetically, we set a retirement age of 85 with various tweaks, no Government will change that to 80 or 90. If they do, we will simply vote it down and be right to do so. I suggest that the same procedure would apply to the other things of participation or attendance. There would be no obligation on this House to create these regimes and resolutions. We may decide, for whatever reasons, not to do some of them because it is too difficult.

I conclude by stating that the majority mood in this House is that we want to make some changes, especially on retirements and attendance. We cannot do it in this Bill for the reasons I set out, and I strongly believe that we will not get another bit of primary legislation to do it either.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we can do it through orders. But my amendment says that we may need to amend the following Acts of Parliament: this Bill itself when it is passed, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That is not my whim; it was the advice of the Public Bill Office. It may or may not be right, but I do not think that in Standing Orders we can amend an Act of Parliament; therefore, we need an SI to be able to do it.

I am old and ugly enough to be cynical about what the Government suggest here. Lords Select Committees are brilliant because they are excellent and come up with brilliant solutions. But let us be clear that there may be a danger that the report is so long, and may cover other things, that the Government will decide that they need to consult on it further or not implement it immediately. Let me take the Leader at her word; she is a thoroughly honourable and noble lady.

If the Select Committee is to be the way forward, at Third Reading I will put down a revised version of this amendment, so that when the Lords special Select Committee reports and makes recommendations on retirement, attendance or participation, the Government must introduce an SI implementing them. Nothing else—keep it that simple. If the Lords Select Committee is the answer, an SI implementing its conclusions is the solution. What could be wrong with that? That is the only way to get the reform we want through in an expeditious time.

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.

Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.

I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.

I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.

I support the amendments that we are currently debating—in particular the amendment of my noble friend, who I am pleased to be supporting on this occasion—which would go some way towards restoring the sense of honour that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, prayed in aid when he introduced the original legislation. The amendment proposed by the noble Duke would not quite go so far but is nevertheless worthy of support.

I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for what I am about to say. When I made these points in Committee, she ignored them when she came to reply to the debate. She did not deal with them at all. I hope that she will do me the courtesy of replying to them when she winds up this debate, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

My Lords, much of the debate on the Bill has focused on what should be in it, rather than what is in it. Amendments 8, 14 and 29 seek to bind the Government into a timed programme of further reform after this Bill has passed.

In Committee I tabled an amendment to the effect that shortly after the Bill is passed, a time-limited group within the House be formed to hammer out not just the definition but the real application in practice of a participation requirement, and my amendment received wide support across the House. I have not brought it back today because, on reflection, it is a matter that might be best addressed internally in this self-regulating House, rather than included in this Bill and sent to the Commons to alter, block or tamper with it—much as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was saying during debate on the last group, as indeed echoed by the Minister. That is why I no longer support amendments that seek to bind the Government to producing legislation about further reform, and I am encouraged by the idea of a Select Committee, which has become such a wide topic of discussion today.

My Lords, I too support the idea of a Select Committee that has been proposed by the Leader of the House: I think this is a very good way forward. I therefore very much support my noble friend Lord Blencathra because, as he says, we need a way to implement the recommendations of that committee. All my experience in this House, and doubtless that of many other people too, is that the other place is extremely reluctant to embark on legislation regarding this House. I would not expect us to get the offer of another Bill for a decade or two. To give ourselves in this Bill the power to move forward seems basically sensible. If we are to have a committee, let us make it a potent committee, not an impotent one.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that we can do that of our own volition. Given the difficulties that we had in having to go to primary legislation to give ourselves the right to have basic disciplinary procedures in this House, I am not aware of any evidence that we actually have the power of our own volition to change the sort of things being considered for the Select Committee. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could outline what he thinks our powers are and on what he bases that understanding, because if indeed we have them, that would be an encouraging and simplifying approach. Depending on what the Minister says, I very much hope that my noble friend, when we come to it next week, will press his amendment to a vote.

My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. I support in principle Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but I think he is rather timid. If he believes in substantive reform of your Lordships’ House, he should table an amendment to achieve that now. Surely he knows that, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has just suggested, there is no real chance of further reform of your Lordships’ House being seriously proposed during the current Parliament.

I do not want to irritate the Minister but, however many times I read the Labour Party manifesto, I do not believe that it suggests there will be three stages of Lords reform—as the noble Baroness has argued on several occasions. I am afraid that I do not agree that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there would be three stages. Any rational person reading the Labour Party manifesto would understand that it proposes two stages. This Bill seeks to achieve only one of six measures which the manifesto proposed as part of a single “action to modernise” your Lordships’ House. Those words I repeat from the manifesto.

If the Labour Party had clearly stated in its manifesto that there would be three stages of reform, of which the first would be the removal of all those who entered the House as hereditary Peers, and nothing else, it would have been strongly criticised across the media. It would have been seen as discriminatory to treat some members of a body of people doing the same job with the same rights in a different manner from others.

I am most surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for whom I have always had the highest regard, believes that the amendment to which she has added her name would lead to further substantive reform. If she really believes in a more democratic House, which has been the firm policy of her party for decades, her best chance of achieving it would be to work together with others to amend the Bill. I had hoped that the noble Baroness might see the value in tabling an amendment similar to Amendment 6, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas in Committee, and Amendment 8, which I tabled, to retain 90 Peers who are elected in some sense but to “de-hereditise” them. We could thereby avoid moving to an all-appointed House. We could retain the sand in the shoe, but on a more open and democratic basis. I would suggest 20 for the Cross Benches and 70 for the principal party blocs, to be allocated based on the average number of votes cast in the last three general elections.

My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm which amendment in this group he is addressing?

I am addressing Amendment 8 and addressing the general debate on the group. I am about to conclude my remarks, if the noble Baroness will allow me.

It would have been a nod to PR and, in terms of numbers, it would benefit the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, but it would be less devastating to these Benches than the effects of the Bill as it stands at present. Leaving aside the complications that are presented by the national parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which can of course be solved—the “three elections’ average votes” formula would produce 29 Conservatives, 27 Labour, eight Liberal Democrats and three each for Reform and the Greens.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my name to Amendment 8, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has contributed so much to the work of this House, as have so many other noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers and whose tremendous and dedicated contributions to this House will be removed by this Bill. This amendment is deliberately not prescriptive, but seeks to ensure that this Bill will not simply represent “job done” in terms of House of Lords reform. This Bill will not improve the effectiveness and value added of this House. It will leave a net loss.

I think we all agree that we need to reduce the numbers in this House and that we would like to modernise it and improve its effectiveness and efficiency, but if this is all we do, it will not leave our House in a better place—and there is further reform. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, expelling the seasoned and the good, rather than those who do not turn up or the underperformers, will not add value. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, talked about participation being particularly important. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us that this will not be the end of the matter and that there will be further reform to improve on a net-net basis the composition and effectiveness of this House.

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. In some ways it ran over from the previous group, I rather thought. There were some very important points raised and I do not think the House in any way—I will come back to it—should underestimate the challenge, which is in no way a challenge to any individual. It is a challenge to the realities of power and the exigencies and priorities of government that was put out by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, which are also intrinsic to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Duke.

I said earlier today that I feel that we on this side have been very emollient in this long process and that we have made many efforts to reach accord and not to obstruct this legislation. So far, there has been little in return. Continuing on that track, I have to say, in the light of what I said earlier, which I meant, speaking with the authority of the Leader, as Leader, that I cannot support, much as I understand his motives, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hailsham that would effectively seek to delay the implementation of this legislation, which I think is better now, as it was amended by the House earlier. It is defective in the sense that it is not a full reform, but I think that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would, because of all the conditionalities in it, potentially lead to a very lengthy delay in the implementation of the legislation, and I think that may lead us into paths of conflict that might not necessarily lead to the most fruitful outcome. But I do understand exactly the point that he is making and that others have made.

As far as the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra is concerned, I think the House was not only entertained but hugely illuminated by the many amendments that my noble friend brought forward in Committee. He raised an enormous number of points of thought. He has not brought back many on Report, but I think he is in a sense offering us a bridge to make some of those things possible. Again, I understand where he is coming from. It is not really for me, but for others in this House, but I doubt his aspiration that he could bring forward an amendment at Third Reading in the manner that he hinted at, because the normal expectation of the House is that that happens when the Minister says that they are prepared to have a discussion on the thing.

The methodology that my noble friend has proposed is ingenious, and the Leader of the House, who is emollient and inclusive, may well say that she is prepared to discuss this mechanism with him. If so, he could do that, but if not, my noble friend, between now and when we reach his amendment, which I think will be on the second day, may have to reflect on the way forward.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, having commented earlier on the comments of my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and others. The reality is that the great question in the air is: will it happen? We have lived with the great assertion, “We will do this one thing—get rid of all these people, get those out—and then we will think about what might follow, maybe”. I am not disparaging the good intent of those involved but let us consider the realities of the matter.

Attempts to bring about reform have been floated for decades—actually, back into the 19th century—and have rarely succeeded, as others have suggested. Normally they stall on opposition in the House of Commons, as they did in 2011, when we were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I went through the Lobbies to vote for it, or—I had written this but then the noble Lord used it earlier—they founder on the Augustinian tendency in every Government: “Holy Father, make me a reformer of the House of Lords, but not yet”. You see, it is ironic that the noble Lord and I still make a good coalition.

That is the reality and it was the case in 1999, to which my noble friend Lord Howard alluded, when the Labour Party brought forward an expulsion Bill. The Government quite like expulsion Bills; after all, there were two more in the 2024 manifesto relating to hereditary Peers and all those of us aged over 80 by 2029. However, I am sorry to say that I am a little sceptical because some of us have been here before, in 1999, as my noble friend said. When they promised to introduce a reformed House in 1999, it was said at first that if we all agreed to the expulsion of all the hereditary Peers, a second Bill would come forward, but we heard very little more.

I remember being in the office that I now occupy when it was occupied by the Marquess of Salisbury, then Lord Cranborne. The late and fondly remembered Labour Leader of the Lords, Lord Richard, whom many of us remember with great affection, knocked on the door, came in and said, “Robert, it’s about time we talked about reform”. He proposed a two-thirds elected, one-third appointed House. Lord Richard had thought that was what had been promised by his party in the manifesto, underlined by briefing from No. 10 that they were going for a reformed and partially elected House. Instead, not long afterwards, he was summarily and rather brutally sacked.

Because many doubted Labour’s intentions to reform, the cry went up, “No stage one without stage two”, and it was on that basis as a guarantee of further reform—as certified by the Lord Chancellor, as my noble friend Lord Howard reminded us—that the Lord Chancellor gave a solemn pledge in Parliament that it was agreed that the 90 hereditary Peers would stay until stage two was delivered. After that, though, nothing happened. Reform vanished for a long decade into a thicket of royal commissions, Select Committees, Joint Committees and cross-party groups—fine words, much smooth butter, but no parsnips, except the ending of the Appellate Committee, although at that time there was no exclusion of the Law Lords who were there.

My noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, in his powerful speech, reminded us that this solemn undertaking of 1999—binding in honour, as it is now said—is being swept aside by this Bill without the merest sniff of a draft reform Bill. We appreciate the many discussions that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has had and what she has said today, but I must note there have been no formal discussions about the terms of reference or composition of any such Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Parkinson asked a number of questions. A Select Committee, as she proposes, might be a guaranteed route map to new law or might be simply another route into the long grass, whether that is intended or not. We look forward to hearing more details of what is proposed because all of us here, particularly those of us of a certain age, are affected.

The manifesto went wider than the issues of mandatory retirement and participation to which the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal referred. The noble Duke asked, as others did, about the scope of the committee. Will it cover all the manifesto issues and others that have been raised? Where, as the noble Duke asked, is the draft Bill? Where is the guarantee of reform? Where is the undertaking binding in honour this time? Where is the beef? We have heard a lot about a Select Committee, but no commitment to a Bill. How can we be sure that it will happen this time? When?

For those who want to see this reform, where is the guarantee? Can the noble Baroness, when she replies, give the House a cast-iron commitment that a further Bill will come to this House in the timescale set out, suggested by the noble Duke, to enact everything their manifesto said would be enacted, and perhaps other things the House wishes for? I have some doubts, however, about the “club rules” approach that we, an unelected House, should decide the rules of who comes here. I look forward to hearing the government responses. It is an important matter. We have made some progress today, but a Select Committee for deliberation without execution leads us not very far, and certainly falls very far short of the commitments to legislate in the manifesto.

If it were not this late hour, and if the response were not crystal clear and without space for prevarication and evasion about a Bill, and the noble Duke were not satisfied, perhaps he would have asked the opinion of the House, pending what the noble Baroness replied. In that case, I might have supported him in the Lobbies. I hope we will have a clear response from the noble Baroness that will include some clear route map to the kind of legislation the noble Duke has rightly challenged the House to see.

My Lords, once again, we have had a wide-ranging and very helpful debate. I can think of no other legislation before this House or the other place where there is more interest in what the next piece of legislation will be than there is in the current piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I will do my best to help noble Lords.

First, I am grateful to the noble Duke, because he has had discussions with me on a number of occasions, and I know his commitment to reform. I will come to his amendment as well. Where I would depart from him is that he wants something brought forward within the next two years; I would like to move more quickly. His amendment does not specify any detail of what should be in the reform, as he said. It compels the Government to lay before Parliament further legislation within two years of a Bill receiving Royal Assent. I know he is seeking to provide latitude in his amendment and trying to be helpful. I do not think the amendment necessarily does what he intends it to do, because it depends on the length of the Parliament and when the next King’s Speech will be. He will also know that no Minister will ever commit to, or hint at, what will be in the next King’s Speech or the one after that. The assurance I can give him, as I have said, is an absolute determination to deal with these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed very welcoming of a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, seems more sceptical. I do not know what the Select Committee will say. I have heard noble Lords say, “It’ll make so much fuss out of this”, and, “It’ll take so long that you will never get another Bill to reform the House of Lords”. That is an irresponsible attitude to take. I want to see further reform. I am determined that we make progress on these issues. The reason why I have proposed a Select Committee—it is up to the House if it wishes to take advantage of it—is so that there is an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the particular issues.

I look at these things in bite-sized chunks, because I think that is how we best make progress. Those two issues are stage 2, which I think is quite clear in the manifesto, but perhaps those of us who helped draft it were not as clear as we thought we were. I think it is quite clear. There has also been increased consensus around this House during the debate that Members want action on participation, attendance and retirement. If the House is serious about wanting that and can come to a conclusion on it then that will certainly make it much easier to take legislation forward, because we will have an agreed view.

The noble Lord is right; I would have those discussions with my colleagues. I would expect the House of Commons to listen carefully to what this House has to say to any reasonable proposals within the bounds of our manifesto. I would also ask the Select Committee to look at what is possible, and if it is possible—it may not be; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that, until a committee has legal advice, it cannot be absolutely certain—to take action more quickly without legislation or prior to legislation. I think that would apply in particular to the issue of participation. I think that would be welcomed.

That does not rule out the opportunity of legislation. However, the best way to get legislation through is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested, through very long amendments, and lots of different suggestions and options. If we have a clear view, then that will give us a really good opportunity to get some legislation through on a focused Bill.

I was not suggesting a long-winded series of amendments. I merely suggested a short SI to implement whatever the Lords recommend. If a Select Committee is going to recommend things around retirement and participation, can she not just use an SI to implement it rather than new legislation?

I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience; I was going to come to that point, so bear with me. Part of my problem with his amendment—I have not quite finished dealing with the noble Duke’s amendment—although I fully agree with his direction of travel and intention, is that I am not too comfortable with removing the role of this House. I think there is real benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said earlier, in that the best people to do some of this work are Members of this House—obviously taking advice as any committee sees fit. I am keen that we should do that.

If that does not work, then there is still legislation. We still have the option and the manifesto commitment, but I think it is easier and quicker to get something through if we have a settled view from this House. If we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should do so to move quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is nothing if not inventive. I have always admired his ingenuity, but he will know as a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other place—

Chief Whip.

I apologise; I was demoting him. He was a Chief Whip, so he should know even better that a Third Reading amendment is brought back only if the Minister offers to keep something open at Third Reading. I will tell noble Lords why I cannot do that on his amendment. I will be very clear about this. We had a discussion earlier and spoke about the problems of legislation by SI and Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord proposes, within his way of working, that we should take decisions on quite serious and important issues by SI. It is inventive and it is a way he would want to do it, but I do not think a simple resolution such as that is the appropriate way forward. It would also give the other place the opportunity to reject it as well; I do not think that is appropriate. The existing mechanisms or primary legislation would be a better way forward.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been very thoughtful throughout this debate. His amendment stipulates that the next stage of reform requires, among other things, changing the appointments process to limit the discretion of the Prime Minister and party leaders. We have already discussed that, and I think the House made its view clear on the previous vote, so I do not want to repeat the same arguments. As I have said before, we are committed to strengthening and clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the appointments process, which we discussed earlier.

The noble Viscount also talked about term limits and a size cap on the House. As I have said before, the Government’s preference is for a retirement age. That is something, along with participation, that a committee of this House could look at. His amendment does, in effect, deal with the size of the House, which is a very important issue. I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, went way beyond some of the issues we are discussing here, but I noted the comments that he made.

I apologise if, in responding to the lengthy debates in Committee, I did not respond specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne. I think the point he was asking me to come back on was why a commitment to retaining hereditary Peers that was made 25 years ago is not being kept today. One Parliament does not bind another, and that decision was taken then. It would have been better had decisions and actions been taken more quickly, but that did not happen. One of the reasons I am proposing the Select Committee route—which could be prior to, or with, legislation, or we could do something ourselves—is that, when a long period of time elapses and new people come in, new commitments are made and new Parliaments are elected, it is very easy for these things to happen. We need to move more quickly and avoid the very problems that have caused him concern.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?

It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.

My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed comments on my Amendment 8. I must admit that I have not quite persuaded the Leader to go as far as I had hoped she might, but I have to accept—and I know that she spoke in total good faith—that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, as she just said, could be prior or leading to legislation, and I must take her words as she just stated them. I hope that all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the Bench have heard what she said—including, if I am not mistaken, the Attorney-General, which is very good.

So I thank the Leader again for her efforts to move to where I hoped she would be, with a categorical assurance that there would be a second Bill. She certainly tried and, in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9 not moved.