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.