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.