Baroness Smith of Basildon:

Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon

That the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, the other place admitted the Bill to this House for our scrutiny in December of last year. Since then, we have spent eight days—nine including today—considering the legislation, which is a total of over 51 hours of scrutiny. A total of 146 amendments were tabled in Committee, with 124 debated and a further 36 tabled on Report. The Government, including myself, are grateful for the debates we had on the Bill. I particularly thank the usual channels for the collaborative effort on the amendments relating to resignation, which we have just had, and regarding the power of attorney, as well as a number of other Members—too many to go through by name—who contributed to the wider debate on reform of this House.

With regard to progressing further reform of your Lordships’ House, I have already spoken about my intention to establish a dedicated Select Committee on the issues of retirement age and participation, and the impact that would obviously have on the size of the House. I look forward to progressing those issues following the passage of this Bill.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been ably assisted by a first-rate Bill team and other officials behind the scenes. I thank them for their hard work in helping me, my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, who stood at this Dispatch Box. I am also grateful to the number of noble Lords who, over several months—even before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House—met me both privately and in small groups to discuss issues about which they had particular concerns or suggestions they had for the Bill.

A number of noble Lords have followed the journey of this Bill from the beginning, and it has been quite a journey. It will now go to the other place with amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and will no doubt return to our House for further review. It is my hope that we will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on this Bill and see legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her emollient words. I hope very much that in the time that elapses between now and our return in September careful thought will be given by the Government and the other place to the merits of the amendments and debates in your Lordships’ House. I hope the Government will think positively, even if not in the context of this Bill, about proposals from your Lordships that all Ministers in your Lordships’ House be paid and that we reaffirm the right of the monarch to create peerages that do not require the holder to sit in this place; those ideas are worth taking forward.

For my own part and, I venture to suggest, in the hopes of many other noble Lords, I would like to think that the joint Amendment on power of attorney could be the symbol of other accords that might be reached as this reform goes forward. I remain committed to the principles I set out at the beginning of Committee, which include—along with a more reasonable attitude to those of our colleagues who have long sat among us—a voluntary understanding to address the perceived issue of numbers, and a reinforcement of the conventions on the conduct of this House and its relations with the other place. That would liberate this House from the unnecessary late nights that no one here enjoys. I hope that will still be possible, for without the fullest trust, respect and good will between the Government of the day and His Majesty’s Opposition—and I value the candour and friendship of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—this House cannot function. The brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 Peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full good will.

Be that as it may, in asking my colleagues to agree that the Bill do now pass—which I know many on this side in their hearts regret—I invite the whole House to assent to the principle that no person should again enter this House to any degree by right of heredity. That has long been the professed wish of Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches.

My only regret now is that it has not been accompanied, as was promised in honour in 1999, by properly worked-out proposals for reform. The British people have never been asked to assent to an all-appointed House in perpetuity. This Bill, as presented, would have left, along with a sprinkling of Bishops, a House of life Peers created by a statute passed as recently as 1958—an all-appointed House, which is almost unique in the world. No other liberal democracy would long tolerate that a Prime Minister of whatever party—even one such as that of Mr Farage, which is not yet represented here—should have full control of the numbers and people sent here. Add to that the untrammelled power to purge and throw out Members of the sitting legislature. Such a constitutional settlement could not, and should not, long endure.

With the passing of this Bill—it will indeed pass in a moment—there also pass eight centuries of English history and centuries of the history of all parts of our kingdom. It is right to refer to that, because in those centuries much that was good and great—and, in the widest sense, noble—was accomplished, from the curtailing of the absolute power of the monarchy in medieval times and through the Glorious Revolution to modem initiatives such as that of my noble friend Lord Arran’s father in the first freeing of gay people from the shameful, odious penal Laws in 1967.

It was then a different building, but it was here, as Prime Minister, that the first Duke of Wellington carried Catholic emancipation in 1829. It was here, as Prime Minister, that the first Earl Grey carried the Great Reform Bill. For centuries until now, in this place hereditary Peers of all parties and none came with a high and unfailing sense of duty to serve and give good counsel to the fullest of their abilities. We see that same spirit here today in so many of our friends and colleagues. We should honour them and ever remember their great achievements.

It was a forbear of my noble friend Lord Effingham who led our resistance to the Spanish Armada. It was a Member of this House, Viscount Nelson, who fell in his country’s service at Trafalgar. It was the grandson of a Duke—Sir Winston Churchill—who stood at that Dispatch Box and rallied our country in the darkest days of the war. Indeed, it was at that same Dispatch Box that the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Attlee stood and carried the case for the creation of the NHS, to which my noble friend is a living memorial.

In our full and final removal of hereditary succession from this place, let us not turn our backs on what the principle of heredity and family have meant, and must always mean, in our society and every healthy society. It is to create, assist and bequeath to the children who come after them that millions of working families go out each day to strive and toil. It is from good parents that millions of young people across the generations learn their skills and values. Heredity is part of who we are and what we strive to be.

The Labour Party has won. No hereditary Peer will ever again take their oath at this Dispatch Box. However, I submit that it is not necessary, on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. That is what the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House for grandfather rights asks the Government to moderate. There is a chance—and a choice—to temper historic victory with a magnanimity in that victory. Such a statesmanlike choice would benefit this House in keeping the Members whom we value and, at the same time, unleash a spirit of good will that could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.

My Lords, the Bill, which has occupied 51 hours of your Lordships’ time, is exceptionally short. It has occupied that much time because it has been used as an opportunity to discuss virtually every possible aspect of the future composition and powers of your Lordships’ House.

As those unfortunate enough to hear my contributions will know, we have argued consistently that this should be an elected House, a move which would deal, in one fell swoop, with the worry of the noble Lord, Lord True, about the excessive power of the Prime Minister in his or her ability to create new Peers. Sadly, your Lordships’ House did not agree with me and those on our Benches on broader reform. However, it has already done one useful bit of tidying up with the agreement reached on the power of attorney.

It has also demonstrated—helpfully, I think—a fairly considerable degree of consensus on what are likely to be the next elements of reform; namely, the need to have a retirement age and to set at least low bars in terms of participation. Having heard the arguments on those issues and discovered that there is a very considerable degree of agreement about the principles of them, I think the noble Baroness’s proposal for a Select Committee is timely. But we must not let grass grow under our feet. It is important both that this committee is established and that it works with a set timetable, bringing forward proposals to your Lordships’ House, so that we can be invited to agree on them, in the near future. There are many good things about your Lordships’ House, but other things were exposed and debated at some length during the debate, and we have it in our power to deal with some of those quite quickly. For the good of the House and for the good of democracy, we need to get on with it, and from these Benches, we look forward to playing our part in doing so.

Finally, I have been guided through the shoals and perils of the Bill by Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, without whom I may well not have retained what sanity I have. I am extremely grateful to her.

My Lords, the rest of the Bill and ping-pong will play out in September, I suppose, but I add my voice to those saying that the most valuable thing that will come out of the Bill is the committee which will consider the further reforms. For my part, I want the committee to go wider and deeper. I know that the noble Baroness our Leader would prefer it to be a bit narrower in order to get things through in a reasonable time. The committee will be a vital workstream for us, which I hope will produce quite a few ideas around which consensus will be built. It is very good that we have already had the first of those ideas: the power of attorney one that was discussed earlier on. I hope further—this is the depth of the committee—that it will bring forward mechanisms to move the ideas from things that are talked about to things which will represent real change to our House, which we have so long wanted.

My Lords, at Second Reading I called the Bill a “nasty little Bill” because it failed to seek any kind of consensus on a serious reform of the House and failed to advance an important constitutional matter with cross-party agreement. But the bricks with which to build that consensus still exist. The Bill leaves your Lordships’ House today amended—fairly, moderately and sensibly—so I wish it well. I hope the mood of friendly consensus continues, and that the other place will give our proposals the consideration they deserve, although I must admit that it is not easy to accept that my time here is nearly over.

We all accept the mandate that the Government have to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House, but I join my colleagues on all Benches who are still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. I look at the noble Earl the Convenor of the Cross Benches, my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Courtown, and the myriad Members who still give so much service to the House. Even on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is not here, sadly, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has kept those Benches quorate on so many late nights, deserve better. As for Peers who sit behind the Government, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has made such a good impact on the House in the few years he has been here, will the Government really be better off without him?

Of course, the Leader of the House has listened carefully to the arguments, but she has never answered the essential question: what have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way? Your Lordships’ House, I am glad to say, sees things rather differently, and an Amendment to the Bill has been passed which insists that arrangements should be made for Peers who wish to stay. It would be a sign of strength if the Government indicated that they will now seek an accommodation with my noble friend Lord True and the convenor on a realistic number of Peers being offered the opportunity to continue their parliamentary lives. We all know that many Peers are planning to retire in any case.

The Bill now returns to the Commons. It is an opportunity over the Summer Recess for the Government to reconsider how they wish to move forward on the Bill. It is never too late to appear gracious, magnanimous—and even kind. Labour’s victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?

My Lords, perhaps I might impose for just a few moments on this matter. I think it is relevant to remark on a very significant anniversary for the Labour Party this month. I am not talking about the first anniversary of this Government; I am talking about the 80th anniversary of that remarkable Labour Government of 1945, led by Clement Attlee. Captain Clement Attlee, South Lancashire Regiment, fought nobly and gallantly at Gallipoli, that tragic military adventure—disaster. He was the last but one man to withdraw from the beach at Suvla Bay—a tragic adventure which nearly cost Winston Churchill his entire political career. The clock moved on; the names of the beaches changed. In the Second World War, they were Dunkirk, Omaha and Gold. Yet, throughout the Second World War, Clement Attlee formed a very special relationship with Winston Churchill. Of course, they hated each other, they loathed each other’s politics and they fought hard about it, but it was a relationship based on personal respect and tolerance. That relationship changed history. It changed the history of our country and of the entire world.

That relationship has something to tell us about today. It is an example of tolerance that drives democracy. Democracy is not simply about the heavy hand of numbers, votes, and the clenched fists of manifestos and mandates. It is about getting things done. Tolerance and respect are the lifeblood of democracy, which enables those great tectonic plates of politics, when they meet, to slide past each other and to survive, rather than meet head on and create chaos around us.

One thing we can say about our noble hereditaries, whom we are just about to say goodbye to, is that they did not come here for a title—most of them have several. They came here for public service. They came here to do their duty, as so many generations of their families before them had done. I wish to pay my respect and offer my gratitude to them and, indeed, to express my deep personal affection for so many of them who have served. They are an example to the rest of us in that, and I hope that the Government will take the example of that great Labour leader, Clement Attlee, and, in the way that they implement this Bill, show the respect and the tolerance for which he set an example. Our hereditary Peers deserve it. They should go with our good will, our blessing and, indeed, our friendship.

My Lords, I have attended all stages of this Bill and collected a strong sense that the Government have seen it as something which it is not. They have regarded it as a tidying-up exercise, but it is a constitutional reform and therefore serious. I try to imagine how future historians may look upon what has happened. I do not think that they will see this as part of a series of measures like those which gradually extended the franchise, for example. There will not be a common emancipating thread running through it all. Instead, historians will see it as a measure which finally ended the main principle upon which the British second Chamber was constructed and replaced it with nothing—but nothing will come of nothing.

I would argue that the principle of heredity has more merits than these debates have allowed. It is well-rooted in human nature and, though undemocratic, is readily compatible with a mainly democratic system. You can see the same with monarchies. If you look at the Freedom House list of the freest countries in the world, you find that 10 of the top 20 have monarchies. Noble Lords will immediately and quite rightly object that none of them, apart from us, has hereditary peerage, and that is correct, but all those monarchies have second Chambers which are constituted and worked through and have been reformed. Under what is going on now, we will not have that and we have no proper proposals as such.

Your Lordships’ House’s representational power once the hereditaries are gone will actually be weaker than it was when it first developed centuries ago. At least in those days it represented powerful interests in the life of the nation, whereas we, except for the Lords temporal, are almost all here as creatures of prime ministerial patronage.

As well as saying goodbye and thank you to the 86 now leaving us, with whom we have, to quote the poet,

“tired the sun with talking” many a time, and whom I look at as prisoners awaiting their sentence, we might consider later that we are doing something quite big yet rather small-minded—which one always regrets.

Being a hereditary-minded person, I am very proud to have grandchildren. It is unlikely, I admit, but if they ever ask me what I did in the war for parliamentary reform, I want to be able to say, “Well, my dears, I tried to uphold Parliament’s independence and legitimacy”.

My Lords, my grandchildren refer to the Parliament building from outside as “Grandpa’s office”.

This is a moment in which we have lit a fuse; a fuse which will ultimately change irrevocably the nature of the House of Lords and, more importantly, and perhaps for those at the other end to consider, the House of Commons.

I have always been opposed to the idea of an elected House of Lords, partly because of my experience in the House of Commons and my belief in the primacy of the House of Commons. As our leader, my noble friend Lord True, pointed out, to suddenly create a House which is wholly appointed and depends wholly on prime ministerial patronage is to open the gates for the arguments which we have heard for so many years from the Liberal Benches for an elected House. How can it be possible to sustain the idea that it is better to have people appointed by Prime Ministers than people who are elected by the people?

There is an opportunity, by accepting the Amendment which has been made to the Bill, to at least mitigate it. If people see that Prime Ministers can remove whole groups of people, whether that is hereditaries, people over the age of 80 or people who have some other characteristic, then the voters will ask why the Prime Minister should choose and why they, as electors, should not choose.

If we have an elected House, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats wants—I am calling them Liberal Democrats today, because he is making a democratic argument—I think we will find that the future of the House of Commons as the primary Chamber will change irrevocably. That is the basis upon which all reforms have failed, when the penny has suddenly dropped for Members of Parliament that there will be a Member of the second Chamber in their constituencies; that their role as Constituency MPs will be undermined; that their ability to make promises on the doorstep will be second-guessed; and that party management will result in the membership of this House, under an elected system, being determined by party leaders, so that it is filled with people who go along with whatever the party management wish—not something that I find very attractive.

I just hope that, at the other end, in the zeal for getting rid of hereditaries, which your Lordships’ House has done, they do not miss the point that they have a lit a fuse, which may very well blow everything they believe in and support apart, to the detriment of our country and the good management of our law.

My Lords, I am afraid I am going to break the melancholy mood that we have heard from previous speakers. I thought that this day, when this Bill do now pass, would never come. It is a Bill that removes the hereditary principle as a basis for membership of this House, which is now apparently supported by everyone all the way across the House, of all political persuasions. That is news to me, and I wish someone had told me that a long time ago—it would have saved me a lot of time and trouble over many years.

There is an idea that, somehow or other, this is being rushed and the House is being bounced, so perhaps I could be allowed a trip back a little way, to 1994, when a Bill to remove the hereditary principle from the House of Lords was introduced in the Commons by an obscure Labour Back-Bencher—modesty prevents me mentioning his name. For over three decades, at various levels, this reform, which we are undertaking today, has been gestating, if that is the right word. There is nothing surprising about the fact it has happened as it has; it has been debated ad nauseam, and that is why some of the speeches that we have heard even today surprise me.

I may fall out with my own side over this point, but this is, essentially, a conservative change to the constitution. It is incremental. It has taken place over many years. It was already done in substance, with no hurt to anyone, so far as I can discover, when over 600 hereditary Peers were removed from the House 25 years ago. I am not aware of any threat to our democracy that was occasioned by that change. I saw no amendments to the Bill—I was waiting for them—from some of the advocates of no change over the years, which they easily could have done, seeking to reinstate the 600. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is generous enough to perhaps regret he did not do it.

All I can say is that, for 31 years, this has been coming around very gradually and far too slowly. I think many Members of the House can understand the frustration I have felt, but, at last, we are at this day when there will be no more ludicrous, farcical, unbelievable, absurd—I cannot find the adjectives, I have run out of them—hereditary Peers’ by-elections. The title is silly enough without going into any detail.

I hope that we can learn two lessons in particular from this whole episode. As I say, I rejoice that the Bill is at last going on the statute book. Of course, people will be missed. They are after general elections. People come and go in Parliaments. But there are two things we should have learned. One, I am afraid, the Lib Dems have not quite learned, and neither have many Conservatives from recent speeches that I have heard. It is this: if you want reform of the House of Lords and go about it on the basis of changing everything—if your objective is an all-singing, all-dancing reform of the Lords, the electoral system, powers and the relationship with the Commons—you will fail. It has failed repeatedly. How many times do we have to prove the obvious? Since 1911, all attempts to effect that kind of change have failed.

The only way to do it—I have been amazed by the number of leading Tories who have said, “Oh, we cannot do that: it is not a thoroughgoing reform of the Lords”—and to effect reform is the way that the Bill does. It is a long-considered, specifically focused change that is pretty well unarguable, as we have demonstrated from the abundant support that now exists for the end of the hereditary principle. If your Lordships want change, do it incrementally; do it a bit at a time, as this Select Committee is, in essence, proposing.

I tried in vain to make changes, over four Private Members’ Bills, numerous debates, interventions and the like. We could have made the kinds of changes that my simple two-Clause Bills to end the by-elections offered, on our own, were it not for the hostility of a small number of unreformable Conservatives. I cannot resist saying that, at one point, one of the people opposing a Bill of mine said that he did not like the fact that the Bill was being considered because he was a proper Conservative and he did not like change; in fact, he was not too keen on the 1832 Reform Act. That was a step too far for the most conservative, in those times. The second lesson is to recognise that, if we do not make simple, straightforward, unarguable changes ourselves, then other people will do it for us. That is what will happen.

I strongly recommend that, if we do nothing else as a result of this—about which I am not in the least bit sombre—we learn those two lessons: do it a bit at a time and do it before anyone else does it for you. With that, it is just to say how thrilled I am to say, though not to move, that this Bill do now pass.

My Lords, I feel impelled to make just a very brief point. I very much support the idea of a Select Committee to look at the future of the House but, before any steps are taken to look at voting and the right to elect Peers, will the Select Committee discuss with the Commons how the Commons sees it and what sort of second Chamber there will be if Peers are elected and have rights that we do not have at the moment?

My Lords, I promise not to give as long a speech as my noble friend Lord Grocott. I am speaking on this Bill for the first time, deliberately, having not voted. I think I am the only person in the House who is a card-carrying geneticist. I have been through this during previous Bills, when I made fun of some of the people in the Chamber.

I deeply regret to see friends leaving us, mostly from the Benches opposite but from other places as well. I do not want to get into the reasons for that but to suggest one lesson that we might learn from this. We are in a society that massively respects DNA, heredity and inbuilt virtues, talent and so on. We have to recognise that, in some ways, the lesson from this Bill is a lesson for the Labour Party. The Labour Party has to understand that we cannot change our genes—irrespective of what people might be saying in the health service at the moment—but we have to change our environment. Although this may not be important at the moment, it certainly applies to the whole of our legislation, the whole of Parliament, the whole of our law. The message must surely be that, irrespective of how we have dealt with the hereditary peerage, we need to provide a better environment.

My Lords, I have long supported the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships’ House. I have said it in the House before and I meant it. There were two reasons why I did not like the legislation previously brought forward. The first is that they were Private Members’ Bills. A reform of this nature should be a government Bill, and it is quite right that the Government have got their way on it.

The second reason is that I am disappointed that we hereditaries have failed in one respect. In 1999, the then Lord Chancellor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said to me, “One of the reasons we’ve kept you is to ensure that the Labour Party fulfil their manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords”. Well, we know that that manifesto commitment was not fulfilled, and it must have been quite hard for some noble Lords to have taken part in and listened to some of the excellent speeches and debates we have had on the Bill. I mention just two: my noble friends Lady Mobarik and Lord Shinkwin, who gave speeches about prejudice at Second Reading.

I thank noble Lords opposite for their kind words to me about how sad they will be to see the hereditaries go. I enjoyed those conversations until they petered out when I said, “Well, you could have done something about it”.

I should also thank the noble Lords opposite, particularly the influx of Labour Peers who came here in 1999. When I first took my seat here, I could claim a maximum daily allowance of £4.73, which is worth £105.14 in today’s money. In 2000-01, after numerous attempts to improve our expenses, they suddenly increased hugely. Our maximum daily claimable allowance went up 50% within a year, and the amount that we could claim—we cannot anymore—for our office, secretarial and research costs for non-sitting days nearly doubled. That was a bonus for me. Like many Peers who took their seat on their front bench, I took a substantial reduction in my salary, so the increase in expenses was welcome. I am extremely grateful to the Labour Peers who enabled that.

My Lords, when I made a short Intervention at an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in reply, questioned—not seriously, I hope—whether or not I still liked her. The answer is that of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole House, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not bear personal grudges against political opponents merely because they are enacting decisions with which we may disagree. I accept, as do my noble friends, that the Government are fully entitled to get their business through and pass their manifesto legislation, even if I do not like it. The Bill removes the process by which new Peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly.

But nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it state that currently sitting Members of the House would be summarily removed, which is an additional measure and sets a bad and, in my view, dangerous precedent whereby the Executive can simply remove Members of the second Chamber by dint of their Majority in the first—an unheard-of provision that exists in no other modern democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it would be absurd to suggest that this precedent would ever be repeated, but I suspect he is wrong, as he and his noble friends may well find out to their discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.

As this Bill enters its final stages, I ask the noble Baroness the Leader in turn whether she still likes me, or whether there something I have done that so deeply offends her that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish? We often talk of the dignity of the House, but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House than what the Government are now doing in this Bill.

I would like to think that I have done my duty over the past almost 40 years. I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal that we made 25 years ago with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, on behalf of the Labour Party—not a deal that tied the hands of a future Government, as has been claimed, but on which, to their shame, this Government are now reneging.

The House is currently wrestling with the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government are concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts but at the same time apparently care little for those of us who have worked here with no formal contract. Although none of us in this House is technically employed to serve as Members of the House, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a place of work, or even part-time work. I suppose one could argue that our Letters Patent and Writs of Summons, taken together, constitute at least some form of agreement. Either way, we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth, except here in the upper House of this Mother of Parliaments.

Before I go, I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader could tell me exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong as to deserve being treated in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal, but he is wrong, because it is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply offensive. I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?

My Lords, I had not intended to respond at length, and I will not, given that this debate on Third Reading has been quite a long one. I was reminded earlier that yesterday was the anniversary of the moon landing. Apollo 11 took eight days, three hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds to complete its mission. I think that is just slightly short of the time we have spent debating this Bill throughout its passage.

A number of issues were raised. Yes, I still have a soft spot for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary Peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice. He said that this Bill was not in the Labour Party manifesto. It was. He may recall that, when we debated the Grocott Bill, I said, and I wrote in the House magazine, that we should accept it and that we would help to get it through, otherwise we would be in a position where all hereditary Peers would be removed under a Labour Government. So, he was given some notice of that; he may not have listened to me or read anything that I wrote, but it was said and it was in the Labour Party manifesto.

Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary Peers, or that of any other Member of your Lordships’ House. That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into your Lordships’ House that the country or the Labour Party expects.

I will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, but I think he said that, if we were not to proceed with the Bill in the way it has been drafted, it would unleash a spirit of good will. I hope that was not an indication that carrying out a Bill that is in our manifesto would unleash a spirit of something opposite to good will. I hope that is not what he intended, but that is certainly how it came across.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was concerned that this Bill opens the gates to further reform or change. I have also heard from other noble Lords that, if we finish with this Bill, nothing will ever happen again. Both cannot be true, but I think this House should take more responsibility for what we can do. If we had taken responsibility for the Grocott Bill and managed to get it through, we probably would not be here today.

On the issue about Select Committees, I know the noble Lord would like to go further and faster. I am a great believer in bite-sized chunks and the House taking responsibility. If we can make progress on those two issues and, by implication, the impact on the size of the House, I think good progress can be made. If we show we can take responsibility for the work of our House as a House, cross-party, we can do so again in the future. So I do understand the views that have been expressed. This is a matter of principle. It was flagged for some time. It was a clear manifesto commitment.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.