House of Lords: Size

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

What I said, which I repeat, is that the previous Prime Minister did not accept the committee’s recommendation to commit to a specific cap on numbers, and that remains the position. My right honourable friend Mr Johnson has only recently become Prime Minister. I suggest that we judge him at the end of his term rather than at this time, when, frankly, the Conservative Party has been underrepresented in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, a recent Times editorial, entitled “House of Cronies”, referred to the high proportion of Brexiteers and Tory donors among the 59 new Peers already made by the Prime Minister, in particular the nomination of a Tory donor guilty of corruption and rejected by the Appointments Commission. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that he is tempting any future non-Conservative Government to appoint inflated numbers to balance the old number? Is the Prime Minister really trying to make the House look ridiculous?

[Lord True (Con)]

Absolutely not, my Lords. The perception of the House depends on the behaviour and conduct of the House. I am not going to follow, as I refused to before, any kind of ad hominem attack on any new Member—I welcome them all. As for the comment on Brexiteers, I did not notice a surfeit of those before the last election.

Summit of Democratic Governments

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as a Cabinet Office Minister answering a relatively narrow question, I will not make a broad denunciation of any nation. Our values are democratic; they are very widely shared and practised across the world. We wish to sustain that.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Singh, just said, it would be difficult to decide whom to include and exclude in any top 10 for a global democracy summit. Does the Minister agree that there may be questions about the eligibility of any country which breaks a promise of aid to the world’s poorest and threatens to breach international law?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, I do not agree with either of the final points. I answered a question on this last week. The UK remains the second-largest donor of foreign aid in the G7, spending £10,000 million in the planned programme next year in assistance to the world’s poorest countries. On the question of 10 nations, the Government did not bring this concept before the House today. I have expressed our view that we wish to reach out to all the world’s leading democracies in various fora.

EU: Future Relationship

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, has held firm to his own particular views.

It takes two to negotiate and, of course, the EU is not the easiest of negotiating partners. It is excessively legalistic because of the treaties and continental traditions—plus, of course, there is the need to build consensus among 27 countries, which leads to rigidity and delays, as we saw for example with the seven years of negotiations with Canada over a trade deal—but the EU can be relied upon to honour agreements once reached, as used to be the case with us.

We in the UK prided ourselves on our pragmatism. That has now been replaced by dogma and ideology, impaling us on the altar of sovereignty, autonomy and a clean break. No wonder then that any objective observer will readily conclude that there is little to show so far on our negotiations. Is this just yet another example of the gap between promise and delivery so much a feature of the Prime Minister?

Understandably, the emphasis on a trade agreement—plus Covid, of course—has pushed other areas of policy into the shade because of the immediacy, hence the trumpeting of the deal with Japan as a triumph. Yet it is only marginally different to the current position and is relatively small compared with the big prizes of the European Union and United States. It is very clear that negotiations with both the US and the EU have been soured by the Government’s threat to breach international law in the internal market Bill. Is it just posturing? If so, it is very dangerous posturing.

I remind noble Lords of Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is entitled “Pacta sunt servanda” and which states:

“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”


Further, Article 27 states that no domestic legal provision can protect a party if it breaches the terms of an international agreement, which is surely very germane, and the right response, to the internal market Bill.

On 16 September, in her state of the union address, Frau Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Union, quoted Mrs Thatcher, saying that breaking a treaty

“would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade”.

Mrs May spoke in similar terms on Monday.

Surely a stated willingness, readiness or threat to break international law is almost as bad as the act itself. Further, any parliamentary endorsement of the illegality is irrelevant—illegality will remain illegality. I have enormous respect for Bob Neill, in the other place, but I believe he sold himself and his own position too cheaply. Apparently, the Attorney-General, a leading member of the European Research Group, did not seek the advice of leading Treasury counsel but that of three outside lawyers who are all prominent Brexiteers: two law professors and, wait for it, Richard Howell, a barrister who is just out of pupillage. None of the three is on the Attorney-General’s panel. Having put politics before objective legal advice, she deserved her scorching at the recent meeting of the Bar Council and should surely consider her position.

In the early 1970s, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sam Silkin, then Attorney-General. I was also deputy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris. Neither of them would have taken that position, I am sure. Neither would have put a political position before their commitment to the law.

The relevance of this to the negotiations is clear. For the European Union, it will raise questions about our trustworthiness in future deals, as my noble friend Lady Hayter said. For any prospective deal with the US, the position is clear: the Irish lobby is powerful and the US Congress, with its key constitutional role in trade negotiations, has responded with outrage. Surely the Government, who were advised by our embassy, should have anticipated this response.

As a member of your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on Security and Justice, I have witnessed similar neglect adversely affecting our citizens in areas such as consumer protection and criminal and civil justice, including the dangers of losing the European arrest warrant and the damage to family law co-operation. The UK’s new proposal on unaccompanied migrant children has been met with the EU response that their negotiators have no mandate. Surely the Government should have been aware of that.

I conclude with a few observations on foreign and security policy. The EU has shown itself ready to negotiate by publishing a draft agreement on future co-operation in this field on 18 March. Why have the Government chosen not to respond? We have led missions in the past and acted as a bridge between the US and the EU. We have lost EU solidarity, as shown by the Chagos Islands vote, and are largely irrelevant in key issues, such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine and Belarus. Yet the EU has shown some good will and a willingness to co-operate by bringing us into discussions on sanctions at a pre-adoption stage. Our strategic interests are broadly the same as those of the EU, faced with the Russian threat under “Putin the Indefinite” and with China’s new assertiveness. Do we wish to work together? Have we ruled out foreign policy co-operation?

Finally, Liam Fox used to tell us that trade deals would be easy. After all, we could simply transpose existing EU deals. The reality has proved very different. Ideology rules okay—and we have not missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

EU: Negotiations

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, this is a global challenge; Her Majesty’s Government are in contact with Governments around the world on the best methods of dealing with coronavirus.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Parliament did indeed accept the ambitious timetable of the Government but, since then, an amendment has been moved—namely, the crisis of coronavirus. Surely the Government should be sufficiently flexible to see that things have changed and to realise that perhaps the conference calls and so on will not deal with a situation where many of the potential negotiators are unable to leave their own countries because of lockdown.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and understand where he is coming from, but I must repeat that both sides remain fully committed to these negotiations and to continuing them. Of course we are looking at the possibility of videoconferencing and conference calls as he suggests. That is the resolve of both parties in this negotiation.

National Security Council Leak

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

What is serious is the forum from which the leak emanated. The contributions of individual members of the NSC were also leaked, and both of those are very serious offences.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a breach of the Ministerial Code, but it also appears to have been a breach of the Official Secrets Act. Would not civil servants who have been dismissed or prosecuted for breaching the Official Secrets Act now feel aggrieved?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The issue of whether the Official Secrets Act has been breached is a matter for the police and, ultimately, the courts. As I repeated in the Statement, the view of the Cabinet Secretary is that it is not necessary to refer the matter to the police. However, if the police want to investigate, we will co-operate fully.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

I was just about to come to that. My amendment is small and humble but it deals with an important issue. As it is unlikely to become law, we now have time to study it in some detail—if the principle behind it is accepted today, as I hope it will be—before Third Reading, when we can add detail to it. I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to clarify that.

What is the most difficult part of this Bill? It is the third and fourth lines of Clause 1, which say,

“thereby making the House of Lords a wholly appointed Second Chamber”.

This is the central part of the legislation, to which I would like to add the words,

“and create a statutory House of Lords Appointments Commission”.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and for his integrity and tenacity in coming back time after time with this legislation. However, it is a profoundly political Bill. In Committee, my noble friend Lord True explained why that was. By doing this, we will remove the ability of 40-plus Conservative Members of this House to replace themselves without a guarantee that they would be replaced in any other shape. I wholly understand why the noble Lord thinks that is a desirable outcome, and I hope he will understand why I think it is an undesirable outcome. He certainly does not duck the issue. The noble Lord is completely up front about his objective.

The lacuna at the heart of the Bill is that it removes the ability to have hereditary by-elections but does absolutely nothing to improve the way others are appointed to this House. I want to put that right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will agree with me that it is something we need to tackle, and why not tackle it in this Bill? It has been promised for more than 20 years by the party that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, supported so ably in government. It appeared in several White Papers in the early part of the century. Now is the opportunity to debate it further and, I hope, to put it in this Bill. I have said that it is a humble amendment but it deals with a big issue, and I hope very much that the House will accept at least the principle behind it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, has the noble Lord been advised that his amendment is within the purposes of the Bill?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I went to the Public Bill Office to put the amendment down, and it took the clerk about 10 seconds to agree that it was entirely in order. It might also be worth flagging up that my noble friend Lord Caithness, after Clause 3, has a very substantial amendment, Amendment 59, which seeks to amend the Bill to include a fully thought through appointments commission. I think it is in order but if the noble Lord feels that it is out of order in any way, I will certainly listen to his argument.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment. The word “idiosyncrasies”, which was just used, springs to mind rather powerfully. Earlier this week, we paid tribute rightly to the late Lord Ivor Richard, who I knew as a member of the Cabinet in 1997. The compromise that was reached in 1999 has been referred to, the Wetherill amendment included. It was intended to ensure that progress could be made on a modest way of modernising this second Chamber. Today, we are trying to take a very modest step in that direction as well.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Grocott. When I heard him speak at Second Reading, I thought it was a masterpiece in forensic analysis and humour—humour, because the situation he was addressing sadly leads to us believing that we have to put aside something that, outside this House, is seen as a complete anachronism. I have heard many forensic speeches in my time from my own side—from John Smith and Robin Cook included, who I counted as friends—and I think they would have been proud to have heard my noble friend’s speech and the case that he has made.

I want to be timorous today, in an unusual fashion. I would like to persuade the Conservative Benches and the Government that it is in their best interest to take this very modest step. We have the Burns recommendations and the restoration and renewal of the House, leading to the decanting of both Houses of Parliament, both Houses having voted for it. A combination of these measures requires us to take steps now which will then lead to a logical and rational balancing of the political and non-political interests in this House.

It is not just about those who are nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Liberal Democrat party; it is also about the balance with the Cross Benches and the Bishops’ Benches. Unless we get it right on the anomaly of having by-elections for hereditary Peers, and unless we move now—I am opposing the amendment so that we can make progress—it will make it extraordinarily difficult to maintain that balance as we move towards implementing the Burns committee recommendations, which I hope we will rapidly do, combined with the prospect of decanting. When this House decants, there will be Members who logically choose that moment to retire, and there will be people who choose to leave in advance of it. In the lead up to the decant, if not handled very carefully, that will completely distort the balance of the different parties and Cross-Bench Peers in the House.

To continue the by-elections in that run-up period, and during the implementation of Burns, we would distort the balance between the nominated, those who go through the commission and those who are elected by this bizarre medieval process, which retains only one section—those who are here because their grandfathers or great-grandfathers or great-great-grandfathers were in favour with the monarch or managed to get their hands on sufficient property and land.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My noble friend omitted one category: those who paid Lloyd George and Maundy Gregory for a certain favour.

[Lord Blunkett]

I had better not go into the payment of favours in your Lordships’ House—it might be a difficult road to travel.

It is odd for a Labour Member to say this, but if noble Lords think it through, they will appreciate it. The historic mission of the Conservative Benches and the Government has been to be sufficiently willing to bend and move with the times, which has been of historic benefit to them. Therefore, I am surprised to hear that the mover of the amendment is in favour of very radical change: namely, a wholly elected House or a substantially elected House. It is odd to advocate a substantially elected House but to want to retain by-elections or inherited peerages. If you had this debate anywhere in the United Kingdom in any forum—from traditional media to social media, in colleges or schools, where many Members of this House attend and make a positive contribution in explaining how our democracy works—people would think that you had lost your marbles if you argued not for the immediate abolition of the hereditary Peers but to continue to have by-elections to fulfil those vacancies.

In doing so, whatever else happens around us, whatever we do with Burns and the lead up to decanting, whatever happens in terms of the natural processes of noble Lords leaving this House either under the 2014 Act or by death, the hereditary Peers would retain their numbers. That is illogical, irrational and would cause extreme difficulties as we move over the next seven years to decanting to other premises with noble Lords rationally looking to reduce the numbers in this House. That is why we should wholeheartedly back my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 8th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I only wish that other noble Lords were prepared to give that same assurance. We might then indeed make some progress. As the wags say, this is déjà vu all over again. I was surprised when my noble friend Lord Grocott told me earlier that it is only the second time that he has introduced this Bill, as it seems to have recurred a number of times. I looked at what I said last time and, to my surprise, I adopt all I said at that time.

In my view, the case for the Bill is overwhelming. The status quo is indefensible—but of course, that does not stop a handful of noble Lords from opposing it. To choose members of the legislature simply by accident of birth is surely absurd, as absurd as going on to the top deck of an omnibus and choosing men—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is only men. It would perhaps be better to go into the dining room of the Athenaeum and choose just the men who happened to be there. I make no comment on the quality of the existing hereditaries, save to say that I am very impressed by them, but we do not know whether the sons of those same hereditaries will be as competent and as diligent as them.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Surely the effect of an election is that you sort out the best candidates.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I am not wholly sure that that is always the position in the House of Commons, and, given the smallness of the electorate, it is unlikely to be the case in the House of Lords.

It is rumoured that there is in Whitehall an official book—a number of Members of your Lordships’ House have been officials—from which civil servants draw when they wish to block an initiative and prevent necessary change. There are many devices set out in this book. One is, “This is not the appropriate time”. If not now, when? Another is, “This is not the appropriate vehicle”. If not, what is the appropriate vehicle? Then there is, “There should only be a comprehensive package of reform”. How comprehensive is comprehensive? Clearly, only incremental steps are feasible in practice. “We agree in principle, but the drafting is deficient”. Well, accept the principle of the Bill. “A deal was done”. Are we to say that the deal was cast in stone for all time, whatever happens? Surely, the drafters did not imagine that 18 years on, we would still be in the same position.

I look forward eagerly to hearing what particular devices the Minister will draw on in his reply from the same litany of excuses for inaction—perhaps it will be a whole mixture of these—but the best argument which has been used, the only one of any substance, is that a committee is sitting whose recommendations we await. I hope that the remit of the Lord Speaker’s committee is sufficiently wide to include the hereditaries. However, if it is not, as my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, the 90 hereditary Members who are here would increase their numbers proportionally, and therefore the whole position would be even more anomalous. Perhaps we can be enlightened on that.

We know that the Lord Speaker’s committee will make its recommendation next month, but generally we do not know what the Government’s position is on the Bill, save that almost certainly they will oppose it. We know we have had the threat that a certain very limited number of Members will move amendments and presumably filibuster with the object of killing the Bill, and that should not be so. We go around the world trying to teach colleagues in other countries about democracy. Surely, this is an area in which we are mightily deficient, and we should change it as soon as practicable. I support the Bill.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, said that the hereditary Peers are part of the awkward squad—difficult people. I would have thought that there were enough of that category all around in any event.

He said that there has not been a filibuster but how else should we construe virtually overnight putting down 59 amendments in an attempt to swamp this Bill and prevent it making any progress? Perhaps the noble Lord’s speech was short but the plethora of amendments speaks eloquently in a different direction. I wholly endorse and adopt what has been said before, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about reputation. There is an old legal maxim or principle—perhaps no longer said in that way—that if one seeks to define intent it is the natural consequence of one’s acts. What other intent can there be from the plethora of amendments than to effectively destroy this Bill and the reputation of the House?

I will let your Lordships into a secret. Once upon a time, I was in Whitehall for a brief and somewhat inglorious period. I recall a little department, somewhere stuck in Whitehall, the aim of which was to devise means of blocking Bills with an attempt at faint praise. Ministers were told and speeches were written on this basis: “We believe in the principle of what has been put down but now is not the time”, “Rome was not built in a day”, “We should not deal in little steps”, or “We should look at all these matters comprehensively”. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and his friends delved into this same bran tub and will bring out a series of statements of that sort.

Yes, they are clearly against the principle of the Bill. I simply put this question to him: is he happy for this absurdity to continue indefinitely? It is an absurdity and anyone looking from outside must accept it as such. Is he content that by these spurious by-elections, the hereditaries are here by what is, of course, a game of chance—succession? On the other hand, the rest of us are here by—yes—patronage but at least there is an attempt in that patronage to choose people who in principle have a degree of merit. Many of the hereditaries indeed have merit but they may not; it is a game of chance. In my judgment, to continue with this system makes us a laughing stock. If we are serious about the reputation of the House we should wholly endorse this proposal by my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I associate these Benches with the opening remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Dykes, and many others who want to see progress on this Bill. We should not repeat all the arguments we had at Second Reading. Any noble Lord speaking today should endeavour to be brief—I will certainly be.

In addressing the remarks made so far, first, many of those noble Lords who speak about Lords reform accept the principle of the primacy of the House of Commons. The principle of this Bill was approved in 2010 in the then Labour Government’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. That received a majority in the Commons and those who are sincere in their belief in the primacy of the Commons should allow this Bill to go forward for Commons consideration.

Secondly, there was the principle about what was said in 1999 and for how many decades or centuries that should be deemed to be binding. There was a principle, which we often refer to and agree with, that no Prime Minister and no Parliament can bind their successors. So I challenge those who are trying to prevent the Bill being properly considered to say whether or not they accept that principle. There is little point in the legislative process unless you accept that you can change a previous decision of a Prime Minister or a Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord True, suggested that this is about trying to pack the House of Lords or change its composition. He is perhaps a little sore at the moment about the position of the Liberal Democrats after the by-election in the area for which he is the council leader. But it is not realistic to suggest that the Bill is about changing the composition of the House since the power of patronage remains with the Prime Minister to appoint more Peers. On Monday a very strong will was expressed across the House that we must do something to improve our credibility and reduce our numbers overall, but there is no point taking such action unless we prevent top-ups. The first way of preventing such top-ups is by supporting the Bill.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I note an element of nostalgia in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the snows of yesteryear when people paid attention to speeches in this House and the other place. The fact that there are other offensive elements in our constitution surely is not an argument against removing one of them. This is a very modest Bill. The by-elections and the retention of the hereditary Peers were meant as a temporary expedient. Some appear to argue that what was devised as a temporary expedient should now become a permanent part of our constitution.

I begin, as others have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Grocott. Clearly, he believes in the politics of small steps. He recognises that there is no prospect of a big bang in respect of House of Lords reform so he suggests a modest, little bang as the only realistic way of moving forward with it at this stage. The removal of hereditary Peers by this simple and painless method requires only a short Bill; therefore, only a short speech is appropriate. I shall not follow my normal practice of making three points—like a sermon—but will make only two points.

First, it is surely impossible plausibly and with conviction to defend the status quo. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, say that there should be no change unless there is a comprehensive change. That is almost the ultimate argument of reaction. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whom I consider a friend, make a point in relation to the blocking of the terrorism Bill put forward by the Government in 2005 but I am not sure how that was relevant to the position of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Had he argued, for example, after looking through the Division lists, that the Bill would not have been blocked had it not been for hereditary Peers, that might have been the start of an argument, but I am not sure it is relevant. Perhaps he can enlighten me.

[Lord Elton]

I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I was arguing that we were put here, trusted to see that excessive power was not given to Governments. That is exactly what we did and what this House did. We were entrusted, among other people, with the job of seeing that what succeeded the old system should not be less able to challenge Governments than the new, and the need for that was demonstrated in 2005.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

But that element of trust on behalf of the British people is surely for all of us and not in any way restricted to hereditary Peers, although I accept that it is perhaps rather odd that the hereditary Peers provide the only element of election for membership of this House.

As my noble friend Lord Grocott very plausibly and convincingly said, the Bill will allow the current hereditary membership to wither on the vine by allowing current Peers to remain Members for the rest of their days or until they choose to retire. It ensures that their successors to be Members of the House of Lords must be subject to the same criteria and procedures as the rest of us. There is no particular wisdom that can pass from one hereditary Peer to his son—why should there be? They should be dealt with and regarded in the same way as all the rest of our population. Hence we are talking about the removal of a nostalgic vestige of the old regime, which was agreed for tactical reasons in 1999.

Secondly, there is of course a case for wider reform. This is supported by the recent remarks of the Lord Speaker. I say in passing that the current Lord Speaker has started well and I hope he will continue to make comments on matters of interest of this nature. He states that the number of Members of this House should be cut to below 600, no greater than the number of Members of Parliament. Presumably he would want it to be capped at that figure and not to be increased by successive Members of Parliament. I invite Members to look at the recent appointments in the resignation honours of Mr Cameron and see the way in which No. 10 has been honoured so massively, and contrast that with what Mr Blair did in refusing to have resignation honours, when there were a number of people in No. 10 who were eminently worthy of coming to this House. I think of Jonathan Powell, for example, who facilitated the agreement in Northern Ireland and made a great contribution to this country. But Mr Blair said, I think correctly, that it was not appropriate to have such a resignation honours list.

[Viscount Waverley]

I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House. The noble Lord might be giving the case for reversing the whole process of entry into this House. Perhaps the selection process ought to be under scrutiny and elected by Members of this House rather than by appointment—forget the whole system of appointment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That is an interesting point but perhaps an argument for another day. I revert to what I was saying about the numbers in this House, which are getting quite impossible. I note also the argument of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who has argued persuasively for separating honours from the peerage, as many categories of worthy recipients of honours would not wish to participate in the work of this House. Of course, many procedures for reducing the numbers have been canvassed. Some argue for one for one—one out, one in—but that would not in itself reduce the numbers. The voluntary principle for retirement has had only a marginal effect, with 52 retirements since 2014. Perhaps that number might be increased, dare I say, with some form of financial inducement—a bronze handshake—but that is another argument. A retirement age has been mooted, with Members forced to retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach the age of 80.

Clearly, more radical culling has to take place if the aspirations of our Lord Speaker are to be met. Ultimately I would like to see this House more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole, perhaps with regional assemblies putting forward their own lists, away from No. 10. But if the numbers are allowed to rise inexorably, when this House returns in 2028—or when we move, as is suggested, some time after 2020—the Queen Elizabeth II Centre will not be large enough to accommodate us. We shall have to look elsewhere, perhaps even to Wembley Stadium, to accommodate the numbers.

[Lord Elton]

I declare my friendship for the noble Lord as well. If he persists in pursuing issues that are not part of this Bill, I suggest that he considers the Bill coming up, I believe, on 21 October, which will actually reduce the number of Members of this House, whatever the fate of this Bill.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I shall certainly follow the noble Lord’s invitation to look at that Bill as it appears. Still, that debate is for another day. Can the Government say how close that day is? Do they envisage any reform at all, even the modest reform that would include the matter now before us, during this Parliament? The sanction for this House is surely that if we do not seek consensual proposals, even if incremental, even if the politics of small steps, the Government may be forced by public opinion to tackle the current anomalies and absurdities, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, called ridiculous, such as is done in this Bill.