Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, in the spirit of the Chamber, I want to make two simple and quick points. I make a comment about the thought of a local inquiry not only from the experience of twice having my constituency rejigged through the process, but also from my experience as the chairman of our party a number of years ago.
Local inquiries can occasionally develop a life of their own. I wonder about the six-month limit because I can fairly easily foresee a legal argument arising out of a consultation that had not been satisfactorily concluded in this six-month period. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I have some concern about the concept of a public inquiry in this context. Having said that, I add something that they may not welcome quite so much. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he said that the Boundary Commission needed some “discretion”—I use his word. I hope—indeed, I think the whole House hopes—that the Government will find it possible to meet the spirit reflected in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said and what I am saying in sympathy with what has already been said: that whether it is a local inquiry or not—and I have concerns about the concept of a local inquiry—there needs to be some element of discretion for the Boundary Commission.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I will raise one point. The Leader of the House made a very welcome statement. The amendment that we are discussing is in the spirit of the statement. However, I do not see or hear anything about the conventions on Report. As the Leader of the House will be aware—although I stand to be corrected—the rule of thumb is that Report shall be allocated half the number of days of Committee. That is the convention of the House. This is what this side and that side have insisted upon in opposition. My simple question is: has there been any discussion or agreement on the number of days allocated to Report?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, perhaps it would help if I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has enormous experience of this from being opposition Chief Whip for some time some years ago. The answer is that we have not yet agreed the number of days on Report. However, as I pointed out in my statement, we will need to complete Third Reading on the evening of 14 February in order to get the Bill back to another place in time for Royal Assent. Various conclusions can be reached from that.
As far as concerns conventions, almost from day one the Bill has been a scenario of broken agreements and conventions. I very much hope that we can all agree that it would be sensible to move forward on the basis of how the House traditionally handles Report, within the rules. I am hopeful that we will be able to deliver the Bill on time.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I speak in favour of Amendment 75ZB, which is about boundaries not crossing the Thames. It is possible that in the far west of the Thames, near its source, this may not be an issue, but I will leave that to one side and address just what we know as this great river on which this great city of ours developed.
When one talks about some of these areas, it is always important to mention where one has lived. I should say that I once lived in Chelsea with the poshest address that I will ever have—Cheyne Walk. Unfortunately, I was on a house-boat there; nevertheless, my address was Cheyne Walk. I moved from there to Battersea. Going to the other side of the river was seen as an enormous move.
The difference between Chelsea and Battersea is not simply what we all know. They have different schools, catchment areas and transport links—akin to the situation in Merseyside. As far as my research has been able to discover, they have always had different health authorities. During the time that I lived there, we had the North West Thames, North East Thames, South West Thames and South East Thames Regional Heath Authorities. Despite all the reorganisation that has happened since, there remain great differences within London—including our phone numbers, which are slightly less important to this issue.
Us Londoners joke about having to take a passport or a visa to visit friends on the other side of the river, but there are reasons for that joke, because south London is definitely south London. It would be difficult for an elected Member to do justice to representing very different communities on both sides of the river. However, as I have said previously, I am less concerned about the difficulties faced by a Member of the other place representing people from those two communities than about the difficulty for citizens of those communities in addressing their Member of Parliament. There are different patient groups, parent groups, rotaries and charities. Their organisations differ on both sides of the river. The parishes and even the Girl Guides are divided in their organisations between north and south, partly because the divisions are of long standing.
However, London has developed in that way. That makes it hard for people to reach their Member of Parliament. It is not simply a question of transport. As I have said before to the Committee, constituents often want to group together on an issue—for example, as parents or users of the health service—to address policy concerns. The idea that they would have to address two different MPs or find a similar charity or group on the other side of the river in order to take a common approach is difficult. From the point of view of residents of London, this much loved city of ours, we should respect the border that the Thames provides and make sure that no constituency covers both sides.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady McDonagh and Lord Kennedy. I will make the same case for the River Tyne as has been made for the Thames and the Mersey. They should not be crossed in order to make up the numbers. I appreciate that the Minister or anyone else can say, “Well, there are no proposals to do that”. Of course there are not, but this is a warning shot across the bows. If the public are going to be deprived of their say at a public inquiry, we have an additional responsibility to air their views here.
I was born on Tyneside, in a place called Scotswood Road, which runs parallel to the River Tyne. It was years before I crossed the river into Gateshead. Now, of course, people talk about Newcastle and Gateshead because of the great work that has been done by One North East, which is due for the chop. That is a disgrace, because it was very successful.
There was never any enmity or animosity, just indifference. Of course we on Tyneside and in Newcastle knew that Gateshead was there. It had a football team in the Third Division; Newcastle United was in the First Division. We were the Magpies and the other team had its own name. The Minister would be wise to give an assurance that this is not intended. The sad fact is that that is what we are relying on, rather than a public inquiry.
I am delighted to see in the Chamber my good and noble friend Lord Dixon—Don Dixon. When he spoke on an earlier amendment, he injected a level of passion and emotion that we have seen rarely in this House. Whenever I see someone emotionally involved in an issue, I say to myself, “He’s doing a Don Dixon”. The noble Lord was able to convey to this House—and, I hope, to the local press and to those whom he represented so well in Jarrow—that this is the place where, if it has to be said, it will be said, and with passion.
When I wrote my book, I called it From Tyne to Thames Via the Usual Channels. The title wrapped up three aspects of my life. I chose it because all my memories are of Newcastle and not Gateshead. There is nothing wrong with Gateshead, Jarrow, Hebburn, North Shields, South Shields or any of the other shipbuilding towns along the Tyne such as Wallsend. However, one is proud of one’s roots and I am proud to come from Newcastle. I once had a trial for Newcastle boys. I was 13 and played in goal. I never wondered afterwards why I was not selected, because we were beaten 5-0. I was not very good. However, there is nothing wrong in pride. There is nothing nasty in not wishing to be associated with somebody else.
There has been a renaissance in Newcastle and Gateshead over the past 20 or 30 years. It had a shaky start. My noble friend from Jarrow will have memories of the Jarrow march in the 1930s. He and I worked together in 1986, when the march from Jarrow to London of 1936 was replicated in commemoration. I am sure that I do not have to press the Minister too hard for him to recognise that people feel very strongly about protecting the memories of their youth. This is not idle talk. I am not standing up merely to take up five or 10 minutes of the House’s time. We have an opportunity here. I have resented very much the way in which colleagues have had to use the opportunities over the past few days to say what they want, because I fear that this is the only place that we have at the moment, given the possibility that the Boundary Commission will act in the absence of a public inquiry. I have attended public inquiries and so have most noble Lords here. We pleaded, won and lost cases, but at least we were able to say what the people whom we represented wanted us to say.
Good luck to Gateshead and to all the developments. People there should be as pleased as I am that the Tyne Bridge was built in 1924. Very few people comment on the fact that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was modelled on the Tyne Bridge. It is a feat of engineering. Whenever I talk about the things that I am proud of in Newcastle, I mention the bridge. I also mention the Tees industrial estate in Gateshead. When I was a boy, before the war started in 1939, I began to learn about Gateshead. There is a place called Jackson Street in Gateshead, which was the headquarters of the Gateshead Co-operative Society. Eventually it became the headquarters of the North Eastern Co-operative Society. Gradually, over the years, sporting, industrial and cultural opportunities have brought together people on both sides of the Tyne.
The Minister would be well advised to say that the amendments are well understood. He might say that they are not necessary—he has his own speech to make. However, I support the argument that on either side of the River Tyne, good as it is—better as it is, with fish coming out of the Tyne that have not come out for years because of the clean-up of the pollution—Newcastle and Gateshead should remain distinct and separate. They both have good Members of Parliament: men and women who speak up, and speak positively and strongly, for their areas. But leave us divided.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for intervening in a debate on a Bill in which I have hitherto played no part. I have listened to noble Lords opposite talking about rivers being boundaries. It was part of my early education to be taught about mountain ranges. These were discussed in the early hours of this morning, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, who talked about people making boundaries having looked at flat maps, although he put it rather more strongly. In Cumbria, we had county divisions made from flat maps, which presented problems. However, whereas each noble Lord who spoke about their own area may well have had a point about their communities, it is not because of rivers that communities are different. Water unites and mountains divide. That is a historical rule that the Committee might take note of.
Lord Dixon
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Graham for his kind words, which I have not earned. I will talk about the amendments dealing with the River Tyne. I spent 32 years working as a shipwright on both sides of the River Tyne. I do not think that the Boundary Commission or the Minister realise the rivalry that exists between the north and south.
I served my time on the south side of the river in Palmers. I remember working in Wallsend, which is on the north side of the river. One of the shipwrights in North Tyneside said to me, “You people from the south side—from the other side of the river—are taking our jobs”. I had to remind him that, if it was not for the river, there would be nobody in a job, because there would be nowhere to launch the ships. So there is a rivalry.
I think that it was in 1979 when the River Tyne was breached for a parliamentary boundary for the election of MEPs. The first MEP elected for our area was my noble friend Lady Quin. In 1983, we had the nonsense of the Boundary Commission creating the Tyne Bridge constituency, which was half in Newcastle and half in Gateshead. The first Member for the Tyne Bridge constituency was my late great comrade Harry Cowans. He had represented Newcastle Central, which he took over when Ted Short was elevated to this House. Despite representing that north part of Newcastle, he had also been a councillor in Gateshead for many years, so he did not have the problem that some people would have had going to the other side of the river. He did an exceptionally good job because he had that knowledge of Gateshead and of Newcastle.
In the 1983 boundary changes, we had quite a lot of constituency changes. At that time, most of the Labour MPs had already been selected. What we had then was called a resettlement, where, if someone took part of a constituency, the other MP could claim that constituency, and vice versa. In the northern region at that time, we all agreed on who should go and who should not for various constituencies. For example, my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere was MP for South Shields; I was MP for Jarrow. If part of Jarrow went to South Shields or part of South Shields came to Jarrow, we could both go for that constituency, but only us two could go for it.
That worked well all around the northern region, with the exception of North West Durham, where Consett was eliminated as a constituency. The two MPs at the time were the late Ernie Armstrong and David Watkins. Ernie Armstrong was the father of my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. They fought for that constituency; Ernie won and David Watkins lost. The new constituency of Sedgefield was created during that reorganisation. David Watkins did not have a claim on Sedgefield because none of his constituency went into it, so the result of the 1983 boundary changes was that we lost an MP and gained a Prime Minister, because Tony Blair got the Sedgefield constituency. So constituencies and constituency boundaries are important, especially across the river. My exiled Geordie friend, Ted Graham, talked about Newcastle and Gateshead. I can remember the Callender brothers playing halfback for Gateshead—do you remember that, Ted?
Lord Dixon
There is a rivalry. There are the makems and the takems. I am a Sunderland supporter. Those on the north side of the river are Newcastle supporters.
I hope that the Government do not take the amendment lightly. They should accept this simple, important amendment that constituency boundaries should not cross the River Tyne.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, the constituency that I used to represent in the other place has been mentioned so many times during the course of this debate—
Baroness Quin
My constituency was Gateshead, as my noble friend knows only too well. Perhaps in just making a very short contribution I can confess to something of a split personality, because I was proud to represent Gateshead for many years in the other place and would like to pay tribute to the huge economic development achievements that it has realised in recent years. Indeed, it has brought a great deal of jobs and prosperity to Tyneside and the whole of the region as a result. Although I am fiercely proud of having been a Member of Parliament for Gateshead for that time, I also happen to be in my spare time a tourist guide for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. Perhaps any of your noble Lordships who have visited that city would care to come on one of my tours this coming August and learn about the history and development of that great city. Therefore, I believe that, on occasions, rivers can unite as well as divide, but the point that has been made so powerfully during this debate—that the sense of community has to be recognised—is the one that is really important. Occasionally, as my noble friend Lord Dixon reminded us when he spoke of the tremendous parliamentary record of Harry Cowans, it is possible for a Member of Parliament to be a perfect representative for two constituencies across the river, but at the same time we know in the course of this debate that people’s geographical identities are extremely important, and it would be very unwise for the Government to ignore these in the way in which they are approaching this legislation.
Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House
Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I apologise to the House because I had to leave the Chamber for a period during the debate and so have not heard everyone. However, everyone I have heard said something to commend itself to me. It is not a black and white issue. In producing the report, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his committee must have felt that it was like treading on eggshells when trying to avoid people taking offence at some of the suggestions.
When I entered the House in 1983 there were 1,200 Members. I do not possess information about the assiduity of those people—how they applied themselves to doing the job—but clearly, although the House was large, its make-up ensured that it governed itself. The nature of the House today has radically altered from what it was 30 years ago. There are far more, to use a clumsy phrase, “working Peers” now, or Peers who look upon their membership of this place not only as an honour and a pleasure but as a duty.
I come to this issue on the basis that if we do not take a decision ourselves, someone else will take the decision for us. This has been said more than once. At the same time, I am not galvanised into saying that we have to do this by 1 April or even 1 September next year. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whom I deeply respect from 20 years’ experience in the House, would be wise to prepare the ground carefully before we take major steps.
The group should take on board the views of Members of this House before coming to its own view. We need to find out, for instance, how many people who are not vocal but who have an interest would be prepared to leave the House with what has clumsily been called a “package of honour”. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for drawing attention to paragraph 36 of the report, which in effect states that the group needs to take into account the view of those who would wish some recompense for leaving. If the average number of days on which the House sits is 150, and the average attendance is 120 days at £300 a day, a Member is entitled to claim £36,000. He would forgo that if he was no longer a Member. A calculation has to be made as to how one weighs that kind of consideration.
Of course, a variety of circumstances exists around the House. Some people have good pensions; others do not. There are people for whom coming here provides only a second or third income, but the nexus of money plays a part. If there is to be no element of compulsion in leaving the House, there has to be some incentive. I have not spoken to all my colleagues, but I have a strong suspicion that many, like me, fought very hard to get into this place and will find it particularly hard to leave with a thank you. That is not being mercenary, and I shall not talk about the figures.
Age is important in the make-up of the House; I am not saying that it should be a criterion but it is important. When I first came into the House, four of my colleagues on the Labour Benches—Manny Shinwell, Douglas Houghton, Fenner Brockway and Philip Noel-Baker—were well into their nineties. Manny Shinwell rose to his feet on his 100th birthday and made a marvellous and entertaining intervention. We have just celebrated the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is 96 and attends every day. We know that he has physical problems, but he is as sharp as a tack. He speaks his mind and he votes—always the right way. He is steeped in it.
I have no hang-ups about age, but people are old and getting older, and because of the call of their party—this goes for Members on all sides—and their love of this place, they drag themselves here when they would be much better off at home. When the group makes up its mind, it should bear in mind the offer of the incentive. Some have said that the public will never wear it. What they really mean is that the press will never wear it. If the figures are correct, and some Members have to give up or gainsay £36,000 a year for—let us say—four or five years, there has to be some quid pro quo, or many quids pro quo. I am quite relaxed and content. I hope that I am here until I die; I hope that I am here for as long as I want to be. As long as I am able to get here and make a contribution, I am happy.
On the question of a contribution, I have been as disgusted as everyone else in the House that the record shows that a number of colleagues—I think it was 79 or 80—do not attend at all. If that figure is broken down, I think we will see that it involves people on all Benches, not just one. People like that should be excluded from any inducement to leave, although we should take into account the non-attendance of those who have domestic responsibilities; we have to be a bit tolerant of that. We have to sell the package produced by the committee not only to the House but to noble Lords’ families and friends. I think the phrase, “an honourable settlement”, was used. We need something that is seen in general by the public to be worthy of this place.
Anyone who has been here as long as I have—and I have been here for nearly 30 years, and 10 years in the other place—will respect the institution. This is not a party issue, but an issue in which all parties are involved. I picked up from one or two contributions the suggestion that parties should have some say in how to reduce the number. If we have 750 Members at the moment, which in a few days will be up to 800, and we want to get that down to 400 or 450, there has to be an incentive to people to leave voluntarily. That is not a dirty word; it is a sensible way in which to meet the problem—and there is a problem because, with the number of incoming Members after the election, conditions are becoming if not intolerable then worse and worse. So on practical grounds there is a case for doing that. I know that this issue is all wrapped up in forthcoming consideration of the legislation, but, so far as I am concerned, the committee would be wise to be as broad as it can in its final recommendations. Before it makes them, however, it should trawl the options by questionnaire. We have those options in writing, but the committee should put a bit of flesh on their bones and consider them.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I rest my case.
House of Lords: Allowances
Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Monson
My Lords, I agree with a great deal of the argument proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, although I do not claim overnight allowance. I agree with his argument about fairness—or absence of fairness, as the case may be—and with his contention that the proposed changes will not, as is hoped, satisfy elements of the media or the public.
I turn briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the proposed £300 and £150 are maximum daily allowances and that if a Member on a particular day felt that the amount of time, effort and expense incurred justified only a slightly smaller claim—say £120 or £100 —he or she would be free to make that claim and would not be faced with a choice between £150 and nothing at all?
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I support the recommendations and fully recognise that colleagues on all sides of the House are not only entitled to but are justified in making their comments, especially from their own experience. I have been a Member of this House for more than 25 years, and until the past 18 months I never dreamt that there were different interpretations of the rules. I am not an expert, but I was told what I could claim and I have claimed it. Yet I have been astounded to find that colleagues, whose integrity I do not impugn, have interpreted the rules differently.
Colleagues in the House have gone through the past 18 months fearing that they will accidentally find themselves in trouble when they are not trouble-makers—and I very much sympathise with my noble friend Lady Symons. That is in part due to the various anomalies and blemishes in our arrangements, as has been explained by various experts and keepers of our conscience, from the Clerk of the Parliaments downwards. I pay full tribute to all my colleagues around the House. I look at the Leader; he and I have sparred for 25 years. None of us has lost any weight, we are still standing, and we are still here. From the Leader downwards—I say that with no disrespect to anyone—colleagues have had not only to wait until today but to grapple with finding a solution. What we have before us is their idea of a solution. I am sure that the Leader and his colleagues will understand that there will be a need to revisit the issue in light of what has been said by a number of colleagues.
As far as I am concerned, I am not wedded to either the past or the future. I accept that what we are looking at is the product of our good friends who help to lead us in one way or another. However, we are entitled to dignity and respect from outside the House for what we try to do. We know that it is terribly difficult to measure who is a good Member, who is not and who attends every day. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he is able to give 60 or 70 days a year here and, when he is here, he makes his presence felt. But others are able to attend more or less every day. We are all on the same level as far as integrity is concerned, and we are all entitled to weigh up our responsibilities in light of the great honour given to us by our party leaders, et cetera. The one thing that sticks in my craw is that collectively colleagues from all around the House, who without exception are good and honourable, have had to carry the burden of a nasty campaign waged through the press. At the end of the day we know that, whatever decision we take, we will be subject to exploitation and criticism by the press and others.
We are here to look at the benefits of the proposals and the extent to which our colleagues are saying, “This is what we think is a fair and equitable system”. I respect very much the point of view put by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and others that noble Lords will lose out. As far as I am concerned, we will all be winners if we accept the Leader’s recommendations, and I wish them well.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, before the Leader of the House concludes today’s debate, I wonder whether the House might feel that it is time now for me, on behalf of the House Committee, to attempt to address those points which noble Lords have addressed to the committee’s report rather than to the Leader’s two resolutions. I shall attempt to deal first with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. As the noble Lord described, that amendment would extend the £150 allowance for certain types of mandated business in the second category in Annex A of the report while away from Westminster on the days when the House is not sitting.
The House Committee took the clear view that now was not the right time to expand or uprate the entitlements on business away from Westminster. Therefore the range of entitlements is exactly the same as at present. For the types of business in category B, I point out that up until a few years ago, when they were reviewed by the House Committee, there was nothing paid at all. Category B was then included; it includes such things as CPA and IPU business. Members are currently reimbursed the relevant categories of expenses only in respect of days when the House is sitting. This sort of activity has been quite clearly distinguished from travel as an official representative of the House or a committee where Members are acting on our behalf. The noble Lord is asking for the current policy to be expanded, and on the grounds of cost and principle the committee does not support such an expansion at this stage. I emphasise that these categories and rates were reviewed relatively recently by the House Committee and that they will probably be reviewed again in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made an interesting point about all-party groups—particularly on all-party country groups. Those have never been included in any category for allowances. It could be limitless if we were to include that sort of thing and, as I have said, we felt that this was not the right time to expand the entitlements and that we should try to keep them the same.
House of Lords Reform
Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I rise as the 55th speaker in a list of 65. In 1998, which was the last time we had a great debate of this kind, I was 182nd in a speakers list of 193. I rose at 2.30 am on the second night. So, if you think that we are being badly done by in this debate, you ain’t heard nothing yet. The interest in this debate is brought from a range of experiences. I do not envy for a moment the Leader and Deputy Leader of this House in having to attempt to make something out of the worth of this debate. One of the great things in sitting for a long time through a debate is to recognise, as I do, just how much one does not know about various aspects of the issue.
I have my prejudices and my roots. My mind will not be changed, but I always find great comfort and solace when I listen to people on both sides of the argument bringing their point of view to the debate. Invariably they bring it with passion and belief. It is not my job tonight or at any time on an issue of this kind to pontificate on what is right or wrong. All my political life I have been guided not by the destruction of the House of Lords but by the abolition of the House of Lords as it was painted during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and into this century.
I will illustrate my point by giving my experience. While I was the opposition Chief Whip in the 1990s, I was convinced that election was much better than appointment. When Labour took office in 1997, there were 116 Labour Peers and 425 Conservative Peers, many of whom have spoken tonight. At that time, they saw nothing wrong with that disparity. There was no question of moving for change. They enjoyed the power that numbers brought and they did nothing about it. They might tell me now that they felt uncomfortable at the dominant numbers, but as I did my job I realised that the dominance of the hereditary principle was there.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, talks about the fear that some day we will reach 1,000 Members. In the 1990s, there were 1,200 Members of the House of Lords. Not a word was said about how the number could be reduced, but all of a sudden arguments about the composition and the powers are raised, and people forget what had been tolerated. I would say to the Deputy Leader, my good friend the noble Lord, Lord McNally—and, in his absence, the Leader—that I can recall at least two occasions when the Leader of the House, as Leader of the Opposition, came before us with a done deal between the two Houses and the two parties, which recommended that there should be a move towards an elected House. He was dignified and delivered what he had promised to do, but those on his Benches behind him did not follow him. People have told me that someone sitting behind Mr Churchill said to him, “Mr Churchill, I am in a very privileged position. Together we can look across the Chamber and see our enemies”. Mr Churchill is alleged to have said, “My boy, the people opposite us are the Official Opposition. Your enemies are behind you”.
Do not let the Deputy Leader of the House be under any illusion. If the committee that has the job of making progress is fed the feelings of the House, not just on that side of the Chamber but on this side too—I am in a minority on my side—when it comes to the real issue of abolition or change of a large nature, he knows before he sits down to put pen to paper that if the proposition as we know it now is brought before the House at the end of this year or next year, he will be soundly beaten.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
I almost forgot what I was going to say. The point is that in a few months’ time we will have a proposition along those lines, and I would simply say to the Deputy Leader that it will be a mess that they got themselves into because the imperative that is here tonight rides on the back of the Deputy Prime Minister. He spoke cogently but positively about a great reform that cannot wait; it has to be started now. Having started it now, they will then scratch their heads and ask, “What shall we do?”. If the committee examines all the propositions, it is going to be radically different.
I wish the coalition Government well in their attempt to change the composition and functions of this House, but I do not believe that they have got the House behind them. My best wishes go to my dear friend the Leader of the Opposition with these words: be very careful of being drawn into some kind of agreement that might appear to be generally well accepted, because in my view there has been no change on either side of the House on this issue since the last time we debated it.