Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Horam Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Owen (Ind SD)]

My Lords, 1975 was a long time ago. I am getting on in age now, and I wondered if I would ever see the day when the decision I announced to the House of Commons with money attached—that we would go for self-sufficiency in blood products—would be honoured, at least in a way so that some of the relatives of the many people whose lives have been lost would feel some sense of satisfaction. I could make a very long speech on all those who have fought this fight with honour, dignity and integrity. They belong to all political parties; it very soon became a cross-party campaign.

I also want to make a few things clear. We knew about this earlier than 1975. A very remarkable book, The Gift Relationship by Professor Titmuss, identified the problem of the blood coming into our country from places in which there were absolutely no safeguards and very few questions you could ask about somebody’s past health. At that time, we had no way of finding out whether blood was infected with hepatitis, for example. We had to ask a simple question as a method of trying to find out whether a blood donor was suitable: we would ask if they had ever been yellow—ie, had their liver ever been affected so that they were jaundiced and, as likely as not, had been infected with hepatitis. It was as crude as that.

I want to make it clear that, through the years in which blood products which doctors knew might be infected were being used, they had an agonising choice. They had to explain the risks to the patients. Sometimes there were children who were not able to understand it, so the issue was put to the parents, who had to juggle these very difficult and complex medical facts. The paediatricians and haematologists had to do their best to explain the risks to them, without really knowing.

When I first began to look at this question, I wondered whether we could get away with having a complete ban on blood products. It soon became clear that, if we did that, we would not be able to give blood products that might well not be contaminated to a very substantial number of patients. Let us remember what the situation is. Eventually, we got a product that parents could inject at home. That meant that, if a child had fallen and was bound to bleed into their knee, arm or elsewhere, they could give the injection straightaway and the child would likely not suffer any serious damage—but that was actually one of the worst products to give. These choices were being made against this background of a lack of knowledge—but nothing explains the refusal of successive Governments to pay compensation to those affected. Nothing explains the delay, which meant that, when AIDS came, we still had no blood of our own—we were not self-sufficient with blood very likely not to be contaminated, although even then we could not be absolutely sure that it would not be contaminated.

What I would have said would have been much stronger, more vehement and angrier if not for the circulation of a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to us about this debate. I have known him in many different guises, and I know him to be a man of honour. Frankly, when I read this letter, I do not need any more assurances that there will not be any unnecessary delays. I believe his words are carefully chosen, and I think he understands, like many people from his own party and people who have been responsible for healthcare, that there can be no more ducking and weaving, and no more appeals from the Chancellor to delay it for another year or anything like that. This time, we have to honour it—and we have to do it this year.

The report will be available on 20 May, and everybody will be able to read it. Judging by the day’s evidence I gave, I think that it will be a searching and honourable report. Given the device in the House of Commons of attaching it to the Bill—of course this was a device—and now given the Government responding to this device by trying not to dismiss it but to make it more precise and effective, that battle seems to be over. We can be sure that this year—in a matter of months—payments will be made. I hope that can be made clear from the Front Bench. Nobody comes out of this with a lot of distinction, but I only say: let us read the report. I suspect a lot of people will feel very ashamed.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the honourable part he played in this tragic situation. I was a Minister of Health much later, between 1995 and 1997, and I had to struggle with problems with the Treasury and getting reasonable compensation for the victims—the infected and the affected—as he said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue today so that we could have a debate of this kind. It is necessary, and we should keep pressing.

I was appalled by the Statement by John Glen before Christmas in the other place. It was one of the emptiest Statements I have heard from a Minister in that situation. It was as though the Government were just going through the motions of giving a Statement because they had committed themselves to doing so, without having anything at all to say, which is extremely disappointing. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for having much more sensible and positive things to say in his letters so far. We hope he can follow those up.

Elections Bill

Lord Horam Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I came into this Chamber absolutely not caring about the outcome of this—I was waiting for subsequent groups. But actually, having heard both speeches, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In spite of all the respect and affection I have for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I cannot see that what he said makes any difference at all. So what if we are permanent? We come and go, we do not always survive very long here, we can retire or die, so I do not see the relevance of what he is saying. And, of course, he pointed out that if we all voted it would not make any difference. We all have our views and we all vote in other ways in other elections, so I salute the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his thorough examination of this problem and I completely support him. I had never given it a thought before—I had not minded about not voting, but now I do.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure we all hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, lasts for a long time in this House. She is a great asset to this place, particularly given the brevity and pointedness of her speeches. I have to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack, because there is no doubt that he is constitutionally absolutely correct—and he has the better argument.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, hit firmly on one point in his speech: in the registration document which we all have to fill in to vote in local elections and so forth, often, there is no category for “Lord”, “Lady” or “Baroness”. I do not know what other Members’ experience has been, but I had some difficulty, living in Hammersmith and Fulham, filling this in. I rang up the registration office and said, “I can’t vote in national elections—are you aware of this?” They said, “There is no category on the computer that allows for this, so we will have to put you down and just rely on your native honesty that you do not actually vote”. Well, I can assure the House that I am an honest person, as are all its Members. None the less, there is a discrepancy and a difficulty here, and I hope the Minister can draw it to the attention of others.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

In the six general elections since I have been a Member of this House, I have always found people to be very surprised that I was unable to cast a vote in them, even though I campaigned in all of them. They find it ironic that I have been campaigning for my party, and its predecessor the Liberal Party, for some 49 years, but I now no longer have a say on who will be the Prime Minister of the country.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I am not an opponent of piecemeal reform of this House; I am actually rather in favour of radical reform, and quickly. However, if we had objected to piecemeal reform, this place would be the same as it was in the 19th century. All the progress on reform of your Lordships’ House has been piecemeal, and this amendment would also be an example of piecemeal reform. The principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was debated extensively when it formed the basis of two recent Private Members’ Bills, and there was a clear logic to the proposition. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 ensured that Peers lost the power of an absolute veto on legislation, or to determine any financial measure. As Peers, we have no opportunity to vote at a general election to help decide who becomes Prime Minister. Therefore, in those debates on the Private Members’ Bills, I supported the principle of Peers being able to vote in general elections, but I also emphasised that it is not my party’s immediate priority. There are many measures in this Bill which may have considerable impact on future elections, but this is not one of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, pointed out, if membership of the House were evenly distributed across 650 constituencies, there would, on average, be one extra voter on top of some 73,000 others. Therefore, it would be unlikely to make a great deal of difference to the election outcome—although it was of course Churchill who said that “one vote is enough”.

The issue we are debating is really one of principle. As an issue of principle, it is ironic, in my view and that of my party, for any Peer to argue for their right to vote in general elections without also arguing for the right of our country’s voters to have a say in who becomes a Member of this House. There are other priorities. Before we argue for our right to vote in general elections, we must address the problem of 9 million people being missing from or incorrectly recorded on the electoral registers. Our last debate showed that there is a real need to address major inconsistences in the right to be included in our electoral registers. For these reasons, we support this amendment but, while it is logical, it is not our priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington; I am sorry he looks so surprised. We need to sort out what we mean by UK citizenship. I cannot now remember which election it was when I was canvassing in Southwark and I came to a block that had a large number of Congolese-born people and a large number of Tanzanian-born people. The latter had the right to vote; the former did not, although I deeply suspected that some of them had got themselves on the register, somehow or other, because the local people were not quite sure who was what. This is at least as much a legacy of empire and our great-grandparents’ day as the sacking and pencils in polling stations, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was talking about. Both need to be modernised and it is high time we did so.

I ask the Minister whether he can tell us when Mozambique joined the Commonwealth and whether that meant that all Mozambiquans in Britain immediately gained the right to vote. I think I am right in saying that Rwanda joined the Commonwealth and that must have given them the vote, as well. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, if he were in his place, would remind us that he has campaigned for Algeria to become a member of the Commonwealth. The hypothetical question of how many voters we would be adding each time a new country became a member of the Commonwealth is interesting.

Of course, we should be sorting out the categories of our voting. We have been saying that all afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Green, is entirely right on this and I hope that the Government take some notice, but I suspect that they will not act on this unfortunately illogical and messy Bill.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I declare an interest as a former electoral commissioner. First, I agree with the remarks made on the previous amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that this Bill should have included the findings of the Law Commission, which have cleared up a lot of the complexity of language involved in legislation. It sometimes goes back to the Victorian times and is really a wholesale mess, frankly. I was glad that the Law Commission came to such clear conclusions.

Of course, the noble Lord will appreciate that the Law Commission by itself cannot alter anything and does not alter the law as it stands. None the less, I agree with him that it is a missed opportunity that we have an Elections Bill of this kind but are not able to take into account the views of the Law Commission. When I was on the Electoral Commission, it would have wanted the Law Commission’s findings to be taken into account as soon as practically possible, as it certainly would now.

Update to Parliament

Lord Horam Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My noble friend spoke to me following the most reverend Primate’s comments earlier, and I look forward to reading the words that he said; I know that he has said a lot on this issue publicly and has concerns in this area. We will look to work on them.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I want to follow what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said about the need for compromise and the abhorrence of confrontation. I said in my speech in the debate that has just been interrupted that confrontation is the wrong way forward. Can I raise a separate and slightly more rational—or less emotional—issue? There was surprise, I think among jurists as well as lay men, that the decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous, with all 11 judges coming to the same conclusion. Yet on the issue of justiciability, there was not unanimity between the High Court in England and the Scottish court. Clearly, there is an issue, particularly because, as I understand it, the way in which the Supreme Court put it was that the action of the Prime Minister was unlawful in these rather unusual circumstances. As a lay man who is not a lawyer, I would like the issue of when an action of the Prime Minister is judiciable to be explored further, so that Parliament and people generally can understand where we are.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My noble friend is right that this was a complex matter. As I said in an earlier answer, there were differing views among different courts and senior and distinguished lawyers. However, as the noble Baroness said, the Supreme Court came to a unanimous verdict. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, the ruling will have a long-reaching and long-lasting impact, and we will all reflect on that over the coming months.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Lord Horam Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, that was a delightful and humorous speech from the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I think it proved that he is not a politician. His view of politics was highly idealistic. I am extremely grateful, as tail-end Charlie to this debate, that everyone has been so self-disciplined—a remarkable achievement for the House—perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who spoke for two minutes longer, but I think we all allow him a little latitude in view of his commitment and knowledge when he speaks.

I voted remain in the referendum, but I am strongly aware that the Brexit vote was a wake-up call. Over the past 20 or 25 years, we have had globalisation on a massive scale, and it has been a great success. Millions of people in China, India, et cetera, have become much more affluent than they were and relieved from poverty, but the truth is that there has also been a huge downside. We have seen that in the western world in lost manufacturing jobs, towns without purpose, squeezed living standards, poorer social services, and the fear of immigration that has been greater than people have been used to, causing problems of social cohesion. It is many of those people who voted for Brexit as a protest.

I know that every parliamentary constituency in Lancashire, where I was born, had a leave majority for many of those reasons. The anti-Macron protests at the moment are on behalf of la France péripherique; it is that part of France, the poorer part outside the metropolitan cities, that is suffering and feels neglected. This is the situation we face and what, in my view, led to Brexit. It is certainly not the only reason but a major factor.

The difficulty is that Brexit is not the answer to these problems. Indeed, it makes them worse: the distraction that we have had for two and a half years; the further distraction to come over the next however many years before we get back to dealing with these problems; the filling of the bandwidth of government with elements that are irrelevant to the fundamental social problems. Added to this is the uncertainty, on top of the time taken by the Government and Parliament in dealing with these matters, the loss of economic growth and the restricted resources we will have to deal with the problems.

These social problems should be dealt with directly. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in a very effective speech, called for a Marshall plan to deal with them. A recent book by Paul Collier, The Future of Capitalism, spells out that we need not only a proper economic situation but also an ethical and moral dimension to capitalism if we are not to have consistent problems across the western world of the kind that we are experiencing in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and, indeed, America. We are where we are. We have to deal with Brexit.

I thought the Prime Minister’s plan was “surprisingly good”; that is a phrase from the Financial Times. It was surprisingly good in the circumstances. Of course it has flaws, and I understand the legal problems that have emerged recently. But in my experience, politics usually trumps legality; the sort of problems identified by the Attorney-General would be sorted out in a true political situation. I would be prepared to support the Prime Minister’s plan, not only on its merits—although I agree that it is fundamentally flawed in many respects—but because of the appeal for compromise that she has set out. It is important that we all understand the need for compromise.

As the Attorney-General said in his conference speech, we are all adults: we know that we are not all going to get what we want. Although I voted for remain, I understand the need for compromise; the Prime Minister is calling for that and we should adhere to it. I do not have high expectations that her plan will pass through the other House; I am delighted that, in the shape of my good friend Dominic Grieve, the Commons has asserted its right to look at alternatives and appears to be taking some kind of control. Frankly, a better solution would always have been to remain in the single market and customs union: the EEA plus customs union, which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke about. I do not know why the Government did not go for that straightaway.

In a way, this solution would represent the Brexit result of 52% to 48%. It would mean that while Brexit won, the 48% could not be ignored. In any reasonable compromise and understanding of the result of the referendum, we have to take account of the views of the 48%. A customs union as we originally entered it in 1975 would be the right approach in those circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, made that point very effectively.

Another alternative is no deal, and my noble friend Lady Noakes spoke about that. Mr Carney has commented on it but I think that, frankly, his comments were unwise because they were over the top. My noble friend Lady Noakes admitted that in the short term there would be disruption but I have no doubt that in the long term there would be huge problems with inward investment, just-in-time manufacturing and so on. Therefore, I rule that out. In my view, there is no golden horizon that awaits us in the future in a low-tax, low-regulated economy.

So we come to the final alternative, which is an extension of Article 50 and the possibility of a people’s vote. My noble friend Lord Robathan said that this would be an affront to democracy. That is a serious argument—a second referendum would obviously attract that comment. However, all the evidence is that people want a second vote. Opinion polls suggest that a very strong majority is in favour of it. As my noble friend said: why not trust the people? Why not indeed? People are not fools. They can see that the arguments have changed. Reality has kicked in. The situation is not as it was portrayed during the referendum, and therefore they should have the chance to think again about whether we are pursuing the right path.

However, I warn my remain friends that if we have a second referendum, we have to be more positive than we have been in the past. We have to take on the argument about taking back control. I believe that we have plenty of control inside the European Union to construct the sort of society that we want in this country and that we can play a significant part in the European Union. I also believe that the European Union is necessary in the world that we face, with hostile people in Russia and China, and the threat of terrorism and climate change. All our problems are better faced with the liberal democracies of western Europe sticking together. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in his introductory remarks, quoting Proverbs, we need some vision. My heavens, we do.

Debate adjourned until Monday 10 December.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Lord Horam Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, in her very interesting speech, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, made a point about the problems that were caused in the original building of the Houses of Parliament by everyone wanting to have their say. Members of Parliament and Peers always had to get their word in, as one would expect. There is general approbation for the point that it would be extremely damaging if that were repeated.

The noble Baroness may not know that Sir Robert Peel, the Prime Minister at the time, also got fed up with the constant bickering and changing of the design by Members of Parliament of all shades. He had the brilliant idea of appointing Prince Albert to be chairman of the Fine Arts Commission: no one was going to argue with royalty. It was a brilliant decision, not just politically, but aesthetically and in terms of getting a move on. He was an energetic man with a good aesthetic feel for what was required. It is also said, though I have no idea if it is true, that he was well aware that when his wife, Queen Victoria, opened Parliament she saw only the entrance to the Royal Gallery and your Lordships’ Chamber, not the House of Commons. Being a good man and anxious—as we all are—to please his wife, he decided to spend most of the money on the House of Lords and Royal Gallery, rather than the House of Commons. That is why this Chamber is so glorious compared with the rather stark affair which I suffered for 31 years at the other end of the Corridor. I do not know whether that story is true: it is also alleged that it is complete nonsense and that Pugin was at his creative best because he was so inspired by these surroundings. We will probably never know, but it is an interesting aspect.

We have an important role because we live in this glorious Chamber and have a particular responsibility to do the best we can with it. Like most noble Lords, I was very pleased with the vote at the other end of the Corridor, which was actually more decisive than the Government expected. I was pleased that, for once, the Commons took the bull by the horns and did something decisive. As the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Desai, have said, the eight years until we actually get to the point of being decanted in 2025 seems like a long time. Will my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal comment on why we have to take eight years to get to that point? Most noble Lords are concerned about that. Although I did not agree with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Naseby, he had a point about the six years it will take to do the works. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was on to this as well. Six years will quickly become seven, eight, nine or 10 before we know where we are. This is an extremely worrying issue. Will the Minister comment on whether the work will be done 24/7? As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, lots of other huge organisations have done it that way, working round the clock, around the inhabitants. Is 24/7 working in the assumptions behind the costings, or will it be weekday work with weekends off and all the rest of it? We need to know more.

Finally, any building—even one as iconic and beautiful as this—is affected by its setting. The river side of this building has a glorious setting, but the landward side is less good. In due course—I know this is a long way off—I hope that the setting is changed with traffic being taken out of Old Palace Yard and the whole square pedestrianised so one can see the architect’s mind at work in the link which Barry wanted between the back of the Lady Chapel of Westminster Abbey and the House of Lords. I am also pleased that Westminster Council and the mayor are now working on scoping plans to take the traffic out of two sides of Parliament Square. I would like to see that going forward because the setting is important and at the moment it is a disgrace with all the cars, black iron barriers and the rest of it. The environment would be much more secure than it is now if you took the traffic out. All that is far into the future. For the moment, I am delighted that the Commons has taken a decision and I hope the House of Lords will concur.

Role of the Lord Speaker

Lord Horam Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, coming after the “Lord Foulkes show” is a bit like coming after the Lord Mayor’s show.

This was inevitably going to be a good-natured—indeed, humorous—debate, and I am glad that it is. However, few could compare it with the debate on the recently issued White Paper. That debate was rather fractious, people were shouting and some found it difficult to intervene. Indeed, two newish Members on this side of the House were unable to make their remarks. That is an example of what we are trying to deal with—good-natured, responsible, sensible and relaxed contributions in a main debate compared with rather fractious, somewhat aggressive and, frankly, rather disappointing contributions when noble Lords respond to a Statement. However, I am always delighted with the conduct of the Leader of the House and of the Chief Whip, even when he puts me right at the end of the speakers list, as he has done from time to time.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I shall concentrate on Question Time and Statements, which I think are the nub of the issue. I noted that my noble friend Lord Attlee, in his interesting remarks, quickly ran out of arguments in relation to conduct at Question Time and Statements and had to pursue other elements of the discussion about what the power of the Lord Speaker might be. I take a very practical view of all these things. The fact is that the present arrangements do not work very well. Question Time and Statements descend too quickly into shouting matches. The words used by previous speakers—fractious, aggressive and so forth—are correct in that regard. We also have increasingly to look at the impression created on the public. I will never forget, some time ago, bringing an American friend of mine into the House to witness our proceedings from below the Bar when a previous Lord Speaker was on the Woolsack. There was a little bit of a shambles and my friend asked, “Why doesn’t that woman in the middle do something? She’s in the chair—why doesn’t she do something about it?”. I explained that she was not allowed to. He replied, “You elect her and she’s not allowed to do anything?”. The look of bafflement on his face when he said that was a treat, and rather disappointing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, it is unfair that many noble Lords are not able to intervene. The situation works against new Members in particular. He was once a new Back-Bencher and appreciates what it is like. The Whips have often told me that new Members find this place rather intimidating. If they have been highly successful in other walks of life, they do not like to lose their dignity here. They see that that can happen if they are trying to intervene and cannot do so. They are not used to that. They need to be led in a little more gently. If that were done, I suspect that we would get a better response. It is probably right that a lot of noble Lords do not partake in Question Time because they are simply intimidated by the atmosphere. Curious though older hands may consider that to be, I think that it is the case.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that it is self-regulation. It is not self-regulation. How can it be self-regulation when it is regulation by the Front Bench? That is not, by definition, self-regulation. It has to be regulation by the Lord Speaker, who is elected by the Back-Benchers and the entire House of Lords. That is self-regulation. As a former Member of the House of Commons, I find there is less self-regulation here than there was in the House of Commons. That is the truth of the matter, because we do not only get regulation by the Front Benches during Question Time; they also choose the order of speaking, as they have today. That does not happen in the House of Commons, so I think there is far too little self-regulation.

I know that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is worried about the “thin end of the wedge” argument, but the time it has taken to get nowhere on this issue means that we need not really worry about a further step beyond this: it will be decades before we ever get there, frankly, so it is not anything to worry about. I support the first resolution of the 2011 Leader’s Group, the so-called Goodlad report, which said that the Lord Speaker should take over the role of the Leader of the House during Question Time for a trial period of 12 months. I would add “during Statements as well”, as I think that makes sense. In my view it would improve self-regulation and fairness; there would be more order, less embarrassing chaos; and it would be more understandable to the outside world. To that end, I would like to see the Government promote a Motion in government time, with government support, by which we could test the opinion of the House today, rather than several years ago. We all know that the Leader of the House, my noble friend, is charming, modern minded and practical, and I am sure she will see the total sense in this.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Horam Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I have ever participated in a debate in the House of Lords where there has been so much consensus; it is almost embarrassing. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, just said, the momentum since our last debate on this issue has been incredible. I am really heartened by the extent to which people are prepared to consider a cap at a significantly lower level than our present size.

As we know, one suggestion is that the House of Lords should be of a similar size to, or not bigger than, the House of Commons. There is a great deal of merit in that. Others have gone further, such as my noble friend Lord Jopling. In an interesting article in the Financial Times, Lord Grenfell, who recently retired from the Labour Benches, wrote that the figure should go down to 450 or 500, for various reasons which I shall not go into now. Personally—as someone who is perhaps showing a latent masochistic or even suicidal interest in this issue—I rather favour the lower number, but whatever the number, whether 500 or 600, the whole point is that it must be significantly and observably lower than our present number. I am heartened by the extent to which there is agreement on that fundamental point.

If we can agree on that, the next issue, on which I think there is also agreement, is the proportion of the House that should constitute Cross-Benchers. One-fifth, or 20%, has been a common figure. That seems to me wholly right, because it fulfils the essential requirement that there should be no government majority under any circumstances in any conceivable carve-up of the political groups in the House. Beyond that, inevitably, there will be a carve-up of the political groups according to some formula related to the numbers in the Commons or the numbers of votes at the previous general election. That is inevitable and right, and I see no way round it.

I would not prescribe from the centre the way we get from here to there; the political groups should be left to decide. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said in his excellent speech, the groups know their own members best, and the caucus can come forward with a reduction in numbers or some other method. They understand their members—they understand the balance of age, experience, activity and so forth within that group—and I believe they can be trusted to take a decision on that basis. I would leave it to them, without a central diktat.

The other immediate question is exactly when we take that step. In my view, the most sensible idea is to do it in one fell swoop after the next general election. I appreciate that voices have been saying—this is perhaps the only real point of difference among the Benches—that the process should be more incremental. My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned three out and one in. My problem with that is practical: I wonder whether it will actually achieve the reduction in numbers that we want. It will be an uncertain course; we will not be clear when the next hurdle will be arrived at. That is a practical problem. Nor will it have the same effect on public opinion—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, who has just left the Chamber.

We need to have a big number to show the public—my noble friend the Leader of the House made the point about the importance of public opinion—that we are really serious about this and that there is about to be a big reduction in the number of Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, the media strategy is important in this. To me, that is a persuasive argument for having a cull all at once, rather than the slowly, slowly approach of an incremental procedure. In the mean time, inevitably, we need a paper from an all-party group—I am so glad that various people are working on that—which will hopefully be published and set out some sort of framework.

Following that, we need rule changes, and I hope that we can avoid legislation. One thing that I have always said to aspirant Ministers when they have occasionally asked me about my experience of ministerial office is, always, under any circumstances, avoid legislation. It is a can of worms. It will always go wrong. It will absorb your civil servants. It will inevitably attract amendments that you do not want and there will be trouble in the House of Lords, so do not do it. If we can possibly avoid legislation, let us do so. If we can do this by rule change, we really should. That is extremely important.

I sense that this is our chance. If we do not take it now, in my view, we will not be fulfilling our responsibilities to both Parliament and country.