Lord Mann (Lab)

My Lords, my only caveat on what is an excellently written and structured report is that perhaps it would have benefited from asking the people for their view. I have done. Over many years, when I was an elected representative, I asked people for their views on many issues. There was a rather strong view in relation to the House of Lords. The overwhelming majority repeatedly said that it should be elected. There was a bigger view on that than any other single issue I ever polled on. There were people who had a different view. There was a group who felt that that would be outrageous and thought that we should simply be abolished. That view was held by a consistent but small minority. There was a small subsection that was very graphically much more in favour of reverting to the systems used when Henry VIII lived here, in terms of his methodology, for reducing the numbers of the House. The people’s view on this is rather clear and clearly rather different from the views of this House. The views of this House have been consistent, not just over the years but over the centuries. When the Great Reform Act was being debated here, the arguments that were put most frequently against it were about the unintended consequences and the effect on the markets. The then Duke of Wellington had a strong opinion. He argued against it, because it would lead to the slippery slope towards total democracy—something which has not quite happened in relation to the House of Lords, but has elsewhere. When universal suffrage was brought in, it was debated here. Instability, confusion, unintended consequences and problems in the markets were repeatedly cited. One politician, Asquith, went a little further: he suggested that the real reason for opposing it was because women did not really want the vote. When the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18, the House of Lords had a lot to say about it. It said it would be legally messy and confusing—this was one of the arguments that was put strongly—and that there would be unintended consequences, an impact on the markets and confusion would then prevail. There has been consistency: every time there has been any move towards a change in the system, the House of Lords has come up with the same set of arguments, and in a way, is doing so again. I have one slight caveat to that, though, because I have spent nearly seven years here now, so I can perhaps take a long-term view on this place: it would be better if it was elected. I proposed to Sir Keir Starmer and put the same proposal to the new Prime Minister that we should move immediately to elections: we should elect 40% at the next general election and 40% at the election after that, and there should be a commission to determine the separation of powers and the other 20% in the interim, with a much reduced figure of 300 Peers. Should the noble Lord, Lord True, get anywhere with his proposals, that would be a huge boost to my proposal. The Commons would, I am sure, rally behind it, and I would have the opportunity to put it to a vote. If we compromise with the more traditional approach that is put forward in the report, then it will be incremental change. But the people out there, I put it to the House, wish to see significant change. If we lag too far behind them, we will wake up one day and someone will have got rid of us.