The debate was notable for the quality as well as the quantity of speakers.  They included all three party leaders in the House as well as such distinguished members as former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell and former ministers such as Baroness Shephard and Lord Rooker.   As both Lord Higgins and Lord Filkin were to note as the debate progressed, a consensus appeared to be emerging.  There was an acceptance that the House does a good job, but that there are no grounds for complacency.   We need to build on what we already do in scrutinising Government Bills and public policy.

I argued the case for more pre-legislative scrutiny (not least through Joint Committees), for the introduction of evidence-taking committees for Bills starting life in the Lords, and for a Joint Committee on Post-Legislative Scrutiny (to cover reviews of secondary as well as primary legislation).   As Lord Puttnam noted, we would have benefited from an evidence-taking committee on the Digital Economy Bill. I also wanted to see Select Committees get out and about in different parts of the United Kingdom to take evidence and to make greater use of online consultation.  These changes will enable the House to engage more with the public, ensuring there is not only greater awareness of what we do but more opportunities to help us do our job by feeding in informed comments from experts and others with knowledge of the subject under consideration.

Lord Rooker made the point, which I reiterated in closing, that a good Government needs a strong Parliament.  There was a clear mood in the House favouring change designed to enhance our ability to scrutinise Bills and public policy.  The likelihood is that a Leader’s Group will be formed after the next election in order to take forward proposals for change.  In the meantime, we will continue pressing.

UPDATE: The debate can be read here.

However, as the days progress, what is being said privately is starting to seep into the formal deliberations.  That is, that some of the Bills presently being considered may not have completed all their stages by the time that the election is announced.  If that happens, there is a discussion between the parties in what is known as ‘the wash-up’ to determine which Bills can be agreed and rushed through before Parliament is dissolved.    If there is to be an election on 6 May, Parliament is likely to sit up until Easter and then return for two or three days immediately after Easter for the wash-up.

During committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill yesterday, for example, Lord Clement-Jones from the Liberal Democrat benches, said in respect of technical measures covered in the Bill: “I urge the Minister to think very carefully about this.  If he genuinely wants the Bill to pass and not get lost in the wash-up in the other place, he will have to demonstrate that these provisions are copper-bottomed in how they operate.  I just give that warning.”

Another Bill that may well be caught in the wash-up is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.  The Government keep adding things to it, but they do so as the time to get the measure through recedes.  The Bill still has to have its final committee day in the Commons.  It then has to go through its Report stage and Third Reading before it comes to us.  Given the gaps we have between each stage of a Bill, it looks increasingly unlikely that it will have completed all its stages by Easter. 

In the wash-up, each opposition party essentially becomes a veto player.  There has to be agreement on what Bills, or the particular parts of Bills, are to be rushed through before dissolution.   Otherwise, the legislation is dead.   On some Bills, I suspect such an outcome would not be unwelcome.

“Lord Fowler:  My Lords, I am responding first from this side but I should perhaps make it clear that the views I set out are mine alone and, probably to its relief-do not bind my party in any way. This is also not a bid to move from here to the Front Bench. I know this will come as an enormous disappointment to your Lordships, but I have already made more political comebacks than the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson.

Lord Mandelson: Impossible!

Lord Fowler: That is about right; on reflection, he has made rather more.

In any event, I was rather put in my place at the State Opening. The cameras roamed over those of us waiting and, I am told, for a moment or two dwelt on me, which noble Lords might think was rather good-and it might have been had the BBC commentator not chosen to add the remark:

“Ah, there’s a face from the past”.

So my first complaint about the Bill is that it does nothing to curb the excessive salaries paid to BBC commentators.”

One aspect of the Bill that interests me is to do with its form.  Other than the final clauses that form the General clauses (45-49), every clause amends an earlier piece of legislation (mostly the Communications Act 2003), making it difficult to grasp fully the change made without going back to the earlier legislation.  It is another case where a Keeling-like schedule (showing the original legislation and how this Bill changes it) would doubtless be valuable.