The Bill was published in draft, as the Constitutional Renewal Bill, in 2008 and considered by a Joint Committee.  I was a member of the Joint Committee and we worked extremely hard in order to produce our report – I think a very good report - by the end of July 2008.  As Jack Straw conceded yesterday, despite the hard work of the committee, the Bill was not introduced until a year later.   It has since had a slow passage through the Commons and has not yet left the House.   Given that the Lords has business scheduled for the next two weeks, the earliest the Bill could receive a Second Reading is in the week commencing 15 March.  Given the gaps that the House imposes between stages of a Bill, there is no way that the Bill could be through the House in what remains of the Parliament.   Assuming an election on 6 May, the House will rise just before or after Easter.   That means the House has about fifteen legislating days remaining, with six of those already accounted for.

This means that the Bill will go into the wash up.  Jack Straw conceded yesterday that the Government had its priorities as to which parts of the Bill they would wish to push for acceptance in the wash up.  However, it does raise a fundamental issue of principle as to whether a major Bill that has not had all its provisions considered in detail in Parliament – the Commons did not have time to debate all provisions of the Bill – should be permitted to pass, either in whole or part.  

Had the Government introduced the Bill several months earlier than it did, it would not have got into such a mess.   No explanation was forthcoming yesterday as to why the Government allowed itself to get into this situation.

When John Bercow was elected Speaker on 22 June, he and other MPs were summoned by Black Rod and crowded into the area below the bar.  The commissioners were sat in front of the throne, Jack Straw in his black robes and hat, looking like Judge Jeffreys about to send somone to the gallows, and the others in their ermine.  After the commission had been read, Jack Straw declared “Her Majesty’s royal allowance and confirmation of you, Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons.”

While I am a greater supporter of ceremony where it has a purpose, I am not sure whether this ceremony is altogether necessary.   The election is one for the House of Commons and I doubt if MPs appreciate having to traipse all the way over to the Lords to crowd into the cramped space that is available.   It used to be the case that when a Bill received royal assent, Black Rod had to summon the Commons to attend the Lords to hear the announcement of that assent.  It interrupted business and MPs got fed up with it.  As a result, royal assent is now announced in each House without any great ceremony and without any interruption of business. 

There may be a case in the future for the approbation to be delivered by the Lord Chancellor in the Commons (given that he is now an MP), or – if the Lord Chancellor sits in the Lords – an MP who holds a position in the Royal Household.  Or is this too radical?  I also have ideas for reforming some aspects of the State Opening of Parliament!

Yesterday, The Sunday Times carried an article by Jack Straw (‘Out with the Lords, in with the Senate’) explaining why he now supports an elected second chamber.   

Most of the article is taken up discussing the cross-party group he convened to discuss reform.  Only in the last third does he offer arguments for an elected second chamber.  

His first assertion is that the arguments for maintaining an appointed second chamber “do not pass muster in  a 21st-century democracy”.  Er, that’s it.  He does not mention any of the arguments for appointment, so does not engage with them.   He goes on to say that “it is entirely incongruous that there is no link between the parliamentarians who sit in the Lords and the people who elect the Commons.”  This strange construction contains the seeds of its own refutation.  There is a link through the Commons, which can ensure that ultimately it gets its way on behalf of the people.  That way, we retain the core accountability at the heart of our political system. 

The only other assertion he makes is that there is a link between the present crisis over expenses in the Commons and reform of the Lords.  How so?  Well, as people have found out about what MPs do, they have disapproved, and the more they find out about what the Lords do they will favour change.    What?  

I am reliably informed that in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, those who knew most about the House were more likely to support its retention.  We know from the survey undertaken for the Constitution Unit at University College London that there is popular support for what the House presently does – people have some idea what it is about – and somewhat more think it is doing a good job than those thinking the House of Commons is doing a good job.  Jack Straw seems to believe that greater openness will make it difficult to make a case for the present House.  No it won’t.  The House is open and transparent and working hard at making sure that as many members of the public know about its work.  In my experience, the more people know about it, the more they favour retaining it.

Jack Straw ends by saying that there is no reason why an elected second chamber “will not contain outstanding individuals of all parties and of none.”  “and of none”?  Just like the Commons?  And if this new chamber will contain outstanding people, and not those who would really like to be in the Commons, then why did Mr Straw in his White Paper last year suggest that after service in an elected second chamber, members should be barred for a number of years from seeking election to the Commons?

The article is in a section headed ‘Think Tank’.  Mr Straw appears to have drowned in it.

The Lord Chancellor knows who I am, and has variously quoted me, but he seems to have problems with my name.  He once referred to me in the Commons as ‘Lord Norton of Looth’ (before being corrected by another MP).  Yesterday, I thought he kept mis-pronouncing my name, but my hearing isn’t brilliant and I wasn’t certain.  My hearing clearly wasn’t that bad.  After the session had finished, another member – a historian – turned to me and said: ‘He called you Lord North’, adding: ‘Do you think that’s libellious?’

The ceremony often confuses broadcasters and others.  The judges sat in front of the Queen, with their robes and wigs, for example, are not the Law Lords.  Members of the diplomat corps, as well as wives of members of the House, sit in set places in the chamber. 

The occasion, though, is not just a ceremony for the sake of it.  It has great symbolic relevance.  It is the one occasion in the year when Parliament as a legal entity – the Queen-in-Parliament – meets.  The status of the Queen as someone being above politics is symbolised by the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, handing the speech to her and then being given it back once it has been delivered.  The meeting marks the start of a new session of Parliament and allows the Government to announce its programme for that session.  The programme announced this morning was fairly short – this session will be a shorter one than the last one – with no great surprises.  Various Bills, expected to be included, have been omitted.

The significance of the State Opening of Parliament is discussed by the Lord Speaker in a video on the Parliament YouTube channel at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJRPX1P1Ng