New Clause 9 (Hansard, 4 March 1999)

§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)
I remind the Committee that, with this, we are discussing amendment No. 12, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert 'the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords and'.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
To continue—Members of stage 1 of the upper House to play a full and active part in it. Underlying that matter is the effectiveness of the interim upper House, which, in turn, depends very much on its composition and the contribution that its Members will make.
So far, we have rather taken for granted the unique contribution of hereditary peers, which stems not only from their independence of mind and expertise, but from the fact that, crucially in the context of the new clause, they have made their contribution without being paid. That raises the crucial issue of whether the interim House, as the Government envisage it, can survive and be as effective without the hereditary element, and without the payment of its Members. Will life peers not only continue to make their variable contributions, but fill the gap left by the disappearance of hereditary peers, without us seriously considering pay and allowances—hence the new clause's importance?
I do not want to prejudge the matter. I have made my position very clear, for what that is worth. Ultimately—I hope sooner rather than later—I believe that we shall have a properly elected, accountable, small upper Chamber, which has equivalent powers to this place and whose Members are paid and supported appropriately by staff. It is much more difficult to envisage the operation of the interim House, composed as it will be mainly of life peers, with, perhaps, additional life peers appointed in some way about which we are not yet entirely clear, and to decide 1246 whether we think that they will be prepared and able to make an effective contribution, so that the interim House is effective as an upper Chamber, if they are not paid.
We cannot proceed any further without providing a mechanism, as the new clause and the amendment do, to deal urgently with the matter; otherwise, we risk expecting an upper House of radically changed composition to play the role that it has up to now without any alteration in the support that we give to its Members.

§ Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are dealing with an historical hangover, because it was assumed that hereditary peers would have wealth, and that there is absolutely no reason for a similar assumption concerning life peers?

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I am sure that some of the hereditary peers that he and I know and love very greatly would say that the golden era in which they could be assumed to have wealth has, regrettably, long since gone. In fact, I would argue that, in some ways, the hereditary element is representative of society, because, regrettably, many hereditary peers are almost as impecunious as I am. Therefore, they could be said to represent a surprisingly large spectrum of society.

§ Mr. Letwin
rose —

§ Mr. Forth
Perhaps my hon. Friend is going to tell the Committee how impecunious he is.

§ Mr. Letwin
I shall resist that temptation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem resides in the fact that many life peers are more impecunious than he is because they have no visible means of support?

§ Mr. Forth
Yes. That takes us to the kernel of the matter. We cannot wait until stage 2, the final outcome, the culmination of the process, before we take a serious look at whether an interim upper House can be sustainable and credible if it is based on the acts of charity of its Members, on which we have relied for too long.

§ Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West)
As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to develop the argument that most hereditary peers are able to attend because they have some income. Given that only about 20 per cent. of hereditary peers attend, is there a relationship between the ones who attend and their wealth, compared with the ones who do not attend and their wealth? That would support his notion that attendance is related to one's other financial means.

§ Mr. Forth
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady's figures are correct, but I will not fall out with her over that. I do not think that such on analysis has been made. I accept the relevance of her question. However, I believe that I am approaching the issue from a different direction.
We cannot assume that hereditary peers are all wealthy in their own right; that era is long gone. We cannot assume that hereditary peers make no contribution to the upper House, because they make a distinct and valuable 1247 contribution. We cannot assume that life peers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution either, because it is a sad fact that very many life peers make little or no contribution to the upper House.
This is where I differ from Labour Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) does not fall into this category, but some of her hon. Friends make the mistake of assuming that "hereditary" means useless and bad and that "life" means valuable and good, and that therefore we shall have a splendid upper House if we do away with the hereditaries.
I challenge all those assumptions. Given the changes that will now take place—because the Government are willing them upon us—and given that, willy-nilly, the interim Chamber will consist overwhelmingly of life peers, we must seriously consider whether unpaid life peers will be able to sustain a credible upper House that will make a valuable contribution to the legislative process of holding the Government to account. That is the important question at issue as we debate the new clause.
As ever, my hon. Friends have done Parliament a valuable service in bringing this matter to our attention and giving us the opportunity to set up a mechanism to conduct a review of salaries to run in parallel with the work of the royal commission. At least that provides the opportunity to have properly remunerated Members of the upper House.

§ Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)
My right hon. Friend referred to the Members of the interim House being properly remunerated. That is the exact terminology that the Government use. In chapter 8 of their White Paper "Modernising Parliament—Reforming the House of Lords", they refer to the "proper salaries" and research costs that a fully elected House would command, and indeed deserve. Why should something that is proper for an elected House be improper for an interim House?

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I said a moment ago—I may be coloured by my own prejudice—that in my view we should have, as quickly as possible, an elected, accountable Chamber, but a very small one. I have suggested that it should have 87 Members. I have said that because there are 87 European parliamentary constituencies, so we would have a ready-made electoral map for that small upper Chamber. In those circumstances, because of the nature of that Chamber, I should have thought that the Members could expect a rather substantial salary to reflect the role that they would play. The same analysis cannot apply to the interim House, which would still have several hundred Members.
I support the new clause because I believe that we need an opportunity to consider the payment of the Members of the interim House, bearing in mind its size, composition and so on. Of course, we would then have to look beyond that at how the final upper House—in my view, elected and accountable—would operate, in view of the number of its Members.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
The number 87, which my right hon. Friend has conjured up, strikes me as a useful number. He will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), 1248 who opened the debate yesterday, speak of the conditions in which the present Members were accommodated—seven to a room. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a number as 87 would fit very conveniently into that temple to the part-time Parliament which is being erected across the road from this place?

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into speculating where my upper House of 87 Members would be accommodated. I can tell from the look on your face, Mr. Lord, that if I were to start to reply to him in even the briefest terms you would not allow me to do so, so I shall not, tempted as I am.

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Forth
I hope that my hon. Friend will not tempt me further to explore the shape, size and accommodation of my preferred upper Chamber, although I hope that the day will come when I may explore those options fully.

§ Mr. Heald
I certainly would not trespass on that dangerous ground.
In reviewing the salaries and allowances, should not the Senior Salaries Review Body carefully consider what the functions of the upper House are and might be? In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend feel that a wide-ranging review by the SSRB is needed, focusing on the allowance available for research and secretarial assistance? I suggest that, if Members of the upper House are to have enhanced functions, they will need considerably more back-up than they have had.

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend asks a vital question. Interestingly, it runs in parallel with the question that we, the House, shall have to consider concerning the pay and allowances paid to Members of the Scottish Parliament when that Parliament comes into being. After all, their function and role will have altered, will it not?
We must confront the same question in relation to developments elsewhere in our constitutional arrangements. When we have a Scottish Parliament, with MSPs—as I believe that they will be called—fulfilling their functions, the relationship between such functions and pay will need to be explored.

§ Mr. Letwin
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem to which he has so forcefully drawn the Committee's attention is greater than he has been describing if, as a result of yesterday's debates and the lamentable lack of any concession by the Government to our amendments, the interim Chamber lasts a very long time indeed?

§ Mr. Forth
I hope that that reinforces my argument. In the context of our amendments, if the Government had told us that they could guarantee that the interim arrangements would last only two or three years, we might then have conceded that it would not be necessary or proper to consider pay and so on. However, my hon. Friend must be right in saying that, given that we have no such guarantee, and that we cannot be certain how long the interim arrangement will last, we must have a mechanism to consider the issue of functions as related to pay.
1249 All this argument now comes together in the new clause that my hon. Frienes have offered to the House. I hope that we shall receive a very positive response from the Minister about it because I fear that, if we do not, we shall be left even more uncertain, confused and unhappy than we were when we considered the matter yesterday.

§ Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)
There are considerable dangers in the use of simile or metaphor, but my views on the new clause are best communicated by some form of simile.
Our current position is like that of a family with two cars, one of which has long been neglected, has been due for replacement for several decades, has not been maintained and is, in the family's general opinion, clapped-out or in a bad state of repair. Some members of the family argue that it is a vintage car, which should be protected, but the majority view is that it should be scrapped, and that that decision should be taken before the family argue about what should replace it. Some of the family may argue that the second car may not be appropriate to the modern age, and others may argue about the model of car that should be chosen.
New clause 9 is rather like asking the family, once they have decided to scrap the car, to have a discussion about whether—at such a late stage, the day before it is scrapped—it should be taken in for an assessment and overhaul, and perhaps a respray. I believe that most family members would accept that the new car would have to be appropriately maintained and that it should probably be a new model. There may even be an argument about what type of car it should be.
Whether or not we accept the need to discuss those issues, the relevant decision should be taken once we know what the new model of car is and, indeed, whether the family are intending to have a new car; after all, some of the family may have argued that, in the modern age, they should not buy one.
That simile illustrates our current position. Sensibly, Conservative Members are asking that we ensure that the new model of car is appropriate to its new function. Perhaps we should be arguing about why we need the second car, what it should do, how big it should be and when it should be used. When we have determined that, we can discuss the maintenance schedule, how much we invest in it and what colour the seats should be. All those questions are appropriate at the right time, but now, at the death-bed of the House of Lords as we have known it, is not the time to discuss how we should improve it and maintain it, or to determine—

§ Mr. Forth
To follow the hon. Gentleman's rather ghastly analogy, what we are discussing is whether we should put any petrol in the car.

§ Dr. Turner
I accept that on the way to the scrap yard is not the time to fill the tank with petrol.
Of course there is a serious point. When we debate a new form for the other place, we should make sure that it is appropriately equipped to do the job. We need to know whether its Members will be part-time or full-time, whether they will be seconded from industry for fixed periods to do a technical job, or whether they will be elected and will serve full-time, doing a different kind of job.

§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that—using his analogy of scrapping the current model—what is being created by the Bill is an entirely new model? The interim House may not be a temporary measure; it may be a long-term measure. Therefore it makes perfect sense to consider terms and conditions and pay as part of the new package that the Government will introduce as a result of the Bill.

§ Dr. Turner
I admitted at the outset that there were limitations to the use of simile and metaphor, but it has some merits. I accept that the Opposition fear that what is seen as a temporary situation may be longer lasting. However, the new clause looks as though it is designed for the long term. By the time the work load of the interim House has been properly examined and reported, and the recommendations implemented, many of my hon. Friends and I will want an entirely new House of Lords brought into existence by legislation.
If the new clause is not mischievous, it is badly timed. We should indeed debate those topics, but at a later date.

§ Mr. Swayne
It could, perhaps, be argued that there is some measure of profligacy on the Opposition's part. The taxpayer has undoubtedly been enjoying a bargain. If one measures productivity in terms of 2,000 amendments accepted per year, the rate currently paid out for the job is remarkably small. There is a strong argument that the taxpayer should continue to enjoy such a bargain, but that takes no account of the fact that the situation will have changed radically as a consequence of the Bill.
That is where I depart from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He is wrong in his simile about the car being scrapped. We are speaking of a different vehicle. The reduction in the hereditaries will remove a significant number of the working peers. That work load will devolve on to the remaining peers.

§ Caroline Flint (Don Valley)
Has the hon. Gentleman's party been asked to act as the trade union for the life peers? Have the life peers asked you to propose terms and conditions for them in the interim period?

§ Mr. Swayne
I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, have been asked any such question, but I certainly have not.
The issue is the work load that will devolve on to the working peers. Unless support is provided for them, the work simply will not be done. There will be an insufficient number of peers to attend to it.
Only last night the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department refused to give any indication of the period that the Government had in mind for the duration of the transitional arrangements. That makes it clear that it is entirely proper to consider the issues arising from the proposed changes.
For the benefit of the Minister, I reiterate my suggestion that, when we consider how the even more productive peers are to be accommodated, we should remember that an almost purpose-built building is being erected, which surely could not be given up for the accommodation of members of a House who recently voted to give themselves a half-day on Thursday and an extra week's holiday in February.

§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
I shall be brief. I find the debate a little odd. I shall not be drawn into the analogy of cars, because everyone knows that all the best family saloons are made in my constituency by Vauxhall. I have no aspirations to go to the other place, so I shall not be drawn down that road.
The Opposition frequently preach to us about their supposed business skills, yet the new clause negates all the principles that would usually be used to examine a business case for determining the pay and conditions of a group of workers. The Opposition keep telling us that we do not yet know what those people will do, how long they will do it and how many of them there will be, so the Senior Salaries Review Body would be faced with an impossible task if we followed the logic of the Opposition case. On that simple basis, I hope that the Committee will resist the motion.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. We know that some time during this Parliament—if the Government have their way, at the end of this parliamentary Session—the House of Lords will lose a large percentage of its active membership. We also know that the House of Lords will continue to have to perform the functions that it currently performs. In other words, it will have to scrutinise legislation, and its Select Committees will have to examine deregulation, European Communities legislation and all the other things that they do at present.
We know that, in fulfilling those functions, the House of Lords will be deprived of the services of a great many Members who regularly attend, man those Committees and carry out that scrutiny. We know that there is no proposal in the Bill to change the functions of the House of Lords.
I find the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) an endearing Member, but what he said was arrant nonsense. He had the chance to try to push things on yesterday, but he did not take that chance by voting for the appropriate amendment. We know that the Government have no idea how long the House of Lords will continue to sit in its present form, but deprived of the membership of some of its most active Members. It might be for one year or two years. Even on the Government's admissions from the Dispatch Box, through the mouths of several Ministers in this debate, we know that we are speaking of a new form of second Chamber coming into existence after the next general election, at the earliest.
For a minimum of two years, but very likely for far longer than that—even if the Government win the election—

§ Mr. Forth
Oh!

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
—even if the Government win the election with a commanding majority—

§ Mr. Forth
Oh!

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
—both of which propositions I find highly improbable, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would agree. Even if that happened, we are probably talking, on the Government's own admissions at the 1252 Dispatch Box, of a minimum period of about four years from now before any replacement second Chamber could be functioning effectively.

§ Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea)
Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he has no interest to declare, as what he describes is, effectively, a new deal for hereditary peers? We have often been told how many of these hereditary peers live in Conservative Members' constituencies. I dare say that many of the backwoodsmen live, literally, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). How many live in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency of South Staffordshire?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
None. Not only is that irrelevant, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to listen to and understand what we have been saying.
We accept that the Government will get their way on the matter of the hereditary peers. That is not in dispute. We have accepted that time and again, although we do not necessarily think that the Government were right to make that a priority of their legislative programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said only yesterday that we accept that the Government were elected with a large majority and that that was part of their manifesto, although I doubt whether many of those who voted for new Labour did so for that reason. Nevertheless, the Government are entitled to claim a mandate. That is not at issue. At the end of this Session, the Bill is likely to become an Act of Parliament and, as a result, there will be no hereditary peers.
Not only is no Weatherill amendment incorporated in the Bill, but, when the House was offered the opportunity to vote for a similar amendment a couple of weeks ago, it rejected it. Therefore, we are talking of a House that will have a much smaller number of active peers than it has at the moment.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
The hon. Gentleman would make a passionate shop steward, but my experience over many years of trade unionism is that a group of people who want a pay rise put in for it first, before any other representation is made. I am not sure whether any such claim has been or is to be made. What purpose would there be in setting up any such review until we know the future make-up of the second Chamber? For example, if it is made up of largely indirectly elected Members from the regions—it may well be, but it may not be—how shall we to know what salaries such people are already receiving? It makes no sense at this stage to look at their salaries.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I almost despair. We know the composition of the House of Lords for the foreseeable future. We also know what its work load will be. That is not in dispute between the two Front Benches or between anyone who has examined the matter. We know that there will be a House of Lords which, for the foreseeable future, will consist of those who are presently life peers, those who are presently there by virtue of the fact that they are among the 26 bishops of the established Church, 1253 and those who are there because they are Law Lords. The Government have said that. But the interim may be a long time.

§ Dr. George Turner
rose—

§ Mr. Heald
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
In a minute. I am trying to conduct a teach-in on the new House of Lords. Let my hon. Friend contain his patience for half a second.
The House of Lords will consist of those three elements—the life peers, the bishops and the Law Lords. We also know that there may not be any of the 91 hereditary peers, because that is not in the Bill, and the attempt to put them there has been emphatically rejected by the House. We also know that, with the increase in business emanating from Europe, the work load will increase. Therefore, we know that a significant burden will be placed on the shoulders of a relatively few life peers. It is important to recognise that.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was wrong when she intervened, because 40 per cent. of those who currently attend the House of Lords are hereditary peers, and 10 of those who are members of the 20-strong Committee—the most important Committee of all—examining European legislation, are hereditary Peers. They will go. According to the Bill, they will not be represented by any of their number.

§ Dr. Starkey
rose—

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
Let me make a final point and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—chivalry demands that—and then to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
We have the work load, but we will not have the hereditary peers. All we are saying in this modest new clause is that the functions and composition of the House of Lords should be referred to the Senior Salaries Review Body so that it can assess whether it is desirable, sensible, prudent—whatever one likes to call it—that those sustaining the work load for that indefinite period should be adequately recompensed for so doing.

§ Mr. Heald
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be wrong to abolish duty-free goods until a permanent successor regime was put in place? Yet he is prepared to go ahead without any permanent successor regime for the House of Lords. Is that not one of the difficulties that we face? Therefore, would it not be right for the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at not just the temporary arrangement, but a range of options for the future?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The real difficulty that we face, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we have a Prime Minister who has perfected the art of dining à la carte, and who, therefore, picks and chooses what he wants, and who has no consistency, theme, rhythm or purpose behind his constitutional endeavours. The Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get up and talk about duty-free goods 1254 and to enunciate a principle which, if applied to this Bill, would have led to the acceptance of not only this new clause but most of the amendments hitherto debated.

§ Dr. Starkey
I simply wanted to correct a mathematical point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. When I intervened, I said that only 20 per cent. of hereditary peers turn up and vote. That is entirely consistent with his alternative mathematical expression. That 20 per cent. may constitute 40 per cent. of the active peers. I simply wanted to make it clear that my point was correct and not altered by the hon. Gentleman's point.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
If, inadvertently, I made any allegation of innumeracy against the hon. Lady, I unreservedly withdraw it. But the fact remains that 40 per cent. of those who regularly attend, who bear the burden and heat of the day, are hereditary peers. That is why, if the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who is becoming agitated—a state to which he is thoroughly accustomed—had used the analogy of a bus with half its passengers missing rather than a car, it would have been a much more telling analogy.

§ Dr. George Turner
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) sits on the Conservative Benches and I do not want to be associated with the Opposition. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormeck) seems entirely to ignore the point that change will begat change. It is said that the graveyard is full of the bones of indispensable men. Those who are doing the work now in the House of Lords will have volunteers to replace them. They are not indispensable, as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. If not enough are forthcoming and willing to work, and if we are to go for the extended period, which the hon. Gentleman envisages—which I do not—there is the option of new blood. Shall we not be able to debate many such matters when the Bill returns from the other place?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I remind the hon. Gentleman that all we are saying is that the Senior Salaries Review Body should have the opportunity to keep these matters under review. He is a man with a literary turn of mind, so perhaps he recalls that lovely—

§ Dr. Turner
I am an engineer.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The hon. Gentleman appears to have a literary turn of mind. I was giving him a reputation for couth and culture, which I would have thought that he would be delighted to revel in. Perhaps he knows that lovely poem by John Betjeman about the death of the golf club secretary. The final lines are: It's strange that those we miss the most Are those we take for granted. We take those peers, and the work that they do, for granted. When they have gone, the work will remain and somebody will have to do it.
One does not have to be a mathematician of the genius of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West to be able to accept that more work will fall on fewer shoulders. Therefore, those people will not be able to attend their offices, the law courts and the other places where they are 1255 otherwise gainfully employed, in some cases, as often as they do at the moment. How often have we heard it said that the very removal of those peers—"Off with their heads"—will make the House of Lords better? If the Government want the new House of Lords to be better than the one it replaces, surely it is incumbent on them to take every logical and prudent step to ensure that those who bear that burden will be enabled to do so.

§ Mr. Winnick
The Opposition amendments that we debated yesterday emphasised the need to make sure that the Government produce the second stage as quickly as possible, but the hon. Gentleman is asking for salaries, and the rest of it, for the interim, which is almost an incentive for that interim to remain permanent. He is contradicting what he said yesterday.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
On the contrary, Mr. Lord. How good it is to have someone of your name in the Chair when we are discussing these matters. If anyone is being inconsistent and contradictory, it is the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, we said that we were deeply unhappy with the way in which the Government were handling this whole issue and that it would be sensible to put a terminal date on the existence of the so-called interim Chamber. I remind the House that, as I said yesterday, at no stage does the Bill refer to the interim Chamber.
The Government were supported by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for North-West Norfolk-1 am grateful for the correction of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, and I of course apologise to him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior)—who voted against those amendments, which were eliminated. The Government strenuously resisted any attempt to put a terminal date in the Bill, so—

§ Mr. Winnick
That is correct.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I am grateful for the gracious affirmation of the hon. Gentleman in that regard; I heard every word that he uttered. All we are saying is that there must be proper provision to ensure that those who have to do the work are enabled to do it.
Among the life peers, on whom that work will fall, there may be some wealthy men and women, but an awful lot are not wealthy. Many extremely hard-working Labour peers will not be able to devote the extra time necessary. A number of them are friends of mine. I chair a large all-party Committee of both Houses of which a number of those peers and peeresses are members and I know very well that they would not be able to do that extra work without recompense and compensation for it. That is all we are saying.

§ Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that making a proposition without specifying the cost, so that people are aware of it, is not good politics in this House? If the new clause is successful and the issue goes to the Senior Salaries Review Body, will the Conservative party submit evidence to that body and argue for a bridging of the gap in financial support between this House and the other place? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) implied that 1256 that would be the case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Conservative party argues that case, the cost would be £200 million a year? Is that the Conservative party's priority for any additional expenditure?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's main question. We would give evidence to that body and the evidence would be based on a careful assessment of what was needed. We do not suggest in the new clause that Members of the other place should immediately be given parliamentary salaries equivalent to those received by Members of this House, who have constituents and other responsibilities. We are suggesting that a number of life peers, many of them Labour peers, would have to do more work although they have other jobs to do and would not—

§ Mr. Rammell
Uncosted.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
Yes, the salaries are uncosted, which is why they should be put to a review body. That is a simple point.
We are not saying that those people should receive X thousand pounds a year. All we are saying is that the review body should consider what they are doing, and what it is costing them, and decide whether it would be appropriate for them to receive more in secretarial and other allowances, although it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to do so.

§ Mr. Rammell
I think that we are making progress. The Conservative party submission to the Senior Salaries Review Body would not argue for parity with this House in terms of financial support. What figure would the Conservative party put in its submission? The hon. Gentleman clearly wants the new clause to be accepted and wants the issue to go to the Senior Salaries Review Body. What detailed thought has the Conservative party given to the submission that it would make?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The matter would be given to the review body. The hon. Gentleman should understand that we are not advocating any specific sum of money. The review body should be given the job and we hope that everybody—including Labour Members with friends in the other place—will give evidence.
Some of those peers spend a prodigious amount of time scrutinising legislation and in Select Committees. Some can afford to give that time and some cannot. There are those who have received peerages, from the Labour party and from my party, who have nominally been Members of the other House for a considerable time—in some cases, a number of years—and have yet to make a maiden speech. I can think of two former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, who were ennobled during the past five or six years, who have yet to make a maiden speech.
I am not suggesting that those people's honours are not fitting recognition of the work that they have done for this House and for the country, but they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, active peers. I can think of at least four Labour peers who fall into roughly the same category. I am not casting aspersions at them either, but I want to show that there is a finite body of men and women who have a valuable job to do. There is no point in saying that they can be augmented; of course they can. New peers 1257 can be appointed, but the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who is a reasonable man, will accept that we cannot create experience overnight.
If the Government's objective is to be fulfilled and the successor House of Lords is to be at least as effective as the present House, it is crucial that those who work there should be able to work there. That may mean, in some cases, their receiving better recompense. All we are saying

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Should it be performance related?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
If the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that it should be performance related, I would have no qualms about that. What Members of the House of Lords receive now is performance related, because they receive an attendance allowance.

§ Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)
When they turn up.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The Deputy Chief Whip, who has obviously been pregnant with speech for hours and is desperate to intervene, says that they receive the allowance if they turn up. The Senior Salaries Review Body would be quite at liberty to say that any award that it recommended depended not only on turning up and signing a register, but on proper participation. The hon. Gentleman, as Deputy Chief Whip, knows that one or two people in this place merely turn up. He also knows that he sometimes offers them inducements not to turn up. The Deputy Chief Whip, as Deputy Patronage Secretary, is in no position to lecture me or any of his colleagues on that subject.
The Senior Salaries Review Body would be able to adjudicate on all those issues and particulars. This is a modest new clause.

§ Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester)
I think that I have almost got to the bottom of this statistical problem. It is clear from the figures that hereditary peers contribute half the total activity. In the 1996–97 Session, 182 hereditary peers and 186 life peers attended more than half the sitting days. That is rather more than the 40 per cent. you were suggesting, and strengthens the point you were making about having to do something about the remainder.

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I was not making any suggestions.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
No, Mr. Lord, indeed you were not, but I was and I am grateful for the added weight that my hon. Friend's sage intervention gives to the argument that I have been trying to advance.
The issue is simple: do we want the new Chamber—the existing Chamber deprived of the services of the hereditaries—to be an effective, functioning Chamber? If so, surely it is common sense to allow the body that we have already established to look at the rewards for public service to include in its remit the service rendered by those who will sit in the other place? I rest my case.

§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)
I intended to intervene briefly. Indeed, I had not originally intended to 1258 speak to this new clause, but it raises some important points that we would be wise to address at this stage of the Bill rather than to defer them. We are moving to some different form of second Chamber, which will have different functions and probably far fewer people to discharge them. On that basis alone, it is apparent that the cut-price second Chamber that we have had for a long time, whereby a large number of people give their services voluntarily, will not be feasible for the future.
Listening to the debate on this issue yesterday and today, it struck me forcefully that many Labour Members have not focused their minds on this aspect. They seem to assume that, if we wave our magic wand, the second Chamber will be transformed and we will continue as before. Their contributions to the debate have reinforced my anxiety about stage 2, because they are quite incapable even of looking beyond stage 1. They continually repeat the mantra "get rid of hereditary peers" without any thought for the consequences, one of which will be financial.

§ Mr. Heald
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something rather sinister in increasing the work load of each individual peer without providing an adequate research allowance for the detailed back-up that they will need to do their job property? That may be because this arrogant Government do not want people saying, "We don't agree with you, and these are the reasons why."

§ Mr. Grieve
One has only to examine the contents of the White Paper, which contains hidden suggestions that the future role of the House of Lords may be purely consultative because it will have no teeth, to realise that the Government's agenda gives rise to serious concern. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Tyrie
The Minister is nodding his head in agreement.

§ Mr. Grieve
I shall give way to the Minister, so he can explain himself.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)
I was interested in the language of the debate, and the remark about hidden suggestions in the White Paper. They are either in the White Paper or they are hidden from the White Paper.

§ Mr. Grieve
White Papers always make fascinating reading. I enjoy reading them, but we must look between the lines. The drift of the Government's message was entertaining. In the White Paper, the Government said that they would make no recommendations to the commission about what they wanted, but, if one read about what might come out of the commission or what issues might be addressed, one immediately began to discover the Government's agenda. It is not just this White Paper: every Government document published for consultation purposes contains the same nuances, which one can quickly pick up.
I was fascinated to see in the White Paper the suggestion that, in future, there should be no blocking mechanism, even for one Session, that would allow the second Chamber to block legislation from this House, and 1259 that the other place should be merely a consultative Chamber. It is extraordinary that that suggestion was included and that it came from a Government who want to extend democracy and extend and improve scrutiny of legislation.

§ Mr. Letwin
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's assertion that there are no hidden suggestions in the White Paper is contradicted by the fact that, although the foreword says that the Government will move to long-term reform, paragraph 11 on page 29 tells us that they will do so only if there is consensus?

§ Mr. Grieve
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Doubt about whether stage 2 will ever happen is a subject that has exercised us greatly during the debate. That is why the new clause and the amendment are desirable. We need pretty quickly to focus our minds on the matter of what facilities the other place, even in the interim, will require to discharge its functions properly.
We complain that we have inadequate facilities in this House—we complain that our secretaries are 300 yd from where we work and there are often complaints about resources available to Members. Compared with the resources available to Members of the other place, we bask in the lap of luxury at the taxpayer's expense. Those facilities are necessary so that we can discharge our functions.
I take the point that Members of the other place, not having constituents, do not have the same remit or the same responsibilities that we have. Nevertheless, they require support services, which they do not receive at present because it is, in effect, an amateur second Chamber. People contribute their expertise on a voluntary basis. It is my view that, even when the hereditary peers go, there will be a profound change in the ethos of the upper House and in the way in which it operates. Whether for the better or for the worse, the prevailing ethos in the upper House is that which has been created by the generations of hereditary peers who have attended. I picked that up from talking to life peers, who reinforced my view.
Leaving aside the fact that it is only the hereditary peers who are going, the upper Chamber will change considerably. We shall have to decide whether the life peers who remain will require a better form of remuneration and support. That will be one of the essential building blocks, and we shall have to see how that works when we consider stage 2. The Government say that we cannot divorce stage 1 from stage 2 and that we must view them together, albeit that stage 1 must take place separately to clear away the logjam. The promise is, however, that stage 2 will follow.
I shall be reassured that stage 2 will really take place when, even at this stage, we start to consider some of the issues that will be involved in that stage and can also be legitimately considered now. One of those issues must be the way in which Members of the upper House are remunerated. For that reason alone, I consider the new clause entirely innocuous. It does not interfere with the Government's main programme of getting rid of hereditary peers; it is sensible, for the Senior Salaries Review Body should have an opportunity to consider the matter; and, as a result, we shall be far better informed.
1260 I dare say that, when it reports in December, the Appointments Commission may wish to consider this among other issues. However, it will help the House of Commons to have the independent view of the review body, which will constitute compelling evidence. I am worried about what happens once we have dealt with the principles involved in stage 2. It is apparent again and again that the Government are not very interested in allowing the House, or any other forum, to consider these difficult issues.
I am committed to an effective second Chamber that works. As I have said before, I believe that we shall end up with an elected second Chamber. I approve of that, but I think that it will prove rather more costly than what we have now. The sooner we get round to considering that, the better; otherwise, we shall remain in the cloud cuckoo land in which we are currently living and in which we are told, "Get rid of the hereditaries, cut off their heads, and we can forget about everything else." We cannot.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) moved the motion very eloquently last night. I remember what he said, and I hope that others do as well. He was extremely lucid. Other Conservative Members have also made a strong case for the acceptance of this straightforward and simple proposal by all reasonable people. I am sure that only reasonable hon. Members are present now!
I do not often pray in aid the Lord Chancellor—save, of course, when I require a verdict on taste in wallpaper. For the benefit of those who do not already know, I should explain that it was I who found out what the Lord Chancellor was up to in that regard, and was able to acquaint the public with the facts. The Lord Chancellor described the other place as one of the busiest Chambers in the world, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the same point very forcefully. The other place is not a retirement home for faded politicians; it is an important working Chamber which does an enormously valuable job in scrutinising legislation, and is, I think, widely respected for doing that job. At a time when the House of Commons is, perhaps, not held in the highest public esteem, the other place is held in such esteem, not least because of the weighty advice that it gives and the experience that it brings to bear.

§ Mr. Grieve
The other place is certainly not a retirement home; but is not one of the odd features of the removal of hereditary peers the fact that it will become a little more like a retirement home for ex-politicians? Although there are working peers, a large number of peers do not do very much.

§ Mr. Howarth
Indeed; and it is possible that only those who are prepared to undertake to work for a certain number of hours a day—consistent with the working time directive, of course—will be eligible for nomination. The Patronage Secretary and her deputy—who has now left the Chamber—will have an important role to play: they will decide the composition of the other place. It is clear that, following the removal of the hereditary peers and the contribution that they can make, the advancement of people to the upper House will be possible only if they can undertake not to accept the post as a sinecure, but to slave away and do the work.
1261 As we consider the burdens that will rest on those who remain in the upper House, and how those people should be remunerated, we should also consider what is involved in terms of the commitment that they give. I understand that the House of Lords sits for 143 days a year, for seven hours a day, and that in the last Session it achieved an all-time record of 228 days, or 1,604 hours, with 102 sittings after 10 pm. Having taken a short break, which I was invited to take by my former constituents, I can say that I notice how rarely this House sits after 10 pm. The fact that the other place has sat after 10 pm 102 times demonstrates the volume of activity there. If the hereditary peers are indeed to be removed, 759 potential contributors to the work of the upper House will be removed, and the full burden will descend on the 484 life peers, the Law Lords and the bishops—to the extent that they participate.
Not only will the burden increase on those who remain, but the upper House will be deprived of a huge amount of experience and knowledge. In due course, the House of Commons will consider weighty matters, not least whether we are to join the single currency. If the other House is neutered, and not enough people with the expertise to consider such matters in detail are prepared to give their time, we shall, in effect, have a unicameral arrangement. The House of Commons will be the sole source of scrutiny—and we know how much scrutiny is given by many Labour Members: we know that 100 are sent away every week so that they cannot clog up this place.

§ Mr. Letwin
Have not the Government an opportunity this evening to prove, by accepting the new clause, that they do not intend to neuter the House of Lords?

§ Mr. Howarth
Indeed. It behoves the Government to respond seriously to the new clause. I do not think that they have been entirely frank with the British people about the practical consequences of their proposals. Unless a review body is established to examine the salaries, or rather the compensation, for those of our fellow citizens who are to give up their time to scrutinise legislation in the other place, how on earth are we to persuade people to do the job?

§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)
rose—

§ Caroline Flint
rose—

§ Mr. Howarth
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, courtesy and chivalry instruct me to give way to the hon. Lady.

§ Caroline Flint
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the second Chamber could exist with only 87 members, given his own suggestion that some 500 people could not cope with the work involved in the transitional period?

§ Mr. Howarth
Although I have been here for most the debate, I did not hear my right hon. Friend's suggestion. [Interruption.] I am advised that it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who made that suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) makes an outstanding 1262 contribution to the development of all sorts of fascinating ideas. He is an original thinker. He is not merely a time-server; he makes a valuable and stimulating contribution.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's panegyric, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was talking not about the interim Chamber, but about a pipe-dream that he had of some future Chamber. Frankly, it is an absurd proposition—I have told him that already. He was not talking about the Chamber that we are debating at the moment. That is the point.

§ Mr. Howarth
As ever, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, a former neighbour. Of course, we are debarred from addressing how the next House should be constituted. You would therefore rule me out of order, Mr. Lord, if I were to go further down that line, but the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst show that there is no shortage of ideas among Conservative Members. We merely have a temporary shortage of votes.
Mr.—Sir Alan; I was pausing merely to enable you to take your seat comfortably. I was referring to the work that has been done in the other place and the need, under the new arrangements, for adequate compensation to be awarded to those who will assume the responsibility of scrutiny in the other House. You were not in the Chair when I gave some statistics on the work that is carried out in the other House, but I conclude this section of my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I am sorry. I have much more to impart to the Committee. I conclude my remarks on the section by pointing out that hereditary peers do almost half the key work of deputy speakers and form half the membership of Committees in the other place.
As I have said, some of the Committees of the other House—for example, those that deal with matters such as technology—enjoy a substantial reputation well beyond the walls of the palace of Westminster. Those Committees are made up largely of hereditary peers. If they are stripped, removed and booted out, the burden of responsibility for dealing with those important matters will rest on the remaining hereditaries. Who is to say that they will be able to assume that burden?
If the remaining hereditaries are not able to do so, and there is no proposal in the Bill to supplement them by any elected means in reinforcing that House, the only other source of expertise will be supplied by the patronage of the most patronage-conscious of Prime Ministers we have had since the second world war—the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

§ Dr. Starkey
The hon. Gentleman has praised the work of the Select Committees of the House of Lords. He will know that one of the Select Committees with the greatest reputation is the Science and Technology Committee. Although it is true that some hereditary peers are members of that Select Committee, does he agree that its reputation rests largely on the fact that it has life peers who have pursued eminent scientific and engineering careers and bring technical and professional eminence to the Committee? There is no reason to suppose that other life 1263 peers with equal scientific and engineering expertise will not easily fill the gaps in that Select Committee and add lustre to it.

§ Mr. Howarth
I was not seeking to make the point that life peers do not make a contribution. By definition, they do. Many are appointed to the other place because they are eminent in their field of expertise, but there is perhaps a difference of view between Labour Members and Conservative Members. Although, in our view, the hereditaries are a repository of expertise, that is not given proper acknowledgment by Labour Members.
I was talking about the burden of responsibility that will rest on the new interim Chamber, whatever we call it, following the changes that are introduced by the Bill, and the effect that that will have on scrutiny of important legislation which will come before Parliament. That legislation will be decided in the House of Commons, which is overwhelmingly dominated by one party and uses every opportunity to maximise its patronage. A neutered Chamber at the other end of the building will simply not have the capacity to examine that complex legislation, which will affect the future of this country and our people.
That is a grave charge against the Government. The new clause, modest as it is, at least seeks to address, in a way that we have found very difficult in respect of the Bill, the democratic deficit—what I like to call the scrutiny deficit—that will arise as a result of the passing of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said that we had been extremely fortunate to have the upper House on the cheap. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley spelled out graphically the difference in cost between that House and the House of Commons.
For the sake of those who were not here last night—I think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Moms) was not, so he will benefit from it—I remind hon. Members that the total cost of the House of Lords in the previous Session was £39.4 million, whereas the House of Commons cost £241 million and the European Parliament, understandably, an excessive and outrageous £607 million. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would like that. However, the average cost—it is important and particularly germane to the new clause—of a Member of Parliament is £366,000 and the cost of a peer is a mere £37,000; that is 10 per cent. of the cost of a Member of the House of Commons.
It comes back to the question: will we be able to run the other Chamber on the cheap without having a new clause that deals with that issue?

§ Mr. Linton
rose—

§ Mr. Rammell
rose—

§ Mr. Howarth
If the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) will forgive me, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) sits on the Select Committee on Home Affairs with me, and I may need his help in future, so I will give way to him.

§ Mr. Linton
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a price to be paid for that cheap second Chamber, in 1264 that the debates in the other place are even more dull to listen to than the debate here in the past two days? I speak as someone who has personal experience of listening to days' worth of House of Lords debates in my former capacity as parliamentary editor of a national newspaper. Although I have sat through many incredibly dull debates, yesterday's was perhaps a connoisseur's choice.
There are many dull debates in the House of Commons, but nothing would prepare hon. Members for the boredom of the other place. One of the Press Association reporters who used to cover the House of Lords regularly—I am forbidden by the rules of the House from seeing whether she is sitting in her customary place in the Press gallery—claimed for a boredom bonus because of the boredom factor in the House of Lords.

§ Mr. Howarth
Was that not spoken like a true journalist and, particularly as the hon. Gentleman came from the Grauniad newspaper, completely understandable? He is absolutely right. The House of Lords is far too boring for our modern times. It deals with matters of substance, not all the trivia with which we have to deal too often in the House of Commons. Those are people who are serious. They have made a serious, eminent and, in many cases, outstanding contribution to our national life, and that lot wish them to be booted out of our Parliament.

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. The substance of the amendment is not boredom, or otherwise, but remuneration, so I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be headed off by the intervention that he invited. I might add while I am on my feet that he must also presume that every Member in the Committee has digested all that has been said in the earlier part of the debate.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am always more than happy to be guided by your excellent wisdom, Sir Alan, and I will not seek to pursue that argument. However, with your permission, I will just say that, when listening to "Yesterday in Parliament", I have often been hugely impressed by the quality of debate in the other place. It may sometimes be rather boring, but, to be perfectly candid, every hon. Member knows that, when we are scrutinising legislation, it is often rather more boring than we would like it to be and it seldom catches the headlines. If, as parliamentarians of either House, we try simply to catch headlines, rather than deal with the substance of the issues, the people will not be served properly.
The new clause tries to address how we will remunerate those on whose shoulders will rest the burden of scrutiny in the changed—I will not use the word "reformed", because I believe this process to be a profoundly undesirable change—composition of the other place.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
Pretending for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious case, I shall just point out that there is a difference in the running of the two Houses, because Members of this House have considerable constituency responsibilities, which is not the case for the other place. My mother used to say that the difference in the quality of the post was noticeable because people were polite to Members of the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that that is a radical difference. 1265 If we are to pursue the absurdity of this case, I hope that he will accept that there is no logical reason for the House of Lords. It happens to work and, as soon as we start interfering with it, we will get ourselves into the sort of muddle that he outlines.

§ Mr. Howarth
That is an extremely valid point, and I am disappointed to say that I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. I am a Conservative and I do not believe in change unless—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
I know that.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that she knows that I am a Conservative—just in case anyone was in any doubt.
I believe that we should make change only where it needs to be made. I believe that the hon. Lady shares with me a concern that our Parliament is losing a great deal of its ability to hold the Executive to account, and I know that we agree that it does net matter which party is in government. There are enough parliamentarians around who believe in this place and will continue to make that point.
When considering how we will deal with the other place and the 484 life peers on whose shoulders the burden will rest, it is important to consider—this point has been made by a number of hon. Members—that life peers will not all have the same time to devote to proceedings in the other place as some of the hereditaries have had in the past, for one reason or another. The Government have appointed business men, leaders of the arts and so on to the other place. Such people are already leading busy lives and, if we were to rely on them, the place would grind to a halt. It is the hereditaries who are holding the fort and doing so much of the nitty-gritty, day-to-day work.
I am not against the appointment of such people, just as I was not against the appointment by previous Conservative Prime Ministers of business men with burdensome outside activities. I believe that, on the big occasions when the other place is dealing with important measures, those people should be able to come from their boardrooms and factories to provide up-to-the-minute evidence.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the substance of the new clause. I heard the same arguments deployed during the first debate on the first day in Committee. That would have been the appropriate time for him to make his remarks. He must confine his comments to the question of remuneration in the terms of the new clause.

§ Mr. Heald
rose—

§ Mr. Howarth
I will give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Heald
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as many of those individuals have a relatively small amount of time available, in order to make full use of their time at the House they will require substantial allowances for research? The increased burdens which will be placed on those busy people are such that, if there is not the proper research to enable them to make good-quality speeches and so on, the quality of our democracy will be damaged.

§ Mr. Howarth
I agree with my hon. Friend. If those people are to assume additional responsibilities, they will have to have the means to carry them out; unless the Government intend to neuter the other place so that it is powerless to scrutinise legislation. If that is the case, the House could work its wicked way without any interference from the other place. It is right and proper to consider how best to equip those who remain in the other place with the tools necessary to carry out the scrutiny of legislation that the Government say—they pay lip service—they want them to do. If not, the Government should come clean and say, "We do not want anybody to interfere in our work. We are booting out one lot and we do not want to remunerate properly those who remain."

§ Caroline Flint
We have discussed the absence of so many hereditary peers and some life peers in the work of the other place. That has not happened overnight, but has been going on over generations. A minority of those who can take part in the proceedings in the other place actually do so. In the 18 years of Tory government, why did the Conservatives not propose a scheme to look at better attendance fees and allowances for those who work in the other place? Why has that matter arisen now? Is it just about trampling on the first stage of the abolition of the House of Lords and the hereditary principle?

§ Mr. Howarth
If the hon. Lady does not understand why I am raising this issue now, she does not understand the massive changes that those on her Front Bench propose. When we were in government, there was no reason to do anything other than what we did. Throughout the life of the previous Conservative Government, we reviewed the arrangements for the remuneration of Members of the upper House. Now, the hon. Lady and her party want to remove nearly 760 Members of that place, to leave 484. All those people are to be turfed out. If the Government—and the hon. Lady—believe that the current degree of scrutiny should continue, those who remain will have to shoulder the burden. That is why we think that it is right and proper that the question of remuneration, or at least a mechanism by which it can be properly reviewed, must be written into the Bill.
It is fair to say that the House has confidence in the pay review bodies which have been established for particular groups of professionals such as the armed forces, the police and nurses. We believe that, because they are professional and have a good track record, they could do a professional job in dealing with the requirements of those who will remain in the other place to scrutinise the legislation that will originate from the Government.
I should like to single out the case of one Member of the other place. I do not intend to criticise him, so I have not warned him that I intend to mention his name. Lord Simpson, a Labour peer whom I know only vaguely, is the chairman of GEC and has made a great contribution to our industrial life. In his case, a salary review body may not be required, because he is paid even more than the Lord Chancellor. I doubt that he was paid as much as the Lord Chancellor earned in private practice, but not many people in this country are. He was, of course, the ultimate fat cat.
Lord Simpson—who makes a very big contribution to our national life—may indeed not require so much secretarial support in, or compensation for, contributing 1267 to the other place. Nevertheless, I tell the Minister that it is on the likes of Lord Simpson and other captains of industry that he and other hon. Members will have to rely to scrutinise legislation proposed by the Government. If we are to ask people like that to play a bigger part in scrutinising, we shall have to deal with how they are remunerated.
Some companies may say, "We cannot afford to lose our chairman for the required hours. Therefore, we shall cut his pay." That chairman may say, "Thank you very much, but I shall not attend. I cannot give up the time." The review body would be properly charged to consider such issues.
In the Committee's proceedings yesterday, the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an interesting, but disappointingly short, speech. He made the point that some of those in the other place were already sufficiently wealthy and would not need even £37,000 in support. As I was not able to tell him last night, I shall tell him now that those people could follow the example of Cabinet Ministers—with the exclusion, of course, of the Lord Chancellor, who does not apply; he takes his full salary—by forgoing some of their salary.
Simply because we are proposing that there should be a review body to deal with and to make recommendations on remuneration, no remaining life peer should feel required to accept all the money proposed as salary or compensation. Such people could forgo some of it, as Cabinet Ministers do.

§ Mr. Gray
Throughout my hon. Friend's speech, I have been reflecting on the irony of the situation. In town councils, county councils and district councils across the land, the Labour party—ably assisted by their friends, the Liberal Democrats—spends its entire time arguing that councillors are so badly remunerated that they must increase their allowances by attending as many committees as possible. Now, the Government are proposing reforming local government so that many councillors are wholly salaried. Although they propose making those changes across the country, they propose that people in the other place should not be remunerated properly. Is that not ironic?

§ Mr. Howarth
There is some irony in it.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
It cuts both ways.

§ Mr. Howarth
I cannot deny that; one has to be straightforward about the situation. However, I know that you would not wish me to go down the route of examining the issue of local government remuneration, Sir Alan, as I would be straying from the subject of the new clause and the amendment.
I have attempted to make a relatively short contribution to our proceedings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) should not shake his head. We are debating very serious matters. He sat there and said absolutely nothing. Some of us believe that the legislation is profoundly unacceptable, profoundly wrong and profoundly damaging to our country. The Bill would put nothing in the place of the current upper House. 1268 If the hon. Gentleman does not like my speech, let him stand up and say so, rather than sitting there like a silent so-and-so. Does he have something to say? Would he like to intervene? No. Is that not significant? We are debating an issue on which the future government of our country depends, but the hon. Gentleman can only sit there, shake his head and say absolutely nothing.

§ Mr. Rammell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Conservative Members' tactics and lengthy speeches are an attempt to filibuster, so that, ultimately, the Government will be forced to impose a guillotine—so that he can cry shame and say that the Government have done something that they should not have done? Is it not simply a naked tactic and an abuse of parliamentary procedure?

§ The Chairman
Order. I have heard enough of that exchange. Let us get back to the substance.

§ Mr. Howarth
Thank you very much, Sir Alan. All I should say is that, were I filibustering, I would be ruled out of order. I am not seeking to filibuster. Labour Members who know me will know that I feel passionately about the issue. If I have spent some time on it, it was merely to try to explain to hon. Members the consequences that would flow from the legislation.
The Committee is considering a new clause and an amendment. I feel passionately about this matter, and have sought to argue, with as much humour as I can command, that the measures would add to the Bill. I therefore hope that the Government will consider very carefully the arguments made in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, by other Conservative Members and, perhaps, even by me. I hope that the Committee will take those arguments into account, and perhaps even respond sympathetically to them.

§ Mr. Heald
One of the arguments that the Government seem to be making is that it is premature for us to discuss salary arrangements for the House of Lords. They seem to be saying, "In the interim House, the Lords will be doing the same job that they are doing now. It is too early to say what the future arrangements should be, because the royal commission hasn't yet reported." It has occurred to me during the debate that that is a typically jobsworth approach.
Earlier in the debate, hon. Members mentioned an American President who was unable to walk down the sidewalk and chew gum at the same time. All too often in the United Kingdom, we take a similar approach—in not doing two things at once. Why cannot the royal commission and the Senior Salaries Review Body work simultaneously, each examining one of the two issues that will have to be decided for the future? One of them—the commission—could consider composition of the House of Lords, and the other could consider what pay and allowances Members of the other place should receive if any of the running options for the other place were to be taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested the option of creating a senate comprised of about 87 members. If we opted for such a scheme, the senators would require very substantial allowances if they were to do their job properly. Anyone 1269 who has been to the American Senate will know that Senators work across such large geographical and policy areas that they require very large staff. When one goes to a meeting with an American Senator, one spends half an hour with a chief staff officer who is in charge of a specific policy issue before spending only 10 minutes with the Senator to discuss broad policy issues. The detail is dealt with by a Senator's staff.

§ Mr. Forth
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Heald
Yes, of course I shall.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who can have 10 minutes with me any time he likes. Does he agree that the issue we are debating cannot be examined in a static environment? Does he agree that both the commission and the review body will have to examine the issue in the context of a Scottish Parliament and possibly—as I should prefer—an English Parliament? Would not an examination within that context put a different complexion not only on a new upper Chamber, but on the role of this place? All those matters would have to be taken into account as the situation developed.

§ Mr. Heald
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many of the duties currently undertaken by Scottish Members will be dealt with by Members of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, we should examine whether, in future, English Members—who will be performing both sets of duties in this place—and Scottish Members require the same staff and other back-up. The matter will have to be examined. I am not saying that we will necessarily conclude that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not have a very substantial allowance. I am saying that there would be no harm in asking the Senior Salaries Review Body to conduct a very wide-ranging inquiry not only into the situation in Scotland and Wales but, more importantly, in the House of Lords. In parallel with the deliberations of the royal commission, the SSRB should consider the options, including a senate and the proposed interim Chamber, and produce a range of recommendations for the salary and allowance packages in each case.
4 pm
It is wrong for the Government to dismiss the issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—particularly Labour Members—voted enthusiastically to increase our office costs allowance to ensure that we had proper research back-up. Is it right to expect the other place to go on as now? The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want a serious House of Lords that has been reformed or changed for the better, they must accept that reducing the number of people engaged in the other place will result in an increasing work load for those who are left. That may mean that more research back-up is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) talked about busy men who make a living outside the other place and go there to make contributions to debates in the evenings. They will need much more research back-up to be able to continue doing the job properly with an increased work load.
The Government pretend to be keen on Parliament and to want a decent Parliament doing a decent job, although their actions do not necessarily correspond with that. Is it 1270 not sinister for them to reduce the numbers in the other place, increase their work load and refuse to give them proper research facilities? Do they want a hobbled House of Lords? There is a strong suspicion that we shall never get to the second stage. We have been pressing hard for it to avoid ending up with a hobbled House of Lords.

§ Mr. Miller
I should like to be clear about which part of the Conservative argument the hon. Gentleman is following. His analogy with the American Senate, made up of 100 people, loosely follows the argument of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which was described by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) as absurd. Dividing £39 million among the 87 Senators proposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would leave a budget per head of about £450,000. Would that not be enough? Which argument is the hon. Gentleman following?

§ Mr. Heald
The real problem is that, although the Prime Minister said that the duty-free regime should not be replaced until a permanent successor regime had been established, he is prepared to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords with no clear idea of where he is going.

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)
I am unwillingly drawn to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. This is the umpteenth time that I have heard that argument, among the many other ludicrous arguments from the Conservatives. Of all the ludicrous points that I have heard, comparing the replacement of the duty-free regime, which has been under discussion for four or five years, with a debate that has been taking place for most of the century is the worst.

§ Mr. Heald
The right hon. Lady makes my point. How ludicrous that on duty free—an issue of much less importance—the Government say that there has to be a permanent successor regime before the existing one is replaced, but, on the future of Parliament, which is critical to parliamentary democracy and the life of this country, they do not. They just take a pig in a poke and kick the issue into the long grass, waiting to see what the royal commission says. That laughable proposition has put us in this difficulty. I do not know what the royal commission is going to come up with, because I am not on it and it has not yet started its deliberations.

§ The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
Yes, it has; it has had one meeting.

§ Mr. Heald
I am glad that progress is being made. The only way to speed matters up—which is important—is for the Senior Salaries Review Body, which will have to consider the issue at some stage, to start now rather than waiting for four years, or however long it takes to get the royal commission report. Let us start the work now so that we can make some progress. People in this place should not have to work on the basis that it is a privilege to be here; neither should those at the other end of the Corridor. That is the effect of not giving a proper allowance for decent research facilities in the other place.
1271 The new clause is well conceived. After a good debate in which many important points have been made, I hope that the Government will not come back with the contentious attitude that we have just heard from the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Tipping
Some serious points have been made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who introduced it last night. I understand why he is not here this afternoon. He returned to an issue that was discussed on Second Reading—the value of the hereditary and life peers in the other place. Several hon. Members have challenged me and my hon. Friends to support that argument. I have no hesitation in doing so. My colleagues at the other end of the building do a good job. They work hard and we should respect and value what they have achieved over many centuries. However, that does not justify the existing system. There is an acceptance across the House that the system has to change.
We get good value from the Lords. It is important to set the record straight. Life peers and hereditary peers work hard. I should like to give some figures. Some 40 per cent. of life peers attend two thirds of the sessions and 34 per cent. of them attend less than one third. Of the hereditary peers, only 20 per cent. attend two thirds of the sessions and 67 per cent. attend less than one third of the time. I am not criticising anybody. Those are the facts. There are 200 hereditary peers who have never attended.

§ Mr. Grieve
I find it difficult to do the calculations immediately, but I am sure that the Minister can clarify whether those statistics show that the preponderance of day-to-day participation in numerical terms is by hereditary peers. We have tried to address the serious point that a substantial voluntary contribution from hereditary peers has provided the dominating ethos of attendance in the other place.

§ Mr. Tipping
That may be the case. I shall do the sums. However, if the House and the other place pass the Bill, we shall still have a second Chamber with more than 500 Members. That is large in international terms. Those who have spoken in the debate have argued that 500 is not enough to do the important business at the other end of the building. I do not agree. The average daily attendance in the other place is around 400. I have tried to find Divisions involving more than 300 Members in the other place, and that happens most infrequently. The real work load and delivery of the vote are carried by fewer than 300 people.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that all the peers have a bad time and are not well regarded or well treated. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred last night to peers' poor accommodation. I have some sympathy with that view, and I believe that accommodation in this House could also be better. We need to work on that, but these are matters for the relevant House authorities—they are not within my gift, or that of the Government.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked last night about the rates of pay—in real terms, the expenses that peers receive. He quoted the figures. I will not argue with 1272 the thrust of what he said, but he quoted the last set of figures, rather than the current set. However, it makes no real difference. The attendance allowance and expenses are meagre, and I suspect that they will need to be looked at.
Despite the shortage of good accommodation, and despite the rates of pay, there appears to be no problem in attracting candidates. I will remind the Committee of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in patronage and appointed life peers. He made it clear that his acceleration rate was not as high as that of some others.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
It was a deceleration rate.

§ Mr. Tipping
I am sure that that was the point, and that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was proud of his achievements. On Second Reading, he said: Every time I created one, nine people turned up saying that it should have been them."—[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 759.] There speaks a man who has done the job. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have not heard it advanced that we cannot find high-quality peers to do the job that we require.
Lying behind the new clause is an assumption that has been made throughout our consideration of the Bill—that the transitional House will be our end goal, and that there will not be a second or final phase. I wish to reinforce a point that has been made perfectly clear—that that is not our intention. We need to deliver and finish the job, and the White Paper indicates the timetable. Some argue that the timetable is too short, while others argue that it is too long. I am not sure of the view of the Opposition, which seems to vary.

§ Mr. Winnick
If the Conservatives believe their own propaganda—and I have some doubts—why should they believe that, if we are willing, as I am, to accept an interim arrangement in which 93 hereditaries remain, that should be permanent? We want all hereditary peers to be removed. Stage 2 is as important to us as it is—so they say—to them.

§ Mr. Tipping
Our manifesto made it clear—as my hon. Friend has reinforced—that we want to see the end of hereditary peers. If an amendment to that effect were tabled in another place, we would oppose it at the moment. However, if that eventually came to pass, it would be a trigger for us to make haste more quickly. The Committee must be clear that we will complete the process.
It has been suggested that a reformed House of Lords will cost more than the present House. I do not deny that costs are important, but the issue was highlighted in the White Paper. We have specifically drawn the attention of the royal commission to costs. In considering the various possible options for the long-term composition of the fully reformed House, it is important to take into account the public expenditure implications. Some will cost more than others—that is a fact. At this stage, we have made no assessment of the additional costs and of whether the House will provide good value for money.
1273 4.15 pm
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out last night, the time will come to review costs. That time should be at the end of the long-term review, after the royal commission, when we are clear on the functions and composition of the newly reformed second Chamber. At that stage, it might be appropriate to invite the Prime Minister to invite the SSRB to look at the salaries and expenses of Members of the fully reformed House. That issue would fall properly within the body's remit, and I hope that, at that point, there will be such an examination.
This is not the time to adopt the approach advocated in the new clause. We must be clear where we are going in the long term. We need to ensure that the second Chamber plays a valuable role and that its functions and composition are resolved via the royal commission and the Joint Committee, and via a consensus that we hope we can build up. That would be the point at which to look at salaries. Given that, I hope that the Committee will reject the new clause.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The Minister is a reasonable man who tries to show that he has listened to the argument, and tries to respond constructively when points are put to him. For that, we all honour him. Quite honestly, however, he has not responded to the debate at all. Let me put it simply and in words as clear I can muster—if the Bill is enacted, we will have a House of Lords, as from the end of this Session, which will consist of the present life peers.
Incidentally, I must correct the Minister. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), never created or recommended a single hereditary peer.

§ Mr. Tipping
I did not say that.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
If the Minister consults Hansard tomorrow, he will see that, inadvertently, he did.

§ Mr. Tipping
If that is the case, let me correct the record now. That was certainly not my intention.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I fully accept that.
We shall have life peers, perhaps augmented as a result of the Weatherill amendment. On the Minister's own admission, they have a heavy work load. I am glad that he paid tribute to the work done in the other place by hereditary and life peers. He said that before—it was gracious of him—and he said it again today.
On the Minister's own admission, there are rarely more than 300 peers in Divisions; upon that 300, the burden descends. He has admitted that roughly half that 300 are hereditary peers—so upon 150 life peers, the burden of scrutiny and manning Committees will descend. We believe that it is wrong to place that large burden on that small number of people without asking the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider their remuneration.
The Minister made half a concession when he readily admitted that there would be a time when it would be appropriate to refer the matter, but he must acknowledge that we have ahead of us at least four years with the so-called interim House, and he has himself said that the 1274 creation of a new House will depend to a large extent on consensus—he certainly conceded that the speed at which it is created will depend on consensus—so that burden will be placed on those 150 people for an indeterminate and possibly considerable time.
I hope that the Government will reflect on what has been said. Serious and sensible points have been made about the burden and the remuneration for it. I hope that, building on the Minister's half-concession, the Government will consider adding a provision, before the Bill goes to the other place, to enable the review body to be involved.

§ Mrs. Beckett
No chance.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The right hon. Lady's interjection is in churlish contrast to the Minister's emollient words. I would prefer to accept the sweet reasonableness of Nottingham rather than the intransigence of Derby. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman cannot do that, because he did not move it.