HL Deb 21 November 1985 vol 468 cc662-3

3.29 p.m.

Lord Keith of Kinkel

My Lords, I beg to move that the report of the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.

Moved, That the Report of the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.—(Lord Keith of Kinkel.)

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, a little enlightenment upon this matter would, I think, be of great interest to the House. I understand that this matter has been before previous Committees for Privileges over the centuries and has been a highly disputed one. I wonder whether I may properly ask, was the decision on this occasion unanimous or not? There is no indication to that effect in the report itself, save by the silence of omission. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will indicate a little more about this and cast the light of experience on this famous historic issue.

I understand that the peerage was awarded in the significant year 1643. Certain troubles followed shortly thereafter, and indeed the second Baron was sentenced to death during the subsequent disagreements of the Civil War. But perhaps it is asking too much to hope to extract a little from the noble and learned Lord, and to cast light on this fascinating corner not only of Scottish history but of British history. I do not think Wales comes into the picture very much, so I will not embarrass the situation by bringing Wales into it.

Lord Keith of Kinkel

My Lords, perhaps I may answer the first question which the noble and learned Lord asked. At the proceedings of the Committee for Privileges on 23rd July last it was stated that the five resolutions in the report were unanimously agreed by the committee. It is fair to say that some members of the committee had doubts, as indeed I myself had at certain stages of the argument, but at the end of the day these doubts were resolved, or at least suppressed.

Much though I should enjoy giving your Lordships a detailed account of the whole history of this peerage, I shall refrain from trespassing upon your time and content myself with saying that the report from the committee has been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Members who are interested will no doubt be able to obtain a copy from the Printed Paper Office and they will there be able to read the whole story. I should mention that I understand that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has already sold 650 copies of the report, which shows it is of some interest at least to the general public.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, perhaps I may just say that the expression "these doubts were suppressed" is a more accurate description than "these doubts were resolved". I myself had very considerable doubts and we had a discussion about this. I did not feel that I was competent to oppose the very distinguished opinion which had been expressed by the chairman who was himself so learned in Scottish affairs. But after some discussion it was agreed that I could defer to his opinion; not agree with it.

I see in the report that we have a somewhat esoteric and curious definition of democracy in so far as it is stated that the opinions of the members of the committee are to be found on page 144. What the report should say is that the opinions of certain members of the committee are to be found on that page. I deferred, and it was on the agreement that I should be noted as deferring to the superior judgment of the noble and learned Lord that I suppressed my doubts. It is fair to say that I was not alone in that attitude of mind.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, it is fair to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to say that I went with him on this but I felt it right to defer to the expertise of the chairman, who after all was the only member of the committee who was versed in Scots law; and this matter did involve a question of construction of the Charter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.