Lords Sitting of 7 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Nuclear Dumping: Sea-bed Radiation Risk
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking with other maritime nations to neutralise radiation escaping from sunken submarines and other nuclear litter on the sea-bed.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the United Kingdom is contributing to international efforts to monitor and assess radioactivity from these sources. The evidence we have to date is that there is no threat to human health or to the marine environment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I welcome the British Government's decision, announced last month, not to dump nuclear material on the sea-bed, although it is not strictly necessary from a scientific point of view. However, what is being done about the results of accidents such as the Soviet nuclear submarine reported as sunk in 1986 and lying on the ocean floor in the area of Bermuda?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his initial remarks. Our recent acceptance of the London convention ban on the dumping of radioactive wastes was in recognition of the weight of international opinion against the practice. However, we remain convinced that the scientific evidence shows that dumping at sea, carried out under controlled conditions, causes no harm to the marine environment and poses no risk to human health. The convention will undertake a scientific re-evaluation within 25 years and we shall actively contribute to that.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, we are aware of the press reports indicating that seven years ago a Soviet submarine sank 500 miles off Bermuda. Routine monitoring around our nuclear powered submarine berth has indicated no abnormalities and we have no reason to believe that the submarine presents a hazard to the marine environment or to Bermuda.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, with regard to the London convention on dumping which was held last November, where 37 countries voted for an international ban on nuclear dumping at sea, on that occasion Her Majesty's Government abstained along with four other countries. Perhaps the Minister will explain why and bring us up to date on that agreement. Further, the
1234
Russians are obviously the worst culprits as regards sunken nuclear submarines, three of which have been lost at sea. Since then seven nuclear reactors have been dumped at sea. We are now decommissioning our nuclear submarines. What will be our policy on that?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, as I explained to my noble friend, the United Kingdom is not convinced that dumping at sea, provided that it is carried out under controlled conditions, causes any harm at all to the marine environment. That is why we have said that we shall be ready to reopen discussions in the convention at any time should the weight of international opinion change in favour of accepting the scientific conclusions.
With regard to submarines belonging to the former Soviet Union which have sunk in various oceans around the world, I have already mentioned the reports which we have received about the submarine which sank off Bermuda. We are aware that another submarine sank in Norwegian waters in 1989 and international monitoring of that site is continuing. However, the scientific reports indicate that there is no threat to the marine environment from that source either.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not absolutely essential that nuclear waste should be disposed of in such a way that it can be monitored and retrieved, if necessary, in the future? Surely the Government must see that in our present state of knowledge we still have a lot to learn. Unless we can monitor what happens to nuclear waste, we are perhaps posing great dangers for future generations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the international monitoring effort on nuclear waste at sea continues. In Arctic waters the effort is led by the Norwegians and we are playing our part to support their work. I would reassure the noble Baroness that every effort is made to ensure that these monitoring exercises are continuous and that the results are followed up.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how long does the noble Earl expect these ecological time bombs to tick away at the bottom of our oceans before they are truly safe?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the effect of nuclear waste persists for a long period of time. We shall continue to monitor the sites where we are aware nuclear waste exists, but at many of these sites the waste is situated at great depths and that is why scientific opinion is unanimous that the threat to the marine environment is infinitesimal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House are glad that the Government decided last month to adhere to the ban on nuclear dumping at sea? Does he not also accept that nuclear dumping at sea under controlled conditions is not the substance of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which is concerned with dumping under uncontrolled conditions? Does not the Minister agree that the deliberate scuttling of nuclear submarines, as was carried out by the former Soviet Union in the Arctic— I believe seven or eight nuclear

1235
submarines were scuttled— could indeed pose a grave threat to health? Could not something be done to monitor and, if necessary, to remove those submarines?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the UK fully supports the concern about past illegal Russian and Soviet disposal of radioactive waste, which was expressed in the economic declaration following the G7 summit in Tokyo last July. The current evidence shows that the level of radioactivity in the Kara and Barents Seas, where the focus of attention has rested, is negligible and poses no threat to the marine environment or to human health. However, as I explained, we shall continue to co-operate with the international monitoring exercise. In the light of the scientific evidence which becomes available, we shall keep our position under review.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, there is anxiety in North Wales and beyond that radiation is seeping from Sellafield into the Irish Sea. Can the noble Earl say whether or not there is any validity in that worry and complaint?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is true that a proportion of some radionuclides — for example, caesium-137— discharged from Sellafield has been transported into the Irish Sea and from thence into the North Sea and the central Arctic. However, the radiological impact has been very low as the concentrations have been diluted. It is worth emphasising that the discharge levels which are now permitted by HMIP and MAFF are considerably below those which prevailed during the 1970s and the 1980s.

Westminster Council: District Auditor's Report
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the District Auditor who recently levelled serious accusations against the conduct of a number of members of the Westminster City Council has now given the councillors concerned an opportunity to defend their conduct of business, and whether, in the light of the explanations given to him, he has modified or withdrawn any of his accusations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the conduct of this investigation is in the hands of the District Auditor. It is for him to determine the timing of each stage. The Government have no part to play.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I note that my noble friend carefully avoids answering the merits of the Question. Is he aware that many of us find it shocking that a public official should be able to publish highly damaging comments on individuals to whom, prior to their publication, he has given no opportunity to answer or deny them? Are the Government so uninterested in
1236
the rights of individuals and in ordinary justice that they are prepared, as my noble friend's Answer suggests, to wash their hands of the matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are always interested in the rights of individuals. In no way do I wish to be unhelpful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter but I ask him to accept that the auditor is a qualified professional acting within the framework of the law. He has invited those against whom his provisional findings reflect adversely to make written representations to him by 29th July or oral representations by 8th April.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that last week in a supplementary question I made it known that each of the persons involved in this case had been given an opportunity by the auditor to be legally represented at any interview and that only one person had taken advantage of that offer? Bearing in mind reports in the press last week that thousands of documents held by Westminster City Council are being impounded in order to proceed with the case, is it not dangerous for any Member of your Lordships' House or another place to attempt to interfere with an official who is under a statutory obligation, arising from a local government Bill introduced by the right honourable Member for Henley in another place, to deal with cases in which he believes that local government is not being applied as it ought to be? Should we not keep quiet and allow the procedure to take its course?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we must indeed let the procedure take its course. As I suggested to your Lordships, that is precisely what the District Auditor is attempting to do. At all stages of these particular proceedings it is very important for the Government to remain totally independent and totally impartial.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend in his last remarks. Recognising that the Question relates to a particular case, is it not a golden rule for all those conducting inquiries that prior to their final report they should avoid the defects which Bacon attributed to the much-talking judge?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand what my noble and learned friend says, but he will understand that in these circumstances the law must take its course and that the District Auditor has a job to do. I am perfectly certain that he will do it with the impartiality that is required of him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the interests of justice and in particular in the interests of those against whom provisional findings have been made by the District Auditor, will the Government give the House an assurance that under no circumstances will public interest immunity certificates be issued in respect of any correspondence that is required either by the council concerned or by the District Auditor in order to establish whether there is any connection between any information exchanged or opinions given by the Government of the day to the councillors concerned?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what point the noble Lord makes. I believe that this is the third time that the Government have answered questions on the serious allegations made against some Westminster City councillors. I can do no more than reassure the noble Lord, as I have stressed continually in your Lordships' House, that the law will take its course and that the Government will be totally impartial as to the outcome.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when Parliament put the legislation on the statute book it demonstrated a very clear concern to protect the reputations of those who are named? Is my noble friend also aware that Section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 provides, among other things, that information shall not be disclosed except with the consent of the person to whom the information relates? Although there may be another subsection under which the auditor could be technically right, does my noble friend recognise that the desire to give those named the opportunity to defend themselves was right at the heart of that legislation and that in the Westminster case it seems to have been denied?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have made it quite clear that those against whom the allegations are made do, and will, have the right to defend themselves either orally or in written representation. However, I have to say to my noble friend that it was not only your Lordships' House but also another place which passed the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that there will be concern throughout the House that people who have charges against them should have every opportunity to defend themselves? Does he also accept that if the allegations prove to be true the public are entitled to see that justice is done and he is therefore absolutely right in robustly saying that the law must take its course? My only regret is that the law will not take its course before the electorate votes on 5th May and that therefore there will be no knowledge on 5th May of what action may have been taken.
Noble Lords: Speech !
Lord Ennals: I stand by the Minister's reply that he will stand solidly by the law.
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord was making a statement rather than asking a question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend really adopt the attitude that it is appropriate, whatever the words of the statute— my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to them— that public accusations should be made against a number of people before they have had a chance to respond? If the Government do not accept that that is right, what action do they propose to take?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have attempted to outline to my noble friend that the law is the law, and the
1238
law must take its course. If, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, the allegations are proven, then of course those involved will be condemned straightaway.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the procedure takes its course, will the noble Earl confirm that those concerned will have an opportunity not just to comment on the allegations made but also on the evidence brought forward? For instance, is the noble Earl aware that in a memorandum dated 28th January 1987, paragraph 3 reports that the chairmen's group said that it would take the home ownership proposals forward and,
"to the extent that it was proper for officers to he involved, Chairmen took the view that the Policy Unit in consultation with the Housing Department should be invited to assist'".
Will those involved be able to comment on the expression,
"to the extent that it was proper for officers to be involved"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the point the noble Lord raises will be taken fully into account at all stages by the District Auditor as he resumes, and continues with, the case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the concern which underlies your Lordships' interest in this case as follows? The law appears to permit a process in which a person who may be guilty or innocent is assumed to be guilty for such length of time, and with so much conviction in the media and in politics, that the chance of that person being purged by a declaration of innocence at the end of the case does not exist? If that is so, should not the law be changed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, under British justice a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the procedure followed with regard to Westminster City Council has been exactly the same as that followed for other local authorities in similar circumstances? In view of the fact that no one on the Benches opposite saw fit to complain previously about the innate injustice of that system, will he now give a guarantee that he will discourage any attempt to lobby on behalf of Westminster City Council?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is no question of lobbying in such a situation. These are grave and serious allegations. There is no question whatever of lobbying. The procedures that pertain in this case will be the same as in all previous cases.

Olympic Athletes: Financial Support
2.55 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to increase support for British Olympic athletes in the light of the British Olympic Association's Athletes' Report.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Sports Council, which is sponsored by my department, plans to provide £ 24 million of grant-in-aid to the Olympic

1239
governing bodies of sport over the next four years, an increase of 12 per cent. over provision between 1989 and 1993. In addition, elite athletes will benefit from the additional £ 1.3 million which the Foundation for Sport and the Arts have made available to the Sports Aid Foundation in 1994 to assist with specialist training and living expenses.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she aware that many athletes find themselves dependent on income support for long periods of training? Indeed one competitor who won a bronze medal in the 1992 Olympics was stripped of income support for having spent too much time out of the country. Will the Minister tell us what the new situation will be when the job seeker's allowance is brought in? Will the Government also consider bringing in some form of tax relief for a firm which sponsors athletes, in particular those who are on the edge of international performance?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, taking the last part of the noble Lord's question first, I shall feed that suggestion to my right honourable friend.
With regard to the first part of the question, I understand from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security in another place that his department cannot create a special exemption in its income support rules for sport. My department wrote to the BOA on 3rd December 1993 setting out clearly the rules on eligibility for entitlement. Many elite athletes benefit from the most generous support of the Sports Aid Foundation, which provided over 350 grants totalling over £ 1 million for Olympic preparation in 1992– 93.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Olympic Association report is a devastating critique of the deficiencies of the provision of athletic coaching, management and facilities? Is she also aware that the report makes clear that a quarter of our top athletes depend upon parental support, averaging about £ 5,000 a year, simply to continue their training, and that a fifth of them are unemployed? That is grossly inferior to the provision among our competitor nations. Do we not need to take the next Olympic Games seriously, with better financial provision, and, above all, with a total shake up in the athletic organisations which have a responsibility for preparing for them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Athletes' Report is not just about funding issues. The report fails to recognise the significant provision by the Sports Council in terms of its financial assistance to governing bodies and support services, including access to sports medicine facilities and other specialised training facilities such as the national sports centres. My department is in constant liaison with the BOA and other sports authorities on all matters relating to performance and excellence. It is very difficult to make direct comparisons due to differences in the structure and management of sport within Europe. However, the
1240
overall package available to our athletes, including non-financial elements, does not compare unfavourably with similar countries elsewhere.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does not the Minister accept that the provision through the Sports Council is far inferior to that in other countries? The Germans have built 22 centres of sporting excellence since 1986 and we have built none. I do not believe that that is comparable provision.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, realistically we should not expect to match such countries as America and China in our athletic performance. However, our achievements are comparable to those of similar countries such as France, Canada and Italy; we came 13th out of 81 at Barcelona. However, I recognise the noble Lord's point. I know that there is great interest in the matter and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking into the way the Sports Council is administered at present.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Government quite rightly set aside a substantial sum of money for the Olympic Games if Manchester were successful in its bid. Unfortunately, it was not, but I repeat that I understand that the money was set aside. But is it not the case that Olympic athletes start very young in athletics and, whatever our politics, we come out badly in the provision of facilities for those at the bottom end of the social scale? Would it not now be an opportune time to ensure that some of the money set aside for athletes at the top level was diffused downwards to train younger people on a wider basis?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, some of the money will go into the stadium in Manchester. I have spent a whole year learning to pronounce "Barthelona" correctly and I am only sorry that I shall not be able to say "Manthester".

British Film Industry
3.1 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the number of British nominations for this year's US Film Academy Awards, they will consider ways of providing greater support for British cinema.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing huge success to all the British nominees at the Academy Awards ceremony on 21st March. As I said in your Lordships' House on 4th November 1993, earlier that year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage held a round of meetings with all sectors of the film industry. He is evaluating the proposal which emerged from the consultations and will announce his conclusions in due course.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is she aware that against a national background of rising cinema

1241
attendances— which this year will be nearly double what it was in the early 1980s— Britain has only been able to make a relatively small number of films? Most of those have been on a small budget because of the difficulties of raising finance here. Will the Minister further agree that in order for us to share in the profits from the increasing cinema attendances we need to make more entertainment films with higher budgets? Has her department any plans to assist in that endeavour?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, since 1985 the UK production base has been shrinking, with fewer films made and with those films on average having smaller budgets. We are exploring the reasons for that and the need for, and feasibility of, additional measures aimed at raising the level of investment in films.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend give the British film industry a welcome boost by imposing a levy on feature films that are shown on British television?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we prefer to see the private sector in vesting in films on a voluntary basis.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say a little more about the exploration which she says is going on? Who is doing the exploring? Is it set up on any formal basis and will it report? Can she tell the House a little more about it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not believe that I can tell your Lordships more until it has actually been done.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, in view of the remarkable success of the Welsh language film "Hedd Wyn" in being nominated for an Academy Award, will the Minister consider what further funds can be made available for the development of that aspect of the British cinema?
Baroness Trumpington: Excuse me, my Lords, what aspect?
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Welsh language film "Hedd Wyn'', originally commissioned by S4C, has been nominated in the foreign film category for an award.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if only I knew how to say "Good luck" in Welsh, I would.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall the well-publicised meeting which the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, had at No.10 with leaders of the British film industry? They thought that that was a positive step forward. What has happened to the proposals? Are we to expect much more from the present Secretary of State when the Prime Minister's proposals appear to have run into the sand?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, they have not run into the sand at all. Much progress has been achieved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced changes: in the tax regime for film, following discussions with the industry. We have set up the British
1242
Film Commission and joined Eurimages. We have established the European Co-Production Fund and recently announced funding of £ 2 million annually for a further three years.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, clearly we have great artistic talent in the film world and lack proper financing. Will the Minister also say something about film distribution? Is she aware that the United States has a monopoly stranglehold on the distribution of films in this country which makes it difficult for any British-made films to gain profitable entry into the distribution circuits? Would it not be wise to take measures in that respect? Will the Government consider taking the US distributors to the European Commission and, following the French example with GATT, doing something to defend European culture?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the French did not get it all their own way. In the end it proved impossible to reconcile the strong opposing interests either side of the Atlantic. The EC made no commitments on audio-visual services, but equally it secured no changes to the services text to recognise the special nature of the sector.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 15,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 16 to 38,

Schedule 4,

Clause 39,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 40 to 48,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 49 to 81,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 82 to 87,

Schedule 8. — (Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the Education Bill [H. L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

1243

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 23,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 24 to 26. — (Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sustainable Development: Select Committee
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the United Kingdom Strategy for Sustainable Development (Cm 2426), and in particular to consider:

(i) what specific long-term environmental objectives or targets will be required to achieve continuing policies of sustainable development; and what measures might be required to achieve those targets;

(ii) how environmental factors can best be integrated into other policy areas such as transport, agriculture and energy; and how to account for natural resources and environmental pollution;

(iii) how changes in lifestyle and attitudes, which will be necessary to contribute to sustainable development, can best be achieved. — (Lord Wakeham.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, I am worried about the terms of reference of this important committee. Is my noble friend aware that the more populations increase, the less easily sustainable development becomes? There is more pollution and the greater is the demand upon resources. Will my noble friend give an assurance that it is within the power of the committee to consider the effect of population increases and recommend what might be done about them or, better still, will he have the terms of reference amended so that they refer expressly to that factor?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the establishment of the committee, but I am disappointed that nowhere in the terms of reference are the words "environmental education" to be seen. Will the noble Lord say whether the subject is implied in the terms of reference? If not, is he prepared to have it written in?
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I warmly welcome the establishment of the committee. I seek clarification on the relationship between sustainable development as an environmental objective and the aspects of enterprise and commercial development. I believe that those are not sufficiently covered in the terms set out.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, important matters are raised by both noble Lords and by the noble Baroness. My own view is that all the points are perfectly capable of being discussed under the terms of reference tabled in the Motion today. The terms of reference are wide; I believe that all the matters can be covered. Population, which my noble friend Lord Renton raised, is covered.
1244
Matters of education can be covered under paragraph (iii) and I believe that the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, are also well covered. The fact that these points have been raised will be of interest to the committee when it sets about its work.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to speak again. I understand what my noble friend says. But does it not come to this? The committee can refer to these matters if it wishes, but it is under no express obligation to do so.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not think that the House can determine what will be the work of the committee other than in relation to the broad terms of reference. The broad terms of reference will certainly enable the committee to consider matters to do with population if it considers that relevant to its inquiry. I would have thought that such matters were relevant to the inquiry and that the committee would therefore give them some attention.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It seems to me that it would be difficult for any committee on sustainable development, examining long-term environmental objectives or targets— particularly if it is to consider changes in lifestyle and attitudes— to do its work without considering the question of population. The point occurred to me when I read the terms of reference. It seemed to me that the subject was covered adequately. Personally, I do not have any problem with the terms.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Constitution of new principal councils in Wales]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No.1:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("Canolbarth Cymru") and insert ("Powys").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.1 is consequential upon the amendment which, noble Lords will recall, was carried at Report stage changing the name of the "Mid Wales" authority to "Powys". This amendment carries through the spirit of that amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I rise in sackcloth and ashes, for the simple reason that at Committee stage I expressed my unqualified preference for the romantic name "Powys" over the much more prosaic name of "Canolbarth Cymru", Mid Wales. However, I discovered afterwards that I was 'not representing the views of those who had fought with me. My own committee was very deeply divided about this matter and the district council very strongly took the view that the Secretary of State was right. If one starts with a new council, and there has been a great deal of friction, — for example between Powys County Council and the district councils, and so on— it is very much better to

1245
start with a new name. I therefore simply expressed that view. I do not object to the amendment save that when the Committee in the other place looks at this matter anew it had better take further soundings.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Unitary development plans and National Parks]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos.2 and 3:
Page 16, line 5, after ("Park") insert ("area").
Page 16, line 45, after ("Parks") insert ("and countryside functions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are minor technical amendments. The first merely inserts an omitted word so that the references in the relevant subsection all accord with each other. The second provides for the wording of the subsection to reflect the full extent of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 which are dealt with in Part I of Schedule 6 to the Bill. The headings used in the provisions of the 1972 Act to which Part 1 of Schedule 6 relates— namely, Section 184 and Schedule 17— refer to both national parks and countryside functions. This amendment merely ensures that the wording used in the Bill accords with that in the 1972 Act. I beg to move Amendments Nos.2 and 3 en bloc.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the purposes of these amendments. On looking at them I was not sure whether the addition to Amendment No.3 meant additional functions. This might be an opportunity for the noble and learned Lord— since a Bill on national parks is now in the process of being introduced to this House— to remind us of the relationship between this piece of local government legislation in Wales and that Bill should it receive the support of this House.
My understanding is that Clause 19 of this Local Government (Wales) Bill upgrades the present committees to boards and removes all the barriers for upgrading in previous legislation, which is what I believe we are specifically debating on these amendments. What then is the position should the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, fail? Is it that in any event these sections will be enacted in Wales? Now that that Bill has been introduced, this might be an opportunity for the Minister further to explain and clarify the position.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, so far as I can, perhaps I may simply clarify, or confirm, the understanding of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. These provisions are here and will provide a regime for planning matters in relation to the national parks which will be enacted and put into force if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, does not get on to the statute book. If, on the other hard, that Bill gets onto the statute book and is put into force, then the provisions here will not need to be used.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No.4:
1246
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Records
— (1) A principal council shall, in accordance with the provisions of this section, make proper arrangements for the preservation and management of any records which have been—

(a) transferred to and vested in them by virtue of an order under sections 17 and 52 of this Act;

(b) created or acquired by them in the exercise of any of their functions; or

(c) otherwise placed in their custody,

and shall, before putting any such arrangements into effect, or making any material change to such arrangements, consult the Secretary of State and have regard to any comments which he may then or subsequently make on the arrangements or changes.

(2) Before entering into any arrangements to which section 24 of this Act or section 101 of the 1972 Act applies with regard to the preservation and management of any records, a principal council shall consult the Secretary of State.

(3) Where a principal council holds records relating to the property or functions of any other principal council, that other council shall, subject to any arrangement made under section 24 of this Act or section 101 of the 1972 Act by the two councils—

(a) be entitled to free access to, and copies of, any such records; and

(b) pay to the council holding the records such proportion of the costs incurred by that council in preserving and managing the records—

(i) as the councils may agree; or

(ii) as may, failing such agreement, be determined by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State shall be entitled to free access to any records held by a principal council.

(5) In this section "records" has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Records) Act 1962.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No.4 standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. The archive service is a small service, but one that is vital if we are to protect our heritage; yet there is nothing in the Bill thus far about the service, though there was a reference to it in the White Paper. It is therefore not surprising that there are anxieties in Wales and beyond among historical societies, scholars. archivists and all those who value our heritage that the Bill could be unhelpful to the archive service in Wales.
I should add that the noble Marquess, Lord Anglesey, and the noble Lords, Lord Raglan and Lord Teviot, all have a close interest in archives and have shown a concern since the publication of the White Paper. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has also been uniformly helpful and knowledgeable on the subject.
The House may recall that in response to those concerns I put forward an amendment in Committee and a different one on Report. Both were rejected by Ministers. But on Report the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate suggested that the Secretary of State for Wales would be willing to see me on the subject. I was grateful for that and welcomed the opportunity of discussing the issue with the Secretary of State. I was delighted when, at the end of that discussion, he indicated that the substance of the amendment which is now before the House, and which is an improvement on the two earlier amendments, was acceptable to him.
This amendment was drawn up in the light of the best advice that was available to me from people with expertise in the field. I am very grateful to them for their advice. I, believe I am right in saying that they also warmly welcome the amendment as it is drafted. On the one hand it ensures that the existing repositories and their management will be protected, while on the other it makes it possible for some dispersion to take place in

1247
the future should that be desirable or necessary to satisfy community pride and interest, but subject to compliance with the guidance of the Secretary of State for Wales.
I assume that that guidance will ultimately depend on the advice that he will receive from the Lord Chancellor or the Public Record Office, to which the Lord Chancellor has delegated his responsibilities in this matter. Since I tabled this amendment, I have wondered just a little whether the source of the Secretary of State's advice should be spelt out in the Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say a few words on that.
I believe that the amendment conveys the right message; namely, that the new councils are trustees of our historical records. As such, they are conscientiously under a duty to our past and to the future to ensure the preservation and management of those records while in their care, subject to consultation with the Secretary of State.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. Unlike any other local government service, the archive service relies entirely on historical material which has been gathered together over generations and indeed sometimes over centuries. Without that material there is no need for such a service. But, as my noble friend pointed out, as it stands the Bill contains no specific reference designed to protect the historical material in the existing archives. So their preservation and management depend on transfer orders under Clause 52 and the general arrangements for the discharge of functions.
In a sense that is rather odd, bearing in mind the fact that the Bill contains specific provisions to safeguard the ancient offices of lieutenancies and sheriffs, although their functions today are primarily ceremonial. The preservation of the records of past events, in the opinion of many and possibly most people, are of equal importance to the preservation of the two offices that I have just mentioned.
I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend tackles the problem in a very effective way and is an improvement on the other two amendments which I brought before the Committee and then before the House. I am sure that all the bodies with a special interest in the archives, including the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and the Society of Archivists, as well as scholars in Wales, would be delighted if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could indicate that the Secretary of State is minded to accept the substance of the amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I said at Committee stage when the noble Lord moved his earlier amendment that it was a very valuable amendment. The wording of this one is much improved. I should like to seek elucidation on the use of the phrase "proper arrangements", which is very important. I agree, though it might be subject to criticism, that a principal council, in making arrangements under Section 24 of the Act or Section 101 of the 1972 Act, should consult the Secretary of State.
1248
I believe that on this particular subject it is important that there should be overall supervision by the Secretary of State.
I referred at Committee stage to the role that the National Library of Wales, which is a national institution, might play in that regard. It seems to me that the issue of county archives and their relationship to the National Library of Wales should be explored in some detail and at much greater depth than is possible for us today. It has already caused some controversy. For example, it seems to me totally unacceptable that certain of the historical treasures of a small town can be removed to a remote local authority centre which is far away from those who particularly value those treasures and those local historians who would like to use the local records. That matter has been raised with me by local historians. In Montgomeryshire, as I am sure throughout rural Wales, there are a great number of local historical societies which treasure the archives and records of their own locality. I believe that here there is a national interest, a county interest or unitary authority interest and a much more local interest.
A proper organisation to safeguard the archives is clearly necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has performed a great service in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. But careful consideration is necessary of the position of those who want access to those archives. It is no use simply safeguarding the archives and treasures if they are in inaccessible places. Therefore "proper arrangements"— I refer to the wording used by the noble Lord in his amendment— will have to be carefully supervised by the Secretary of State after proper consultations have been undertaken with a much wider range of authorities than has been suggested hitherto.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one of those who spoke on this side of the House in support of earlier attempts to bring about this reform, I am very glad to add my name to those who support this amendment. I do not see in it a danger that papers will be moved to less accessible places, although the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is right to voice any concerns that he might have.
On reading the noble Lord's remarks, I hope that the Secretary of State and others concerned will consider whether there is sufficient accessibility of catalogues. If a master catalogue for all the archives in Wales could be kept at the Welsh National Museum, it would save a good deal of shoe leather and a lot of time for researchers.
If the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has been as successful as he believes in his approach to the Secretary of State, I felicitate both on what I believe is a very happy issue.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about consultation with the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. Has there been any consultation on the part of the Government? I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn will agree that that is the central place at the moment for concern with the fate of our national archives and the local ones which partly comprise them. I have received entirely informal, personal approaches

1249
from the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. I should like to be reassured that it is being taken fully into consultation in this matter.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who moved the amendment and indeed to all those who have spoken on it this afternoon. As I said before, the Government share the general concern that the archive service should not be disrupted or fragmented by the process of reorganisation. We welcome the constructive proposals that have been put forward today.
All of us will recall from the hours of debate on this Bill as one of the highlights the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, moved this issue at Committee stage. We are all grateful to him for having raised the matter. As I believe my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already informed noble Lords, the Government accept the principle of this amendment. Before I comment briefly on the amendment itself, I should set out a little of the background to our thinking on archives.
I have previously expressed our belief that there was no need for a provision in the Bill to create statutory joint arrangements for the archive service or any other local government function. That was on the basis that the best collaborative arrangements are likely to be those which emerge voluntarily in response to particular local circumstances. In our view, such voluntary arrangements are on the whole preferable because they preserve local accountability and choice and allow for the maximum degree of flexibility. The general safeguard underpinning that approach and applying to all services, not merely archives, is that of the Secretary of State's package of reserve powers which we have discussed on a number of occasions.
In respect of archives there are a number of other important safeguards. First, upon reorganisation, the existing repositories will be transferred to the new authorities in whose area they lie by means of property transfer orders under what is now Clause 53 of the Bill. The archive collections themselves will transfer with the repositories but to the joint ownership or custody of the successor authorities. New authorities without existing repositories will need to rely on joint arrangements, at least until they are able to acquire an adequate facility of their own or make adequate alternative arrangements. Secondly, there is existing statutory provision in Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1972 which imposes a duty on the authorities to,
"make proper arrangements with respect to any documents which belong to or are in the custody of the council".
That applies both to records created by the new authorities and to those in which they have inherited obligations of custody.
Finally, the keeper of public records exercises powers delegated by the Lord Chancellor to approve places of deposit for public records. While public records constitute only a part of local collections they are generally housed together so that the oversight exercised by the Lord Chancellor's officials and the Public. Record Office extends, in effect, to the entire collection.
1250
That is our general approach. Having said that, we acknowledge the nature and strength of noble Lords' anxieties and are satisfied that there is little in the amendment which breaches the principle of local responsibility for local services which underlies our approach in the Bill. While we do not believe that the amendment is totally necessary, nonetheless, for the reasons I outlined, we are happy to accept it in principle and to take it away and consider the detail of its drafting. The Secretary of State has already indicated that he would be prepared to bring forward a proposal embodying the principle of the amendment when the Bill is considered in another place. But he indicated also that he would first like to consult other interested parties such as the Public Record Office. I noted what the noble Baroness said in regard to the National Library of Wales and I am sure that he will bear that in mind. In the process of consultation I am sure that he will also take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as to what bodies might be consulted
There are one or two drafting matters to be considered. For example, as it stands the amendment refers to making "proper arrangements". As I said, such an obligation already appears in another form in Section 224 of the 1972 Act. The drafting will therefore need to be looked at. For that reason it is not possible for me to present to the House today the Government's substantive amendment. But your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider the amendment agreed to in another place when the Bill returns in due course to your Lordships' House.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords. I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord's helpful and constructive speech, which will be acceptable over a wide area. I note also what he said about the need to study the amendment as drafted to consider the matters he explained and the need to amend the drafting perhaps in more than one way. Of course I accept that. I only wish that the noble and learned Lord could respond to every amendment in the same spirit. If he was able to do that he would become one of the most popular men in Wales, well in line to become Arch Druid in due course. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No.5:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Trading standards
.— (1) It shall be the duty of the new principal councils to draw up proposals for establishing either—

(a) a single joint committee which shall from 1st April 1996 have the duty of discharging the trading standards functions and such other related functions as the new principal Councils may agree on behalf of all the new principal councils; or

(b) not more than four joint committees which shall from 1st April 1996 each have the duty of discharging those functions and such other related functions as the new principal Councils may agree on behalf of the councils belonging to that committee.

(2) The membership of any joint committee established under subsection (1) shall include at least one member from each of the councils belonging to it.

1251

(3) Each new principal council shall not later than 1st November 1995 publish a statement indicating, as the case may be, that it is proposed that a single joint committee should be established or that the council proposes to belong to a specified joint committee.

(4) The Secretary of State shall before 1st February 1996 consider whether the proposals published under subsection (3) are satisfactory, having regard in particular to the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the trading standards functions will be discharged in Wales in an effective manner which, in particular—

(a) is financially efficient;

(b) promotes consistency and uniformity;

(c) achieves an operational scale to ensure the availability of specialist skills;

(d) promotes strategic relationships with other statutory public protection services;

(e) promotes the economic well being of Wales;

(f) promotes the interest of suppliers of goods or services;

(g) protects the health, safety and economic interests of consumers of goods and services.

(5) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposals are satisfactory he shall give a direction confirming them.

(6) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposals have not been made or are not satisfactory, or will not be or are unlikely to be in force by 1st April 1996 he shall, before that date, either—

(a) give a direction to the councils concerned requiring them to establish or join such joint committee as may be specified in the direction; or

(b)by order establish not more than four joint authorities to discharge the trading standards functions in such areas as may be specified.

(7) In this section "the trading standards functions" means—

(a) all the duties, functions or powers of a local weights and measures authority under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 or under any other related legislative provision; and

(b) the enforcement functions conferred by sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No.5 with somewhat less confidence than the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as to its reception. But I do so, if not at length, with conviction. It addresses a real problem and provides a possible solution.
At earlier stages I explained to the House that it had been demonstrated that there was a correlation between the size of a population and the cost of providing it with the service of trading standards enforcement. The smaller the unit of population, the less efficient and the less cost-effective that enforcement was, and therefore the less effective the protection of the public.
I reminded your Lordships that the Local Government Act 1985 had conducted a similar process of reorganisation and fragmentation of local government authorities on a much greater scale and that a decline in the efficiency of trading standards enforcement had resulted. There is a parallel between that legislation and this in that there was a power for smaller newer authorities to combine to provide a more effective joint authority and a power for the Secretary of State to intervene if, in his opinion, that was not being effectively done. But in neither case was there a duty.
The sad expectation therefore is that our experience following that Act will be repeated when this Bill is implemented; that is, there will be an initial production of joint authorities which are sufficient in size and effective in operation but that they will later fragment. That is a matter for concern. As I told your Lordships at earlier stages, the duty of trading standards officers is
1252
not merely to see that everybody receives a fair pint at the pub or a fair litre at the filling station. It is to protect the lives of members of the public as well as to facilitate the pursuit of trade in the Principality of Wales. That is a complex job involving the enforcement of 70 statutes and a great many statutory instruments. The idea that it can be done by local principal authorities employing on average only 2.5 trading standards officers is clearly not entertainable.
I brought forward less developed amendments at earlier stages to secure a requirement that principal authorities should combine into joint authorities. They met with no approval from Her Majesty's Government and I withdrew them. I now bring forward one which is not perfect but which comes closer to the Government's wish that the arrangements that emerge should be those wished for by the principal authorities themselves. I recognise that there is a democratic motive behind their wish, but I am concerned with the survival of individuals as well as democracy.
It was suggested that it is necessary to leave the Bill as it is because new local authorities may wish to contract out the service of trading standards enforcement. I remind your Lordships that the enforcement involves both powers and duties to prosecute and powers of entry. I should have thought that those were entirely unacceptable for a delegated service and not in any way compatible with the provisions of legislation, now in another place, which we shall soon be considering; that is, the deregulation Bill.
At an earlier stage I read out a list of over 30 bodies of commercial and consumer organisations, all of them broadly supporting my proposal. Since then I have received only two objections; one from the Consumers Association, which I believe aspires to be an authority to which the function is delegated— inappropriately, as I suggest— and the other the Council of Welsh Districts which aspires to carry out the legislation and wishes to retain as many functions as possible.
In view of the very large body of concern that I have drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State through the good offices of my noble and learned friend, I hope that he will be able to confirm that the Government are aware of this concern and will at least be monitoring what happens after implementation with a view to intervention, should that be necessary to protect the consumer and indeed commercial interests. If they do so, it is under Clauses 30 and 31 that the Secretary of State can intervene. The power in Clause 30(1) to make an order expires on 31st March 1999, and the power is similarly restricted in Clause 31. That being so, I think there is a duty on the Government to keep a very close eye on developments between now and then.
If my noble and learned friend is not, as I fear, going to accept the amendment, I hope that when it comes to another place they will read not only the feeble, condensed summary which I have given your Lordships in six minutes at this stage, but the rather more powerful and extensive speeches I made in favour of this proposal at an earlier stage. I hope they will also consider the possibility of doing something on the lines which they have agreed to do with Amendment No.4, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, which comes quite close to

1253
what I am looking for, which is a means for the Secretary of State to endorse the democratically arrived at decision to co-operate by principal authorities before, under the stress of local and economic pressures in later years, the system again fragments as it has done in the past. That would be a great step forward. What I principally want to hear from my noble and learned friend is an acknowledgment that there is wide concern about this, of which they are aware. If he is able also to put a gloss on what I have said about the suitability of this function for contracting out, that would be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I have indeed supported him at earlier stages in making similar proposals. As was then said, and as he has said today, the task of trading standards officers has now become extremely sophisticated in many respects. While it may be argued that some of those functions could be properly disposed of and exercised at district and local level, nevertheless there are many functions which, if fragmented in the way that is implied in the Bill, could seriously suffer. The concept of a voluntary association of councils has been tried in England and with two exceptions has failed. What we need therefore is either an acceptance of the amendment as proposed by the noble Lord or the kind of steer that he has mentioned at the end of his remarks; namely, that the Government should at least recognise that there is a problem here because of the number of organisations which have expressed concern about it; and that when it is discussed in another place something along the lines of what has been offered to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in relation to archives might also be proposed in connection with this vital issue of trading standards.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to support the general thrust of the amendment, as indeed I did at an earlier stage. I think it is true to say, as I did on Report, that even if the amendment is accepted— the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed pessimistic about that chance— a great number of functions will remain with district council trading standards officers. I read out an extensive list of those functions at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, there will be functions which in our view should be exercised at a level which is greater than that of the district.
We believe that either a conglomeration of districts or indeed the Principality itself are the proper vehicles to exercise those functions. Subsection (7) of the amendment specifies which functions should be performed at a rather higher level than that envisaged in the Bill as presently drafted. We would go along with the general principle of that. Although I am afraid that the noble Lord may not find, as he said, the Government very sympathetic to the amendment, we very much hope that the discussion will take place and will indeed continue in another place and that the Government will see fit to be a little more sympathetic than they have been hitherto.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, rather as. my noble friend anticipated, I regret that I cannot accept his amendment today for the kind of reasons which I have explained on previous occasions. It comes to the fact that, while the Government accept the importance of these services, we believe that they can best be delivered by means of the new authorities, and where appropriate by those authorities co-operating together, with the back-up of the reserve powers of the Secretary of State. I shall of course draw my right honourable friend's attention to the particular points made in debate today.
On the specific matters that my noble friend raised, I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is very well aware of he concerns expressed on all sides of the House about the future of the trading standards service under the proposals contained in the Bill. He is also aware of the concerns which have been expressed by bodies outside the House about the same matters. As I have indicated, he is not persuaded that special provision needs to be made to deal with those in the Bill. Nonetheless I can tell my noble friend that I am sure that this is one of the areas where the Welsh Office will be monitoring developments very carefully with a view to seeing whether there is a need to exercise the Secretary of State's reserve powers.
My noble friend also mentioned the matter of contracting out. Indeed, some words of this matter were mentioned at the meeting which he had with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As I understand it, my right honourable friend was referring to the fact that, as now, there are some elements of the trading standards service which could, if the authority concerned so wished, be undertaken on the basis of the kind of provision— for example, of contracting with other authorities— that one finds in Clause 25, which will provide for a greater scope for such contracting of services among unitary authorities in Wales in future. The actual technical form of contracting out as we know it is not a matter which would be an issue in this area.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am formally grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. Although I am, not unnaturally, disappointed at the extent of his recognition, I am grateful to him for having put on the record that the Government recognise that this is an area of real and general concern outside the House as well as within it and that the Welsh Office will be monitoring it carefully. I hope that that care will increase with the approach of the expiry of the Secretary of State's reserve powers in 1999 and that in another place it will be considered whether they should in fact expire.
As regards contracting out, the references were a trifle Delphic as I believe that they referred to parts, but not all, of the functions of the trading standards officers. Am I to take it that the powers of entry and the duty of the prosecution are thought not to be susceptible to contracting out whereas the remainder of the functions may be? Was that what my noble and learned friend was intending to imply or can he not be so precise?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I intended to imply that there would be room for the provision of such services by one council to another, under Clause 25 for example. That was what I had in mind.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am reassured by that to understand that the contracting out to the private sector is not in question for these functions. With that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Consequential and supplementary provision]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No.6:
Page 39, line 30, at end insert:
("(j) any grants made to voluntary organisations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with all the tenacity normally attributable to a Pembrokeshire corgi I return to the topic of this amendment, as I threatened I might earlier in the passage of this Bill, because the answer that the noble and learned Lord felt able to give me on that occasion was, in my view, distinctly dusty. I am only sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is not once again in her place this afternoon because normally I feel distinctly fortified by her agreement to anything which I am suggesting, if only for the reason that she thinks up much better arguments than ever I do.
Voluntary organisations in Wales fulfil a vital role in meeting the needs of individuals and local communities. They do so by working alongside local government. They provide essential services as well as giving information and advice in helping people to get their voice heard. Much of this work is well supported by grant aid from local government which recognises the added value which it gets from working closely with the voluntary sector.
For example, in mid-Glamorgan there are four projects going on now to support carers— an absolutely vital voluntary job. They are jointly funded by the mid-Glamorgan Social Services Department, the Welsh Office and the Princess Royal Trust to the tune of £ 300,000 per annum over five years. For that they provide 26,000 hours of respite care annually for carers in their own homes; information and advice for those carers; help in setting up carers' support groups and representation of carers' needs to the statutory bodies.
Surveys conducted by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action show that in 1992– 93 the total grant aid to voluntary organisations in Wales from local authorities was £ 5.982 million from the county councils and £ 6.587 million from the district councils. In addition to that, under the urban programme, in the same year Welsh local authorities contributed £ 1.7 million to support 149 voluntary sector projects. The total value to the sector with the central government contribution taken into account would have been several times that amount.
Those figures demonstrate that the voluntary sector services are not simply peripheral things— the icing on the cake; the additional little bit— but that they make a significant and long-term contribution to support Welsh communities. In my view, and that of this side of the
1256
House, they should be given the same level of commitment during the transition as statutory services. It does not seem very much to ask. So I ask again of the noble and learned Lord: what assurances can he give that funding for these important services will be continued over the period of the transition to the new councils? I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to say a few words again in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Moms of Castle Morris. As he said, he moved an identical amendment on Report, but it was rejected. The Lord Advocate then told the House that there were only two situations where a grant made to a voluntary organisation would be assured for the year 1995– 96. First, it would be paid if payable under the terms of a contract which expires after 31st March 1995. That follows from a general contract. Secondly, it would be payable to the extent that it had not been paid in full during the year ending March 1995.
I wish to press the Lord Advocate further. Is it right that the payment of a grant as of right for the year 1995– 96 should be limited to those two situations? My noble friend has argued that a grant should be available to all the organisations which are in receipt of grant for the year ending 1994– 95. I suggest that it should be paid as of right in at least four other situations which I shall mention briefly.
The first example is where the project in respect of which the grant was paid has not been completed for reasons which were not foreseeable when the grant was agreed. That situation often arises in practice. The second situation is that which arises if the failure to remove the grant for 1995– 96 would result in the benefit of earlier work on this project being emasculated or lost; otherwise we would be back with a stop-go policy and the wastage of resources which have been spent prior to 1995– 96.
The third situation is where, owing to unexpected conditions or causes beyond the control of a voluntary organisation, a financial loss is suffered in the conduct of the project in respect of which the grant was made. I believe that those of us who have been involved with charities know that that situation can often arise. The fourth example is where a voluntary organisation can show that it had a reasonable expectation that the grant would be renewed for 1995– 96.
I believe that the Lord Advocate dealt with that situation on Report, but took the view, as I read his words, that an expectation in those circumstances does not give rise to a binding liability. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord was taking too narrow a view of the legal position. There are situations where the court would step in to safeguard the position where a voluntary organisation had acted to its detriment in the well-founded expectation of continuous financial support.
It would have been fascinating to have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning— alas, he is not with us this afternoon— developing this theme. This was his particular speciality. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate cannot go all the way with my noble friend's amendment, then I press for a clear assurance

1257
that the guidance to the transition committees should specifically cover the four situations which I have mentioned; otherwise I suspect that they may not receive the priority to which, in our view, they are entitled.
Like other noble Lords, I have been involved with charities for a number of years. If the four situations that I have specified can he covered by the guidance to the transition committees, it seems to me that we will then be well on the way to protecting the position of the voluntary organisations.
4 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as I said the previous time that this matter was discussed, the Government recognise the value of the great contribution which the voluntary sector makes to the delivery of many local services and we acknowledge that the prospect of reorganisation has, not surprisingly, led to concern on the part of those voluntary organisations which depend largely or in some cases even solely on local authorities for their funding. Nonetheless, we believe that the arrangements provided for in the Bill and in guidance, which has already been issued in draft form, will ensure that there should be no disruption to the constructive relationship which exists between local government and the voluntary sector in Wales.
As I have explained before, in this Bill on local government reform the Government have no intention of altering the statutory basis of local authority support for the voluntary sector; it is discretionary and it will continue to be discretionary. As I have explained, subsection (2) (c) of Clause 53 of the Bill ensures that any obligation entered into by an old authority will become an obligation of the successor authority. Therefore, contractual arrangements will have to be honoured by the successor authority or authorities.
However, once that arrangement comes to an end — I hope that noble Lords will accept this in the generality— it will be for the new authority to determine its own priorities in terms of funding for the voluntary sector. I think that it is only right that that should be the case because circumstances may change. New voluntary bodies may come forward and it is only right that such new bodies should be able to consider the new situation. On the other hand, I have no reason to think that it would not be the case that, if a voluntary organisation had been providing an area with services of a worthwhile standard, the new authority would not wish to maintain the relationship. Ultimately, however, that is a matter for decision by the new authority.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will forgive me for intervening but this is the last opportunity on which one can ask a question about the Bill in this House. As one who has been closely connected with a number of voluntary bodies for a long time, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend could resolve an anxiety that I still have. A voluntary body often has to retain paid workers. Those paid workers need some security of income. Where that cannot be given, provisional notices of redundancy have
1258
to be given at the end of every year, which absolutely destroys morale. What I would like my noble and learned friend to say, if he can, is how he sees the transition from the current arrangements to the new arrangements getting over that difficulty. In other words, if an old authority has been in the habit of supporting a particular charitable body for a number of years and has a three-year rolling programme of grants, when we come to transition will it be possible for the security of that rolling programme to be transmitted across that division? Is that provided for in the Bill? If it is, I have no concerns at all. If it is not, I think that the noble Lord has a point.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, strictly speaking, the answer is that there is no legal obligation in the situation to which my noble friend has referred. If my noble friend is putting forward a situation in which there is no continuing legal obligation to provide the funding, the position is that the obligation to provide that funding does not transfer. Therefore, in that situation, the difficulty that my noble friend envisages might arise.
However, as I have said, the Secretary of State's draft guidance to the transition committees suggests that they should take steps to identify the level of existing support for the voluntary sector and to propose a strategy for their future development. Voluntary organisations will have the opportunity to see the draft service delivery plans prepared by the shadow authorities and to make representations, if appropriate, on matters such as those to which my noble friend has referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to four particular circumstances. Without going over them in detail, they are circumstances which in a particular case may or may not be more or less compelling. They are obviously in broad terms particular circumstances. What I am prepared to say is that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the particular cases to which the noble Lord referred and shall ask him to consider with his officials whether it would be appropriate to include (in the final form of the guidance to the transition committees) a reference to such cases or to an amendment of such cases or to any other particular kind of cases where there may seem to be a particular reason for sympathetic consideration to be given to the continuation of funding for the kinds of reasons to which the noble Lord referred.
I do not think that one can go further than that. One could not provide for such cases to transfer under an amendment to Clause 52. Indeed, the exact effect of the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is not clear. As I have said, I am prepared to give the undertaking which I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which would provide a basis in the guidance for the matter to be considered. We believe that, in principle, it is right that the new unitary authorities should ultimately exercise their discretion. I would expect them to take into account fully the circumstances to which attention has been drawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has

1259
just said. He has certainly done his best. He has sung the same hymn as he sang at an earlier stage, though he has transposed it up a minor third. I wish that I could feel so confident that we shall get a few further concessions from the Secretary of State, even when he has received the advice of the noble and learned Lord, whose representations, I am sure, will be trumpet-tongued. Alas, I do not think that we can rely upon any such thing.
The noble and learned Lord was asked by my noble friend whether he was able to give a clear assurance that guidance to transitional authorities would instruct them — I repeat the words "instruct them"— to pay on the four typical occasions that he mentioned. It is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord is unable to do so. Very well, we must accept that. I have to say that in the examination that we have set him, which seemed to us to be perfectly fair, his answers have been good, but not good enough. He has scored only two out of a possible six, so he has failed the examination which we have set him and I am afraid that we must ask the House to express an opinion on this amendment.
4.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,76; Not-Contents,120.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kagan, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Annan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B

Moran, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Moms, L.[Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Mulley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Palmer, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Foot, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hertford, M.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

1260

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kenyon, L.

Arran, E.

Keyes, L.

Astor, V.

Knollys, V.

Bauer, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Melville, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Camock, L.

Milverton, L.

Cawley, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Morris, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Derwent, L.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Geddes, L.

Strange, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.[Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Gray, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Torrington, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hesketh, L.

Wedgwood, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hothfield, L.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Ironside, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Clause 60 [Regulations, orders and directions]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No.7:
Page 47, line 17, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No.8. We return to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report on what is now Clause 53(1) and what was Clause 52(1) when the report was compiled. Your Lordships will recall that both in Committee and on Report there was an exchange of views between myself

1261
and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in which the noble arid learned Lord, Lord Simon, joined, about the words in what is now Clause 60.
At that time I did not report to your Lordships, but I will report now, that I had received a letter from the Clerk to that committee saying that the committee had considered an amendment that I had put forward on Report removing the word "supplemental". Your Lordships will remember that I did not move that amendment because the letter from the Clerk of the committee reported that the scrutiny committee had considered that word under the circumstances, and that, provided that an assurance was given by the Minister on the Floor of the House in a suitable form, that would meet its concerns, and that was done.
Nevertheless, the whole question of whether orders under Clause 53(1) should be under affirmative procedure or negative procedure, regardless of the words whether they are "transitional or supplemental" and so on still remains.
On Report the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to give the House a detailed exposition of why the Government felt that it was necessary to give this power to the Secretary of State. I accept that the power is necessary. I accept the noble and learned Lord's argument that there probably will be problems in the machinery of the Act, as it then will be, which are not foreseen. The noble and learned Lord quoted a speech made by Lord Dilhorne in the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, which defined the word "supplemental". He went on to state that the Government do not envisage using the powers which the Bill will give them, other than in the direction indicated in that speech.
So far, so good. However, the noble and learned Lord said in his exposition of the Government's case that much of the material that is incidental, consequential and supplemental to the main purpose of the Bill; in other words, the machinery to put the legislation into effect,
"is found in the schedules to the Bill". — [Official Report. 28/2/94; col.892.]
That sentence is most important. The noble and learned Lord said that it would be found in the schedules to the Bill.
Let us suppose that there is some machinery to implement this Act, as it will become, but that the difficulty has not been foreseen. Let us assume that the Secretary of State uses the power given to him under Clause 53(1). He will then be empowered to create what is in effect a whole new schedule because, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, much of what we would expect is found in the schedules to the Bill. Therefore, the question remains. If there is to be something which could under certain circumstances be a schedule to the Bill, or look like a schedule to the Bill, should that be the subject of negative or affirmative procedure? It will, in effect, have the same effect as primary legislation.
I am not clear about how far the memorandum of the Welsh Office, which was taken into consideration by the
1262
Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, was inappro-priate or, as described by the noble and learned Lord,"unfortunate". The memorandum stated that the power could be used,
"in potentially far-reaching ways".
I have yet to hear in what manner the form of words was unfortunate because it was open to misinterpretation. I believe that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee studied the matter at length before reaching its conclusion.
I am not arguing a party political matter but the position as I see it as follows. A committee of your Lordships' House was set up to scrutinise the operation of delegated powers in legislation as it came before your Lordships. Two problems remain. The first is what I call the legal position. Having accepted that we need the word "supplemental" and that that is to be used in the way indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, there remains the question of whether that should be subject to affirmative or negative procedure. Secondly, there is the question of whether your Lordships support the operations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. If the House did not have the opportunity to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate, to use the committee's words, that would be an extremely unfortunate precedent. In the hope that the House will have an opportunity to consider that matter, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the House seems reluctant to take advantage of the noble Lord's generous offer and so I shall leap into the gap as a member of the committee in question. It has not met to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but its members are individually aware of the issues now before your Lordships. The impression given by paragraph 71 of the memorandum issued by the Welsh Office led the committee to consider that the power could be used for far-reaching purposes and, naturally, it reacted to that. It has since received advice based on a judgment given by Lord Dilhorne that such is not the case. The word in question is "supplemental". The definition, which was repeated by my noble and learned friend in the Official Report, is that which is,
"added to what is in the Act to fill in details of machinery for which the Act itself does not provide— supplementary in the sense that it is required to implement what was m the Act". — [Official Report, 28/2/94; col.893.]
Therefore, there is nothing which may be used to extend the powers in the Act. If your Lordships turn to Clause 53, which would be drawn into the affirmative procedure by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, you will see that a torrent of statutory instruments could be put through the affirmative procedure, and most if not all of them to no purpose whatever. It would be a great waste of the time of this House and of another place if that were to be clone. Although the noble Lord has performed a service in enabling the Minister to clarify the matter, it would be a great pity if the measure were used for any other purpose.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords. the noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained why he has returned to

1263
the matter and tabled this amendment. On the previous occasion I apologised to the House for the fact that the Welsh Office memorandum on the matter was misleading. I take this opportunity to renew that apology to the House and to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
I said on a previous occasion that it had been intended to convey the wide-ranging nature of the provisions which potentially could be affected by local government reorganisation, albeit that these widely scattered provisions could be affected only in minor ways by orders under the particular provisions of Clause 53.
I also said on a previous occasion that much of the machinery is to be found in the schedules. I repeat that statement. Indeed, a glance through the schedules will bear out what I said about the wide-ranging nature of provisions which are potentially affected by matters relating to local government. Three immediately adjoining are the Rag Flock and other Filling Materials Act 1951, the Nurses Agencies Act 1957, and the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. There are many functions which are touched on by local government matters. However, as I said, they can be touched on by the use of powers under the clause only in minor ways and only in accordance with the kind of principle which I have put forward and explained to the House.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for what he said in conveying the views of the individual members of the scrutiny committee. The Government and I both accept the importance of the work carried out by that committee. Indeed, we have paid great attention to its findings, not only on this particular point but also, as noble Lords are aware, on other points where we acted in accordance with the recommendations of the committee and made alterations to the Bill.
However, we have concluded that the present provision in the Bill is the correct form and that it really would be a misuse of the valuable power that your Lordships have by way of the affirmative resolution procedure to use it for a purpose for which it was not really intended. After all, it is intended to give a high degree of scrutiny. It is clear that many of the orders which would be brought forward under the powers of Clause 53 would not relate to the kind of matters which would justify the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. In fact, it would rather debase or devalue that important tool of your Lordships' House. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for responding to my remarks. If I may say so, he has not changed very much; indeed, he has certainly not changed my opinion. It is clear to me that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee reported in a certain manner. As I understand it, the committee has not met since the report was published. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I must say that I do not know what are the individual views of members of that committee. They may take a view as individuals, but
1264
that does not necessarily represent the view of the committee. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged. I entirely subscribe to what the noble Lord has just said. I was not seeking to represent the opinion of the committee, because its opinion can only be given if the committee has met. However, as an individual member of the committee, I feel quite strongly that the position I have put forward is the correct one. I should like to contribute that as my own mite.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, there are other members of that very small committee and, as one of them, I certainly agree with my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. All members of the committee are entitled to speak for themselves. Indeed, they speak for themselves in this House and will no doubt continue to do so. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly pointed out, they do not speak for the committee. If and when the committee meets and takes a decision, the noble Lords may be in a minority or in a majority. The committee will then express a view and the Clerk will no doubt write to me in exactly the same way as he wrote to me on 10th February of this year. Nevertheless, until I have any expression of that nature, I am bound to say that I must stick with what I have. What I have is a recommendation from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
In Committee, I made the noble and learned Lord an offer. I do not know whether he remembers it, but I said, "Look, I understand all the business about there being orders right, left and centre coming out all over the place which require the affirmative resolution procedure. However, if we can distinguish between those orders which are important and material and those which are not, then we might arrive at a reasonable compromise which would satisfy the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and the House". Moreover, it would not burden this place with the deluge of delegated legislation of which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is so terrified. I am not terrified of it at all, but there we are.
The noble and learned Lord did not respond to my offer. I made it in a genuine effort because I thought that, by splitting the clause, we might determine those areas which were properly material and those which were immaterial. I very much hoped that the noble and learned Lord would accept my amendment. I hoped that he would take it down to another place and that he would accept my offer in order to avoid the disadvantages indicated by his noble friend. However, he has not done so. Therefore, I say again that it is for the House to consider whether it wishes to support a committee that it has recently established or whether the House wishes to disagree with it. The House is perfectly entitled to do so.
I am not making a party political point or anything of the sort. I am simply saying that we have a report from a committee of this House which was recently set up and, if I may say so, set up against the opinion of the Government, who are not terribly happy about its

1265
installation. I am now giving the House the opportunity to take a view on the committee's report. I propose now to invite the House to do so.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.7) shall be agreed to"
Their Lordships divided: Contents,61; Not-Contents,128.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Annaly, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Leigh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller]

Brentford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Camoys, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Palmer, L.

Courtown, E.

Peel, E.

Cranborne, V.

Perry of South wark, B.

Cross, V.

Pym, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rennell, L.

Denham, L.

Ridley, V.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Falkland, V.

Salisbury, M.

Geddes, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Shannon, E.

Grantchester, L.

Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.1

Haig, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Slim, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Stockton, E.

Hertford, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.)

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Westbury, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

McNair, L.

Birdwood, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brightman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Reay, L.

Diamond, L. [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strafford, E.

Uooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken. L.

Tugendhat, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wharton, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lucas, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.43 p.m.
[Amendment No.8 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Unitary Development Plans in Wales]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.9:
Page 59, line 39, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.9 I speak also to Amendment No.10. These are technical amendments that remove what would be an unintended application of these provisions to England. It is of course the intention that the Bill should relate exclusively to Wales. It is our intention to formulate appropriate provision relating to Wales only. That will be brought forward by the Secretary of State when the Bill is considered in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.10:
Page 61, line 6, leave out paragraph 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Funds]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.11:
Page 101, line 17, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the 1988 Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.11 is a purely technical amendment. It relates to a drafting matter and is intended to ensure that the reader of the particular provision is clear about which of the Acts is being referred to and that the wording to be inserted into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 accords with the terminology used elsewhere in that Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [The Residuary Body for Wales: Corff Gweddilliol Cymru]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.12:
Page 105, line 32, after ("22") insert ("23").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.12 inserts a reference to Section 23 (which deals with regulations as to accounts) as one of the sections of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 that is not to apply to the residuary body or its account. Section 23 had been omitted in error in drafting the provisions. The regulations that have been made under Section 23 are not appropriate to the residuary body. On the other hand, your Lordships will have noticed that there is express provision with regard to the residuary body's accounts in paragraph 15 of Schedule 13 to the Bill. The non-application of Section 23 is consistent with the provisions made in relation to the residuary bodies established for the 1985 reoganisation which had similar kinds of express provisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Your Lordships have subjected the Bill to intense scrutiny, spread over four full days in Committee and at Report. I believe that it was a mark of your Lordships' interest that almost as many amendments were tabled at Report stage as in Committee. In the light of that scrutiny, the Bill has perhaps emerged comparatively unchanged in form but improved in substance. Your Lordships have made changes which in some cases have been of considerable significance. I believe that the changes have improved the Bill.
Inevitably, a good deal of your Lordships' attention has been focused upon the boundaries of the proposed new authorities. Here, your Lordships have reflected — and indeed enhanced— a debate which has proceeded continuously since the publication of the first of the Welsh Office consultation papers in the summer of 1991. Your Lordships' debates have reflected the tension between the need to have authorities that are large enough to secure the efficient and effective provision of services and yet local enough adequately to represent community identity and loyalty. Those are matters upon which your Lordships have placed much stress. As I explained to your Lordships previously and on Second Reading, the Government's proposals in the Bill were largely shaped by those two considerations, modified to take account of other factors such as history, demography and so on. In some places this has meant that in striking a balance between the two objectives we have sometimes been driven nearer to one side of the equation than the other.
Several of your Lordships have spoken in favour of the creation of more, smaller authorities better able to represent those local identities of which we have heard. No one has spoken more powerfully on this subject than the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who has been an eloquent
1268
— I would say tireless— advocate of the claims of Montgomeryshire for unitary authority status. Some of my noble friends on these Benches— my noble friends Lord Howe of Aberavon and Lord Aberdare— have argued for particular causes; Port Talbot on the one hand and the Cynon Valley on the other. Other noble Lords have spoken in favour of Meirionnydd (the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas), Breconshire and Radnorshire (my noble friend Lord Kenyon), Llanelli (the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont), and Merthyr (the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies).
But we have also heard from time to time arguments the other way, in favour of larger authorities. While only two amendments, including that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, in favour of a Greater Cardiff, called for geographically larger authorities, several of your Lordships expressed concern that in the context of particular services such as trading standards our proposed authorities were too small. It was these conflicting considerations that led the Government to strike the balance on the number and size of authorities that is represented by the proposals in the Bill before us. As your Lordships will have noted— from time to time with regret— I have not been persuaded that we have got this balance wrong. But as I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions, I have thought it right to bring your concerns to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and he will undoubtedly reflect further on the points made by your Lordships, and on the points made in another place.
This leads me to arrangements for service delivery. The Government's objective is twofold. First, that the functions of the present counties and districts should transfer to the new authorities; and secondly, that they should then be able to determine their own arrangements for service delivery without having statutory arrangements imposed on them. Some of your Lordships were perhaps a little sceptical of the Government's intentions in respect of the first of these objectives, pointing to important functions that received no mention in the Bill. I hope I have been able to provide a measure of reassurance to your Lordships by the inclusion of the new Clause 21 and Schedules 10 and 11.
On the arrangements for service delivery, your Lordships have shown particular concern about three services. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, argued passionately that special arrangements are necessary to protect services for children and young people. I hope he may feel that the general arrangements in the Bill, designed to protect services during the transition, offer that protection to services for children as much as to any other service.
As I have already had occasion to remark today, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has been a persuasive advocate of the need to protect existing archive collections. I hope I have been able to satisfy him with what I said earlier today. However, I fear that my noble friend Lord Elton has been less successful in his championing of the trading standards service though no less adroit at arguing his case. The Government regard trading standards as an important service but while we are reluctant to single it out, as I have already indicated

1269
there is no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be monitoring developments in that area with particular care.
On decentralisation schemes, perhaps I might summarise the debate by saying that we have agreed to differ. We recognise that in some places the need to provide for effective service delivery has had to take priority over considerations of community identity. In Clauses 27 and 28 we have sought to make provision so that local identities need not be lost but may be reflected in a special kind of area committee, responsible for the management of local services in specified areas, where that is the wish of local people. A decentralisation scheme as envisaged in the Bill could only be established if sufficient local members requested it. But authorities would, of course, be free to establish other forms of such arrangements under existing legislation. The advantage of acting under Clauses 27 and 28 is that local people would know that their scheme was guaranteed to remain in place until such time as their elected representatives chose to do away with it. I believe that the amendments made in your Lordships' House in connection with the particular scheme have served to stress the local nature of any proposals.
We have had important debates on the subject of the Secretary of State's reserve powers. Your Lordships will recall that I have explained on a number of occasions that the Secretary of State is seeking this package of powers in order to safeguard the delivery of services during the transition to the new authorities. His strong preference is that local authorities should be free to establish their own arrangements for service delivery but he does accept that in the early days of the new authorities it may be necessary for him to intervene to ensure that standards of service delivery are being maintained. The powers are, therefore, strictly time limited, coming to an end at the time of the second elections to the new authorities. In response to your Lordships' concerns the Government have amended these proposals in order to increase the role of the local authorities, so that if any joint authorities were established under Clause 31 they could consist of local authority members, appointed by the local authorities to which the order relates.
Your Lordships have been understandably concerned that the interests of local authority staff should be properly safeguarded during the transition. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has drawn our attention most effectively to these matters in moving a number of amendments. Your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Baroness for ensuring that these topics were aired fully in your Lordships' House. I said at Report that the Government would make a statement about these matters. I cannot add to what I said then except to say that discussions are continuing among the departments concerned and the Secretary of State will report on progress at Second Reading in another place.
I am sure that your Lordships will have valued, as I have, the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Several of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Elvel, have contributed to a number of debates on the various order-making powers contained
1270
in the Bill. We had the final debate on that this afternoon. But I am sure that they would be prepared to yield the palm to the noble and learned Lord on this matter. The Government have responded positively to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, accepting two of the three amendments tabled as a result of those recommendations. I hope I have been able to give to the House a careful explanation of why we felt unable to accept the other one and to explain the circumstances in which the memorandum to the committee unfortunately was erroneous.
Before I resume my seat I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I express my thanks to noble Lords on the Opposition Benches— the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and Lord Williams of Elvel on the Labour Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson of the Liberal Democrats, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, from the Cross-Benches. They have all extended great courtesy to me throughout these debates, and I am grateful to them.
I wish also to express my appreciation of the contributions to our debates of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and of former Secretaries of State for Wales and Welsh Office Ministers— notably the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. On a personal note, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord St. Davids, for all his help to me, not only in speaking in the debates and helping in the Chamber but also for assisting in many ways behind the scenes.
It has been a steep but enjoyable learning curve for one who came to the Bill with all the experience of the subject which one would expect of a Scottish Law Officer. I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their constructive contributions to what have been important debates, for their patience and for contributing generally to discussion of this important subject, which will affect the lives of all those who live and work in the Principality. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. — (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
5 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench— Lord Morris of Castle Morris, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lady Turner of Camden— for the leading role they have played in deliberations on the Bill. It was a great help and pleasure to have their substantial support.
The whole House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the patient, courteous and helpful way in which he handled the Bill and for the helpful clarification which he provided from time to time. There can be nothing but praise for the manner in which he piloted the Bill, and I am gratified that he found the experience enjoyable. I also wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for his help. He has been accessible, as usual.
There is a great deal of expertise in the House upon every subject except Welsh local government. However, we have been very well served by the officers of the

1271
Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the help they have given me at every stage of our discussion of the Bill and also for the invaluable briefing material they have supplied to Members of your Lordships' House. I thank too the many voluntary and professional bodies in Wales— particularly Children in Wales— for their guidance.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lady David for their contributions to the debates initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on children's services. That is a subject on which the noble Lords have expert knowledge. Sadly, the Government were deaf to their pleas.
The authoritative report of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, which was published two days after the Second Reading, drew the attention of the House to the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill and in particular to Clause 59(4), as it then was. We savoured, once again, the powerful speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose knowledge of Henry VIII clauses is probably unrivalled. We were gratified that the Government agreed that Clause 59(4) should be removed from the Bill. At the same time we regret that they were unable to go all the way with the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate acknowledged that the Bill has been improved in a number of respects, some of them important. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn achieved a success earlier this afternoon. It is my understanding that the Government are giving further consideration to a number of issues. It will be helpful to Members in another place if I place them on the record. They are the merger of Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent; the inclusion of Ewenny, St. Brides Major and Wick in the area of the Vale of Glamorgan Council; the need for wider consultation on police amalgamation schemes and fire combination schemes; the change of names of new authorities; the suspension of elections to fill casual vacancies; and the compensation proposals envisaged for staff who may not be transferred to the new councils. That is information for which my noble friend Lady Turner has pressed, with the support of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I note from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that a statement will be made at Second Reading in another place. I believe that we await clarification of the application of Clause 25, to which I shall come. I venture to hope that we shall be told in another place that the Government have found the resources and summoned the will to produce a Welsh text of this important Bill, which applies to Wales exclusively.
Having said all that, we have many regrets about the Bill. We shall not be sorry if it fails to become law. We are concerned that the Government are reserving the right to dispense with the social services committee, albeit subject to affirmative resolution. We on these Benches fear that without that committee many vulnerable people will suffer great harm.
1272
We regret that we were unable to persuade the Government to accept the decentralisation clause put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and at Report stage by this Front Bench. Wales and Scotland have much in common and the Labour Opposition and the Liberal Democrats believe that the right approach to decentralisation would have been to follow the Scottish model rather than the completely untried scheme embodied in Clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill. We regret very much the Government's intransigence on the issue. Moreover, the Secretary of State, who is reported to be the author of Clauses 27 and 28, has refused hitherto to recognise that there is a need for a means of resolving an impasse if the scheme proves to be unworkable. His refusal does not add to the credibility of Clauses 27 and 28.
Just as important are the anxieties about Clause 25, which was originally presented by Ministers as one of the central clauses of the Bill. It is now clear, in the light of discussions in Committee and on Report, that the clause is full of potential problems, if not mischiefs, which will engage the ingenuity of counsel to stretch the meaning of words. I believe that the Government are aware of the worries within the two associations about the operation of that clause.
In response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate invited the associations to submit proposals which would meet their anxieties, and those could be discussed with officials. However, I was advised at the weekend by senior local government officers in Wales that much more thought needs to be given to that important clause if an acceptable solution is to be found to the problem. I therefore believe that the examination of Clause 25 will no doubt be further pursued in another place.
I personally regret that we were unable to devote more time to the role of the town and community councils, as they could make a contribution to encouraging local initiatives and harness local loyalties.
The Bill is being rushed through. If it is enacted the timetable for managing the transition is very short indeed. A number of amendments sought assurances that the transitional committees would pay particular attention to certain issues, one of which we discussed this afternoon. Our amendments were rejected. However, we still invite the Welsh Office to make sure that those issues are properly covered by its guidance.
It is a local authority Bill. No one on these Benches claims that all is perfect in Welsh local government. But if reform is now necessary, we believe that it would be far better to build on the strengths of the existing structure rather than to wipe it off the map. We deeply regret that the Government lost the opportunity of reforming the whole system of government in Wales. The narrowness of the Long Title effectively prevents us from attacking the quangos. In the result, they and their unaccountable members are left unchanged and untouched.
The Bill will lead to fewer and weaker local authorities and to fewer elected councillors to represent us. On the other hand, it will lead to a greater concentration of power in the Welsh Office. It is fair to

1273
say that since the 18th century there have been centralising and decentralising cycles at work in the governance both of Wales and of England. However, the Bill marks an unparalleled movement in peacetime towards the centralisation of power in central government.
The Prime Minister has claimed that there is considerable support in Wales for the reorganisation. That is inaccurate. The reverse is true. That was brought out in the evidence of the opinion poll conducted for BBC Wales and published last Thursday. It indicated that only 20 per cent. of the electorate supported the reorganisation. In fact, it is widely felt that the Bill represents another stage in the assault by this Government on the Welsh local authorities, where Labour, as one would expect, is heavily represented.
The Conservative Party has been a minority party in Wales for 125 years since the passing of the Reform Act of 1868. According to the opinion poll to which I have referred, the Conservative Party is supported by only 16 per cent. of the Welsh electorate. Yet it is able to govern Wales through a dispensation based on the Welsh Office and exercised through a range of quangos which provide pasture for members or supporters of the Conservative Party or friends of Conservative Ministers. For the past 15 years we have been curiously helpless before that dispensation.
Fortunately, we have been able to make sure that the Government cannot use the Clause 31 power to set up another generation of quangos. However, it is my deepest regret that the Welsh Assembly amendment, moved with conviction by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, was narrowly defeated in Committee. The unified support in this House of the Labour Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and many Cross-Benchers almost won the day. We believe that the assembly amendment points the way ahead. The time will soon come when the next incoming Labour Government will set up a democratic Welsh Assembly which will be responsible for constructing our future and also our local government.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may reverse the order of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and start with my regrets. In so doing, I am following an old Welsh tradition.
As the Bill goes to another place, I have to express my regret that it goes there in a very unsatisfactory state. The Bill has been handled in this House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate with sensitivity. Perhaps I should amend that to say that the House has been handled by the noble and learned Lord with sensitivity and the Bill has been handled by him with circumspection. He has been extremely courteous, correct and assiduous in dealing with all the points that we have put forward. Nevertheless, save largely for the concessions made on the constitutional and procedural points raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House and in particular inspired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, few concessions have been made on the Bill save for the concession that was made to the noble Lord,
1274
Lord Cledwyn, on the amendment that he moved today — that is despite the obvious disquiet expressed from all parts of your Lordships' House on certain of the Bill's provisions.
It is a relatively unusual step for a Bill of this nature to be introduced into your Lordships' House. One can only hope that the Government have been taking note of the grave doubts and outright hostility expressed on some matters and will be prepared to make concessions at the Committee stage in another place.
One of the comments that I wish to make in my regrets relates to the complete lack of creativity and of appreciation of Wales's unique position as manifested in the Bill by the Welsh Office. After all, today Wales has its own Department of State, with its own Secretary of State, Minister and Under-Secretary of State and virtually its own Civil Service. As Emyr Humphreys said in his first novel, it is a little kingdom. It has those functions because of its proper status as a nation, but because of its unique position and the fact that the department caters for a population of about 3 million it is in a position to afford the ideal site and place for much productive innovation and experiment in government. It could be a model for other regions in the UK in the future.
As I pointed out in a debate in 1971 in another place — and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has frequently reinforced the point in his writings, as he did in the debate on an amendment at Committee stage on devolution— there is the undoubted failure of government to appreciate that some of the large counties created in 1972 were not in fact large enough to provide regional government but far too large to provide local government. Perhaps I may quote one sentence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at Committee stage. He said:
"It is undoubted that the districts and counties into which the United Kingdom— by that I include England— is for the moment divided are divided into local authorities insufficiently large to discharge a great number of what are in fact regional problems". — [Official Report, 17/1/94; col.332.]
The same situation will arise as a result of the Bill.
A more open minded approach could avoid that danger. I refer to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and supported from all sides of your Lordships' House. It dealt with provisions for safeguarding the welfare of children and in particular to provide an ombudsman or a child commissioner for Wales. That step has been advocated for England and Scotland but it seemed to me that there was a golden opportunity to try it out in Wales — the smallest area in the United Kingdom with the facilities for doing so. A proper structure based on the amendments put forward in the Bill could have resulted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, pointed out at Report stage, in not only an effective protection for children but also a cost-effective system which would save a great deal of duplication at certain levels.
When I first heard of the intention of the Secretary of State in 1991 to reform local government in Wales, I was all for him proceeding along the lines which he then set out in his consultation paper. I think most people in Wales were. However, on reflection now, and in the light of the proposals that have been so changed without

1275
any proper explanation ever being given for those changes, I am driven to the conclusion that Wales would have fared better if we had had a dispassionate local government commission. The English commission appears to me so far, certainly after the decision of the divisional court on the judicial review, to be adopting a less stereotyped and intransigent approach to local government than that expressed by the Welsh Office or the Government's Front Bench in this House.
In 1971 in another place I fully backed the idea of unitary authorities and believed in them. It seemed to be a sensible way of reorganising local government— I emphasise local as opposed to regional government— provided those authorities were small enough to be local. However, at that time neither I nor anyone else ever envisaged unitary authorities that covered such a vast area as Powys. Noble Lords will remember that there was considerable objection, not only to Powys but to Dyfed and Gwynedd as county councils because of their size and their remoteness. It was thought that the very size of those authorities would tend to kill off the idea of local government, even at county council level. How much more remote will local government be, for example, in Powys when even the present functions of each of the district councils are all also to be centralised in Powys? It just does not make sense.
As I have indicated, there is available in the Welsh Office an organisation that could cater for any service deliveries that are required on a regional basis. All that is needed is a more open-minded and more innovative approach. It is quite interesting how Powys, Dyfed and Gwynedd for 20 years sought to capture the affections of their inhabitants and never succeeded. Gwynedd has been broken up, but not sufficiently. Dyfed has been broken up completely, and that is a good thing. But Powys, the largest of them all, is being left intact. It simply does not make sense.
It is right that I should set out, in the hope of extracting an explanation sometime, the fact that the 1991 consultation paper stated that there should be a return to the older counties; Montgomery and Meirionydd were specifically mentioned. After the consultation period in 1992, Mr. David Hunt, the then Secretary of State for Wales, affirmed his intention of following that proposal, but with some uncertainty as to whether Brecon and Radnor should be separate unitary authorities. But no one has ever explained what changes took place in the thinking between 1992 and 1993 or what consultations there were.
I have seen the financial reports that have been published and in none of them were there grounds for refusing a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire. The Montgomeryshire District Council had been lulled into a sense of false security by the announcements of the Secretary of State in 1991 and 1992. It is now known that the Powys County Council was beavering away in an attempt to retain power, contrary to the wishes of the people of Brecon, Radnor and Montgomeryshire, in the period 1992 to 1993. However, what they said to the Welsh Office and the responses of the Welsh Office have never been published. They should be. Surely the
1276
Government owe it to the people to set out in detail what brought about the change and on what figures and criteria they operated.
Assuming that this semi-regional Powys authority is to be imposed upon Mid Wales, the proposals for area committees clearly become all-important. We have already expressed our concerns and reservations on whether Clauses 26 and 27 can provide a possible base for effective and realistic devolution. As a bare minimum, the area committees would have to have a degree of financial independence. Their creation would have to be guaranteed, preferably in the Bill, and not left to the whims of future Secretaries of State or, indeed, of the new unitary authority, which will, like all authorities, have an in-built tendency to want to retain power in its own hands.
When delegations from Montgomeryshire have met the present Secretary of State, Mr. John Redwood, to discuss the position of Montgomery, he has always given the impression that he is extremely sympathetic to our case. He announced to a delegation powers for the committees which he has subsequently had to retract after correction and reminders from his officials. We accept that the proposals were not his originally and he is in the invidious position in which various Ministers have found themselves from time to time of trying to justify what he might himself never originally have authorised. Nevertheless, one expects a new Secretary of State to bring an independent mind to bear and to re-think seriously the advice given by his officials to the previous Secretary of State and to himself. Unless he is to go down in history as one who imposed a totally unacceptable form of local government, certainly for my part of Wales, he needs to do something drastic about it.
Clearly, in the other place there will be much more detailed scrutiny of some of the provisions than has been possible within the normally accepted but somewhat extended timetables for your Lordships' House.
I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, started with. I have already done so but I wish to express my appreciation of the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has handled the Bill and also the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and his team on his Front Bench, as well as the Back Benches opposite. From these Benches I also wish to say to Members on the Cross-Benches and the Government Benches how greatly I have appreciated the independence of such people as the noble Lords, Lord Kenyon and Lord Swansea, ignoring their party Whips and speaking their minds. It is because of that independence of mind that this House has an important role to play continuously in the country. I am grateful to them for their support.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Hooson in thanking not only the Back Benches for the support we have received on various aspects but also the Labour Front Bench on the way it has led the opposition on the issue. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In the absence of a Minister of State at the Welsh Office in this House, I can think of no better candidate for the post

1277
than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, except perhaps for his noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has also starred recently in our Welsh debates.
This has been a wide-ranging debate on local government structures and services. I can only end my contribution to the debate in this House by saying that basically there is a philosophical difference between the Government and most of us outwith the Government on the whole basis of local government. I believe that subsidiarity is a far-reaching principle which should apply to structures at all levels of government. Unfortunately, we have seen yet again in the course of our debate here that local government is very much a creature of central government. Welsh local government is much dependent on the Welsh Office and the powers of the Secretary of State. The whole basis of the discussion has from the beginning been that the Welsh Office initiated, the Welsh Office proposed, the Welsh Office has consulted and has disposed. Although many of us have sought to make changes both in the provision of services and in the specific structures of local government areas of principal councils, we have not been successful.
I recognise that we have had from the Government statements of intent, statements of principle and, in a number of cases. actual concessions on the Bill. However, it leaves the House substantially as it came — an imposition on the communities of Wales, an imposition in terms of boundaries and services. I welcome the principle of unitary authorities, but I believe that they should have subsidiary powers themselves: they should be partners with central government and not dependent upon it. Also, when in particular local communities express their own preference for their identity and for maintaining certain historical and geographical regions, districts and areas, those should be recognised by central government.
I deeply regret the failure of the Government to respond to the specific cases of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnydd, which I believe to be very special cases. I know that there is a tendency for everyone to plead his or her own special case. But there is an historical case backed by the current affiliation of the local population in those two places. As I indicated at previous points in our debate, substantial numbers from Montgomeryshire and also from Meirionnydd expressed a preference for maintaining a principal council for their area. It is a view that the Government should have respected. It would have been possible— and still is possible in my view — between this stage in this House and the next stage in the other place, for the Welsh Office to look again at its plans, boundaries and structure. If it is possible to produce a decentralisation scheme in terms that are acceptable to the Secretary of State for both those historic areas, it should equally be possible to produce principal councils that would be acceptable in terms of the structure of the whole as proposed by the Welsh Office.
I come now to my final point. There seems to be an ever-decreasing cycle in terms of changes in public policy. I cannot bit reflect that it was one of my first unpleasant duties in 1974, as the then newly elected Plaid Cymru Member of Parliament for the old, historic
1278
county and parliamentary constituency of Meirionnydd, to visit the then centre of county government in Dolgellau, Penarlag, and to commiserate with those who were being reorganised to Caernarfon. Happily or unhappily, I have been reorganised to Caernarfon myself 20 years later. That has coincided with yet another cycle of local government. It seems to me that such changes in local government structure are coming round more quickly. Therefore, ironically, it may well be that the next change will be even sooner than this House anticipates. That will be enacted on the advice of an elected Welsh assembly. There will be a different structure again, one that is better related to the needs of Welsh communities. It is to that issue that we must turn next.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords. I thank all noble Lords for their speeches, which have encapsulated the issues that have arisen in the course of this debate at all its stages. I simply say that we hope that the proposals will put in place a form of local government that will indeed give authority to the new local authorities to carry out locally the kind of programmes that their electors wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned in particular Clause 25. The offer of consultation remains open; it may be that we can take that particular matter further. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having assembled a list of commitments. I am sure that it will help my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he comes to consider these matters. Lastly, I thank all noble Lords for the kind remarks that they made, which I much appreciated. I simply ask the House to pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.34 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
This Bill is a unique one. It is the first attempt that has been made to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. As I said on Second Reading in a somewhat light-hearted way, this amendment Bill is more about dangerous Ministers than it is about dangerous dogs. The matters that we have selected for debate on this Bill come very close indeed to the constitutional rights of the citizen and the liberties of the people.
A great deal has been happening since the principal Act was passed on 10th June 1991. The House of Commons had agreed to debate the Bill and pass it through all stages in a single day. The view was certainly not without support that there was an emergency that had to be met. The 1991 Act was the merciless vehicle which was introduced and passed through all its stages in a single day in another place to carry out the policy of the Government on matters relating to dangerous dogs.

1279
Since then, all organisations which had any relationship to canine matters have come together to discuss what the future line of policy should be on the Act. It has been surprising to see the spontaneity with which so many diverse interests have come together. This Bill is the outcome of several meetings in conference of those various representatives in an attempt to find a common purpose. We readily did that. We found that we were all concentrating on the same two issues; they are the issues in this amendment Bill, the first of which relates to the mandatory sentencing provisions of the 1991 Act.
One of the most precious rights of British citizens lies in the independence of our judicial system and in its authority in the area of its jurisdiction. We took a very strong view in that respect in discussing the War Crimes Bill. Mandatory sentencing was introduced by the Act of 1991 on a wide scale in magistrates' courts throughout England and Wales and in sheriff courts in Scotland.
The 1991 Act created 10 new offences. Six of them were provisions for a mandatory sentence of dog destruction upon conviction. That has proved to be one of the most anxious processes in British law for a long time; namely the way in which, when a dog was judged by the court to be a pit bull terrier, it was automatically to be subject to a destruction order without any opportunity for the discretion of the court to be exercised. I do not know how many dogs have been destroyed under compulsory destruction orders. Particulars are very difficult to come by.
But the mandatory destruction of a dog in the circumstances provided by the 1991 Act was a grievous affront to many people both as regards justice and feelings for the citizen whose life was to be altered so dramatically by the intrusion of the law. It was not as though the dogs concerned had infringed the law or harmed someone. What happened was that on 31st August 1991 one was a lawful citizen owning lawfully a dog which had not caused any trouble and for which one was fully responsible. If one failed to register that dog for exemption before the end of August 1991, then on 1st September one was in unlawful possession of a prohibited animal. In many cases of unlawful possession of a prohibited animal the anger and grief caused by the Act were very great.
The Act has been in operation for two full years: 1992 and 1993. There are figures about the working of the courts in 1992 but as yet there are no figures at all about 1993. The figures for 1992 were received only at Christmas 1993 and it looks as though we shall wait a long time before we get any further information about how the Act is working out. My noble friends who joined me in promoting this Bill are to be thanked for taking the trouble to bring about a measure of cohesion and common purpose to make sure that our next debates on this subject are carried out in a somewhat different spirit.
The second aspect of this amendment Bill relates to the extraordinary position created by the Act when once the police have exercised their powers of seizure on suspicion of the dog being a prohibited animal. It seems
1280
that the citizen virtually loses all property rights so long as the dog is in the custody of the police. It may be there for weeks or months— many months— while the police decide whether or not the dog is to be considered a prohibited animal. I speak now of the waiting time from the seizure to the point of making charges to be answered in the court. There are, owing to the difficulty of getting the dogs properly and seriously identified, cases of six, eight or even 12 months elapsing between seizure and charges being made. That also has been a source of considerable grievance.
There seems to be no right of the citizen to see the animal once the police have seized it and very often he can get no information about it. He is left to wonder what is happening and what condition it may be in. One of the great problems in the introduction of the 1991 Act was that no preparation had been made to accommodate all the dogs that were to be seized very quickly after the Act came into operation. The dogs had to be put out to makeshift kennels and remain there for weeks or months until so-called experts could be found to come round and decide whether in their view there were grounds for proceeding with the charge of owning a pit bull terrier or type of pit bull terrier.
So the second issue in the Bill before your Lordships is that there should be some opportunity for a citizen, by application to the court, to exercise his rights to have access to his dog when it is in the hands of the police. Those are the two issues in the Bill. As I said, they both relate to the citizen's rights.
We propose that the magistrates' courts should be empowered to decide for themselves whether a destruction order should be issued in a particular case or whether, in the discretion of the court, an opportunity should be offered to the owner of the dog to obtain by leave of the court the protection of exemption under the registration procedures after the registration process has closed. No registrations have taken place since the end of August 1991. It is very difficult indeed to reconcile the number of people who missed the final date for registration and who have subsequently been charged with unlawful possession of a prohibited animal with the fact that they have no opportunity for redress and no opportunity to get any protection from any process that they may undertake.
I believe that this is the time to take note of the new movement to pay close attention to the working of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I hope that it will be the beginning of a sympathetic and successful review of the ruthless regime which has existed since 1991. I wish to thank all my friends and supporters who have helped to bring the Bill to this state. I also express thanks to the Ministers who have taken part in all the discussions on dangerous dogs that we have had over the years. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. — (Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, before the Minister rises, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that I supported the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in this amendment Bill right from its inception. This short Bill does not seek to

1281
weaken the protection afforded by the original Act of 1991 but rather to correct the injustices of that Act by restoring the right of magistrates to use their discretion with regard to less serious offences, particularly under Section 3.
Dog related problems will no go away. Most of us have owned a dog at some time in our life and all dog owners have now become vulnerable to these laws. Like the noble Lord, I fervently hope that when this amendment Bill leaves the House and goes to another place, the Government will find time to give it a fair hearing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, it is less than four weeks since your Lordships last debated the subject of dogs with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The Bill that is before us today received its Second Reading on 9th February. Those noble Lords who were present on that day will remember that I reminded the House that it was the beginning of the Chinese Year of the Dog. I set out, appropriately enough on that day, the Government's reservations about the purposes of the Bill and the reasons why we felt unable to give it our support. I know that that was a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I must say to him— and I do not think it will come as a surprise— that nothing that has occurred since causes the Government to change their view.
The underlying principle of the Dangerous Dogs Act was to eliminate fighting dogs from this country. To allow owners who fail to meet the requirements of the law, for whatever reason, to keep their dogs would in effect undermine the purpose of the legislation. In the case of unregistered dogs, it would breach the fundamental objective of cutting off the flow of fresh pit bull terriers to this country. We said that there was a once-and-for-all closing date for registrations under the Act, and I am afraid that we meant it.
I mentioned in the course of the Second Reading debate that the Home Office will shortly be issuing a circular to the courts, prosecutors, police and the local authorities about a number of aspects of the Act. That circular was issued on 24th February and I understand that my noble friend Lord Ferrers sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I know that there has been concern about some cases involving pit bull terriers which have been long drawn out because of problems in deciding whether the dog in question was or was not a pit bull type. The noble Lord referred to that situation again today. One of the principal purposes of the circular is to give details of the joint Kennel Club/British Veterinary Associations' panel of people willing to assist with the identification of suspected pit bull terriers. We very much hope that it will provide an important new resource in the handling of those cases, and I wish to put on record our gratitude to the two bodies for the initiative they have taken.
The circular also reiterates earlier advice about the undesirability of delay in bringing cases to trial, leading to high costs for kennelling and disturbance to the dogs. It urges all concerned to do everything possible to speed
1282
the progress of those cases. The circular brings to the attention of the police and local authorities some of the suggestions that have been made for improving the welfare of dogs in custody. I hope that the issue of the circular will demonstrate to all involved in the operation of this Act that the Government take seriously the problem of dangerous dogs and the need for responsible dog ownership. I believe it should prove a helpful contribution to the fair and effective operation of the Act.
It will be plain from what I have said that the Government remain committed to the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act. We have continually to come back to the reasons why the Act was brought forward — the public concern that existed over dog attacks and the Government's absolute responsibility to take steps to address the problem. I do not believe that any responsible government— of any party — would have done other than we did. Debating the Dangerous Dogs Act may not be my favourite way of spending an evening in your Lordships' House, but I should infinitely rather be standing here defending the Dangerous Dogs Act than have to defend a government who had done nothing, especially if that defence had to be before the victims of dog attacks or, worse still, the parents of a child killed by one of those animals.
It remains our view that the provisions of the Bill would seriously weaken the legislation and we are determined not to do anything that would afford the public less protection than they have now. This is, of course, a Private Member's Bill and in keeping with the traditions of your Lordships' House we do not propose to vote against it. But I am afraid that we cannot give it our support.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps may make a final observation. What the noble Lord said is debatable. The opportunity may come if in another place an attempt is made through new clauses to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bills to include the proposals contained in this Bill. We are running parallel with the other place in these matters and it may be that it will come back to us under different auspices; or if it does not, we may wish to include it in the Government Bill. There are opportunities providing much room for debate on matters of detail, but our proposals are to moderate the severities of the law and not to alter its purpose.
When measures of this kind are introduced they can either be excessive or fully justified. Some parts of the Act are excessive and remain excessive and there is no reason for them to be retained as a condition of fulfilling the ultimate purpose of the Act. In those circumstances. I express dissent from what the Minister says. The debate will have to be continued at another time, but probably in the same place— your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Hereditary Peerages Bill [H.L.]
5.56 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This House undoubtedly played a full part in promoting equal opportunity for the women of this country and in outlawing sex discrimination. The Prime Minister and Ministers in both Houses have made clear their support for that principle in ringing tones on many occasions. It is now universally accepted that discrimination on grounds of sex is morally wrong as well as being unlawful.
What a rich harvest has resulted. Wherever we look we see examples of women fulfilling tasks that were previously restricted to men and doing them very well: Heads of State, Prime Ministers, Madam Speaker, Members of Cabinets, the professions, the universities — the list is endless. Above all, we enjoy the stability of living under a Queen who is not only looked up to with affection by all but who is the model of a constitutional monarch. Clearly this nation prospered greatly in the reigns of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I. On a less serious note I must not overlook Queen Boadicea and her chariot. The history books assure us that she made a deep impression on all those with whom she came into close contact.
Your Lordships' House has benefited greatly since women were allowed a voice following the passage of the Life Peerages Act. We remember with pleasure a woman Leader of the House and a woman Chief Whip; and women play an important part on all three Front Benches. Also we know from the attendance records that women Peers are on average twice as conscientious as the men. Those are but a few of the benefits we enjoy through breaking down the barriers imposed on us by centuries of tradition and thereby moving towards complete equality of opportunity.
But, alas, there is still one exception— your Lordships' House. It is undoubtedly one of the most important workshops in the country, but it is still denied the benefit of about one half of the firstborn of hereditary Peers created by Letters Patent. What a store of talent lies there untouched and what a ready handle that blatant denial of justice gives to all those who would denigrate this House. For we all know the explanation; it is extremely simple. One half of the firstborn are passed over because they are not men; or, as they say outside this House, because they are not men, but only women. What an insult is thereby offered to every self-respecting woman in the land. The justification can no longer be that this is essentially a man's job: that ceased to be the case centuries ago. It is of course tradition.
I share the view that it is unwise to jettison the old until one is sure that the new will work better, as is clearly the case here. Tradition must yield to beneficial change. I would mention but two outstanding occasions when this House has done just that. In 1829 it finally decided to break with a centuries' old tradition by allowing Peers of the Catholic faith a voice in this
1284
Chamber. In 1993, after much heart-searching, it broke with a 2,000 year-old tradition when it approved the ordination of women priests.
Perhaps I may just quote what the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, said on that occasion. Having declared himself a traditionalist, both temperamentally and rationally, he went on to say:
"The real duty of the traditionalist is not to oppose all change but to determine the criteria for legitimate development". — [Official Report, 2/11/93; col.1017.]
The Bill whose Second Reading I am now moving provides the second opportunity to examine those criteria. On the previous occasion it was made clear in speech after speech that the option I had provided of either staying with the present system of male only descent or moving to a system of simple primogeniture irrespective of sex was the last thing most of your Lordships desired as it would be likely to cause dissension within families or even to be exercised for quite the wrong reasons. So this Bill simply provides that on the death of the present holder of the title the Letters Patent will be amended so as to provide, with certain exceptions, for the eldest child or other relative to succeed, whether male or female. The element of option has been completely removed.
I underline this point so that there should be no misunderstanding arising from the wording of Clause 1. The words,
"if it please Her Majesty she may amend",
represent the normal courteous way of saying,
"Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to amend",
the Letters Patent.
The exceptions I have just mentioned relate to the valid point made last time that it was wrong to remove a major injustice at the expense of creating another injustice and therefore the well-established expectations of an existing male heir should be respected. I had always accepted that argument, but the removal of the option requires a new method of meeting it. So Clause 2 provides that an existing heir apparent over the age of 18 will succeed. Eighteen seems the obvious choice but of course in the vast majority of cases he will be several times that age. In the tiny minority of cases where he is under 18, it can hardly be said that a boy, on average nine years old, has such a well-established expectation as to override the natural claim of an elder sister. Some Peers will, I know, prefer a higher figure; some the reverse. Clearly this is just the kind of detail that is best debated at Committee stage.
In the case of an heir presumptive the Bill proposes a simple postponement of 10 years. In the unhappy event of a death within 10 years, a nephew, for example, would succeed as against a daughter. I know that certain Peers would prefer their daughter to inherit rather than a male relative and they will want to move to reduce that period later in our proceedings. Clause 2 goes on to make it clear that no exceptions will arise once the title has passed to a successor.
These then are the main principles of this short Bill. It will improve both the working of this House and its standing in public opinion, it will help to prevent the disappearance of some names famous in our history and, above all, it will keep step with the rest of the civilised world in removing what is a gross injustice to women.

1285
It will not affect our powers in the slightest and will therefore avoid ninning into difficulties with the other place.
So much for the principles of this measure. Perhaps I may now deal shortly with some other matters which may be causing anxiety. As to property rights, the last thing I want to do is to interfere with the right of individuals to leave their property in whatever way they think fit, even though, as the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, informed us in a remarkable maiden speech, the present system has resulted in the title and the family house becoming permanently separated. On that same occasion the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, welcomed a Bill of this kind on the basis of his own experience of retaining fully the sense of family and history in spite of swapping surnames every other generation. He went on to say:
"The association of the concept of family with the male family name is not a necessary one". — [Official Report, 26/11/92; col.1149.]
So I am not deterred from pursuing my proposal by the fear that it will necessarily be creating new or insuperable problems.
The argument of retrospection has been prayed in aid by some of those who are opposed to change of any kind. I simply do not accept that argument. This Bill deals exclusively with future events. It is no more retrospective than the frequent changes made by all governments in our tax laws which result in trustees and executors having to cope with an entirely different situation from that envisaged by the founder or the testator when the trust was created or the will executed. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that every time Letters Patent were entered into, the Monarch made it clear that, even if the world changed completely and outlawed sex discrimination, the principle of male supremacy was nevertheless to be retained for all time.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who said during our last discussion that,
"there is nothing God-given or sacrosanct about peerage law". — [Official Report,26/11/92; col.1145.]
In particular I would remind the House of what the late Lord St. Davids said in February 1987 during Question Time when I had raised this very issue. He said it all in one sentence. He asked:
"in view of the mistake made by my 11th great-grandfather 500 years ago in changing the system from heirs general to heirs male, and in view of the very different ideas of today, is his act not an excellent precedent for putting the matter right now and allowing the ladies to have what they should have?"— [Official Report, 5/2/87; col.327.]
Finally, if any noble Lord fears that I have acted precipitately or improperly in bringing this matter forward again, I would say that I have punctiliously followed all the precedents, that it is 10 years since I first raised this matter publicly when a Bill of this kind was suggested to me, that I have been invited by many Peers to do what I am doing and that I was informed that if I was not proposing to do so others would. But I confess also that I felt that at 86, with the approach of middle age staring me in the face, I ought to get a move on; and so I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — (Lord Diamond.)
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury rose (to move, as an amendment to the Motion ("That the Bill be now read a second time") to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I start by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his determination in once again bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships. The last time we debated the succession of hereditary peerages, a most interesting and lively debate was had. Much of the great history and tradition of this great country and of its proud and ancient families was depicted. I for one was fascinated and have become even more so over the past few days, reading time and time again the Second Reading debate of November 1992. It seems like only yesterday that I sat behind my noble kinsman, Lord Mowbray, as I do today, and listened with awe to my family, his family and those of many other noble Lords, being stripped completely naked in front of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is to be congratulated in trying to help this House this evening. He is, through his Bill, attempting to persuade us to alter the method by which we hereditary Peers achieve our right to sit in the House of Lords. I fully subscribe to the view that equality between the sexes is just and right and indeed we see such equality taking place in many areas these days, as the noble Lord said in his speech. l pay tribute to the ladies whom I meet in my business life who hold very high and responsible positions. That was certainly not the case 20 years ago. In fact, I have recently taken advice from a female lawyer — a partner in the firm which I use in Birmingham— who is excellent and way in advance of many of her male colleagues. I know also that my daughter's student colleagues are setting out on life's path with the most excellent results and qualifications. They will achieve very much in their working lives: I have no doubt about that.
The Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is much better than his previous one, basically in one main respect. That is that he no longer wishes the present holder to choose who, male or female, should inherit the title. That idea is always going to fail. It was a view that I certainly could not accept at the time and I cannot accept it now. But what has transpired is that that inequality has been removed only for other difficulties to arise with this Bill.
It only goes to prove that tinkering with the system, especially in the way it is done in the present Bill, brings up many other complex issues that require very great thought and indeed I believe are insurmountable. With the very greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, it is impossible to address this subject with a simple and straightforward Bill such as this, no matter how wide the Long Title is. The noble Lord has tried very hard indeed, and most genuinely, to address the inequality as he perceives it to be, but the present system is enshrined in tradition and history, and he and others will always find it hard to alter the well-rooted ways of those who have always been used to a system which has been with us since before the Norman Conquest.

1287
We are what we are, and whether we like it or not, we abide by the system which we all know; which we feel comfortable with; to which our families are born; and in which we were brought up. Like the House of Lords in general, we are of course an anachronism which works and our daughters (or a very large majority of them) understand that system.
I do not wish to linger on the ancient tales of my family's rich history. This is not the right time: that was all done last time. Tonight is an opportunity to voice one's support for or opposition to the noble Lord's new Bill, with facts, with sense and with brevity.
I understand the good intentions of the noble Lord in promoting his new Bill. I am sure that he is a stout campaigner for equal rights and opportunities for all. That is indeed highly commendable, and especially in the modern world in which we live and work. I too am in favour of equal opportunities. As I said at Second Reading of the old Bill,
"I have no difficulty in principle with the idea that my eldest child, whether male or female, should inherit my family's title". — [Official Report, 26/11/92; col.1134.
But, sadly, the noble Lord's Bill gives equal rights to some while disenfranchising others, including my eldest son and heir, of their rights and expectations. If this Bill is enacted in its present form, my rightful heir at present will be under the age of 18 (he is 16) and will automatically lose his Viscountcy and his birthright to the Earldom of Shrewsbury and others in favour of his elder sister. If his elder sister inherits the titles I hold for my life under this Bill, will my eldest son be able to retain his courtesy title? If my daughter then bears as first born a son while his uncle is alive, what title will be given to that child? And so we continue— altering the peerage, altering inheritances and generally creating a mishmash which will certainly arouse much uncertainty, let alone problems, especially for the College of Heralds.
I do not believe that the noble Lord's new Bill has addressed the problem of the antagonism which will be experienced in families, with some being stripped of their titles while others gain a title; with titles branching out left, right and centre. A tree is a complex plant: the more widespread become the branches the weaker becomes the trunk until finally the trunk splits and the tree dies. Surely the noble Lord does not wish for such a fate to befall noble Lords' family trees.
I do not believe that the noble Lord's Bill has addressed the matter of the hereditary peerages of Ireland, perhaps because they do not affect this House. Nevertheless, it is a matter of relevance. Nor has the noble Lord's Bill addressed the problems which will be experienced by those of your Lordships who are the tenants for life of family trusts written in tail male only and by Act of Parliament. What will happen to the female heirs to an hereditary peerage if they are not allowed to benefit from the trusts set up specifically for the heir to ensure his family's financial security and originally for the financial support of his dignity, but in tail male alone?
On this matter I must seek the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. But from what he
1288
suggested in his remarks at Second Reading of the previous Bill, this is a pretty complex area in its own right and a potential minefield in which I am sure only the lawyers will be the winners.
No matter how much thought the noble Lord has put into this Bill; no matter how hard he has tried to appease the concerns of noble Lords stated at the previous Second Reading, I cannot accept this Bill in its present form. It is an extremely complex subject. I really cannot support a Bill which, if enacted, will cause in families some pretty vile consequences of jealousy and worse. They are all feelings which are part of human nature.
I grew up in a family which was split and divided through a particularly unpleasant divorce in the early 1960s. I can assure your Lordships from my own experience that I would not wish such an experience on my arch enemy. The inter-family frictions which the noble Lord's Bill will inevitably cause are no different from that. I really cannot support a Bill which will take away the rights of a very small minority, especially in these days when small minority groups (which of course we are) are supposed to be protected. If the thinking behind this Bill and the consequences thereof, were it to be enacted, were imposed on virtually any other minority group in 1994, the screams about injustice being done would be heard far and wide and the first stop would probably be the European Court of Human Rights.
No matter how true and honest the thinking behind the promotion of this Bill is— and I have no doubt whatsoever about that— it is a Bill which is unfair to many who are involved by family tie. This House's great strength has always been that it has addressed problems very carefully and has always done its very best to secure a final outcome which has been fair to all. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will I am sure see that I am just arriving in my "middle age". I have nothing like the knowledge or the experience which he has gained in a lifetime of public service and achievement. But if we are seriously intending to alter a system which has been around, whether rightly or wrongly, for so many hundreds of years, we must do it with the utmost care, for we are talking about people, their children and their families. I firmly believe that the present system ain't really broke and therefore there ain't no need to fix it, without thinking very carefully indeed, taking all the problems and consequences into account. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion ("That the Bill be now read a second time") to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months"). — (The Earl of Shrewsbury.)
6.18 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for introducing this Bill and enabling the House to discuss possible amendments to our peerage law. I am sure that we shall have a most interesting debate. I admire the noble Lord's tenacity, although I hope that he will not mind my saying, with respect, that in many ways this Bill is no better than the previous one though I know that the noble Lord's intentions are laudable.

1289
I agree with a great deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said. As he said, the Bill is fraught with difficulties. If it went to a Committee stage it would have to be almost entirely rewritten. Clause 1, for example, states:
"if it please Her Majesty she may amend the letters patent creating any hereditary peerage to permit that peerage … to descend to the eldest… child … whether male or female".
Is it proposed to advise the Sovereign that all Letters Patent for peerages should be altered in favour of heirs general instead of heirs male on the death of the holder, as the noble Lord said, or is every case to be considered on its merits? Suppose some of the family, some of the heirs presumptive or other heirs object, there would then no doubt be disputes and the Crown would be dragged into them.
Clause 2(a) is also most confusing. The noble Earl has already drawn attention to the problems and uncertainties that would be caused by the age limit of 18 on the male heir. And why 18, one may ask? Why not 16 or 21, the age when a Peer can take his seat?
Clause 2(b) deals with the succession of relatives. Here, there is not an age ban, but a delay of 10 years before the Act would apply. Such a relative is described as an "heir", which is certainly not correct. Only the eldest male child of the body can be described as the "heir". All other relatives, both near and distant, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, reminded us during the last debate, are "heirs presumptive". If the Peer concerned has no children and, for example, he has, as heirs presumptive, a niece and a nephew, the. girl being the elder, the effect of the Bill would be that if the Peer dies before 10 years, the nephew inherits, but if he dies after 10 years, his niece succeeds him. I can imagine, as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, much confusion, uncertainty and family friction during what could be a long run-up period.
Those examples, I submit, show that the Bill in its present form would bring more problems in its train than it attempts to solve. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who has clearly tried hard to find an acceptable form of drafting. The problem, if I may say so, with the noble Lord's Bill is that it attempts to do too much. I believe that the best course would be for the House to appoint a Select Committee to consider any changes to peerage law in cases where there is no male heir of the body. It is for that reason that I have ventured to table a Motion that the Bill, if your Lordships should give it a Second Reading, be committed to a Select Committee. I shall move the Motion in that event at the end of the debate.
There are three areas in which I suggest that changes could be made arid which I hope a Select Committee would examine in detail. The first is a case where a Peer dies leaving a daughter or several daughters and no son. If the peerage is by Letters Patent, none of those girls can succeed, and the title goes to a relative who may be a cousin or even a distant kinsman. In such cases, why cannot the eldest daughter succeed as of right, as in certain Scottish peerages and, I believe, one or two English peerages of the medieval period with remainder
1290
to heirs general? As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, rightly pointed out, one advantage of that would be that the property and the title would be kept together.
It was suggested during the previous debate that such a course would be unfair to heirs presumptive who have, of course, legitimate expectations— and these I fully understand. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out, the late arrival of a male heir of the body will always upset such expectations. I think that it was Benjamin Franklin who wrote:
"but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes".
Secondly, where there is no son and no surviving relative, there is surely a case— is there not?— for the eldest daughter to succeed (or the only daughter) to prevent the peerage from becoming extinct. During the past 23 years, over 80 peerages have become extinct, some of them well-known titles with historic connections. I think it is a pity to see them disappear in that way.
The third area where I suggest that changes could be made is in the case of Baronies by Writ. Here I must declare an interest as I am the holder of a Barony by Writ although I am not directly affected. A daughter can succeed to a Barony by Writ if there is no son, but if there is more than one daughter, the barony falls into abeyance between them as co-heiresses. There may be other co-heirs as well. It remains in abeyance unless a petition is made to the Sovereign, followed by a lengthy and often expensive peerage claimant case. If the claim is granted by the Sovereign— and all titles flow from the Sovereign— one of the daughters succeeds. If it is not granted, the peerage remains in abeyance. As no other relative can succeed, unless eventually all the daughters die without issue or there are no descendants, I submit that there is a case for allowing the eldest daughter to succeed by right to all Baronies by Writ when there is no son. There are at present 47 Baronies by Writ, of which six are held by Peers of higher degree, and 14 remain in abeyance, so the numbers are not large.
One result of any reforms in favour of women would be the welcome addition of more women Peers in this House and we all know the tremendous contribution which women Peers make to our debates. But wider descent through the female line would mean that fewer peerages would die out and there would be an increase in the hereditary membership, as long as the House remains unreformed.
Your Lordships' House has a long tradition of Select Committees on Public Bills and during this century there have been over 50 Select Committees, many on important subjects, which have led the way to useful reforms. A Select Committee would hear evidence from outside witnesses, including authorities on peerage law, and would report back to the House on whether any changes were feasible or desirable. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is the best way forward.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, since the House last debated this subject in the last Session, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has done his best to address many of the objections to his Bill which were raised in the debate on

1291
that previous occasion. As a result, the Bill now before your Lordships is some three times as long as its predecessor. In spite of the noble Lord's efforts, I regret that I am no more able to support this Bill than I was able to support the Bill in the last Session. In my view, the principle of the Bill is fundamentally flawed and it is not susceptible to improvement by way of amendment.
The principle of the Bill is very simple. It is to enable hereditary peerages to be inherited by the eldest child irrespective of whether that child is male or female. I imagine that very few, if any, Members of your Lordships' House would quarrel with that principle if it were confined to the hereditary peerages to be created in the future. If that were what the noble Lord's Bill did, I should be in favour of it. The present rule is that although the Sovereign may make a Peer of whosoever she pleases, the descent of that peerage has to be in conformity with the general law which means, in effect, to heirs male lawfully begotten. If Parliament were to change that rule so that it would be lawful for a newly created peerage to descend to the eldest child irrespective of gender, that would, I believe, be widely welcomed.
But the Bill before your Lordships' House does not confine itself to the future. It seeks to apply the new principle to the past. In doing so, it seeks to overturn what has been one of the basic tenets of peerage law over many centuries. My fundamental objection to the Bill is that it ill becomes those of us who have so greatly benefited from the inheritance of the past to assist in such an act of violence against the thread which links that past, through the present, to the future.
A peerage was granted in a way which seemed right at the time— in a way which was in accordance with the conventions and customs of those times. It would be wrong to seek, retrospectively, to abolish the premise upon which an honour was granted originally merely in an effort to make the House more acceptable to the modern age. We may as well face it, we— that is, those of your Lordships who are privileged to sit here by virtue of a hereditary peerage— are not necessarily entirely approved of by the principles embodied in the Bill, and also possibly— just possibly— by some Peers who sit in your Lordships' House, and others who sit outside your Lordships' House. It would be an act of great naivety to suppose that we would suddenly become respectable in their eyes if only we turned our backs upon this one aspect of our inheritance and embraced the principle enshrined in the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
Your Lordships may well remember how the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, told the House on Second Reading of the Bill in the previous Session that she was in favour of it on the grounds that it was a palliative measure, essentially of a temporary nature— something that would make the House slightly more respectable in the few years remaining to us before more robust root and branch measures would be visited upon your Lordships. I may be cynical but I do not believe that it would help in the slightest. I fear we should only make a laughing stock of ourselves, and merely hasten the day
1292
when the hereditary element in your Lordships' House, no longer willing to stand up even for itself— it is certain that no one else will— is swept aside. None of us knows what the future holds or will bring, but I should prefer to await whatever fate may have in store by keeping faith with future generations as past generations kept faith with us.
In one of the peerage cases that came before this House in the last century Lord Erskine said:
"It is one of the brightest privileges of our order that we transmit to our descendants a title to the honours we have inherited or earned which is incapable either of alienation or surrender".
In the case of many historic and ancient peerages now present in the House alienation is precisely what the Bill would achieve. Titles which have been held for many generations by one family with one family name will soon, by the inevitable effect of the Bill, pass out of that family and be vested elsewhere in a family with a different name. I am afraid that I find that prospect wholly tragic.
Before I sit down I should like to say something about the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi: that the Bill, if given a Second Reading, should be committed to a Select Committee. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that the Bill is suitable for the Select Committee procedure. A Select Committee is intended, as Erskine May has it, to enable more minute investigation than is possible in a Committee of the Whole House, or where the hearing of evidence from outside bodies is considered desirable.
One has only to look at Bills which have been committed to Select Committees in recent years to see how inappropriate it would be to add this Bill to their number. They have been Bills which have required outside and expert opinion. I imagine that the House would have wished to be assisted by interested parties outside as well, but in the case of this Bill what conceivable outside evidence could assist us in coming to a decision? I venture to suggest that the House already includes within its ranks all those who are best qualified to advise on the intricacies of peerage law, and that if the principle of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is accepted, we within the House can carry out whatever amendment is required.
For the reasons which I gave earlier, I hope that the Bill will not be given a Second Reading and that therefore the question of a Select Committee will not arise.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, perhaps I may first express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who was good enough to send me advance warning of the debate, probably knowing that I should be unlikely to support the Bill. That was extremely fair and I am grateful to him.
I propose to talk about two questions: first, is it competent in principle to amend an existing patent or charter of peerage? Secondly, if it is, is it practicable to do so in such a way as to give effect to the intentions of the Bill? I am somewhat confused now as to precisely

1293
what are the intentions. When I read it, I assumed that what was intended was that in the event of the holder of a peerage wishing to alter the devolution of that peerage to enable his eldest daughter to succeed, he would be able to petition Her Majesty and that she, no doubt on the advice of Ministers, would grant or refuse that petition. But, from what I have heard so far, I understand that it is the intention that it will be automatic, and that it will apply, as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, suggested, to all peerages, whether the holder petitions o: not. No doubt during the course of the debate we shall be enlightened as to precisely what is intended, but that must be a matter of fundamental importance.
Having prepared what I have to say upon the basis that Her Majesty was going to exercise her discretion, I propose to proceed upon that basis. Assuming then that there is a discretion in Her Majesty, can she properly amend a prior writ? I cannot speak for the position in England, but in relation to Scotland I have been unable to find any instance in which an amendment to a pre-Union Scots peerage was ever made. I cannot of course say that I have been through the Great Seal Register or Balfour Paul's Scots Peerage page by page to verify that, but there is no mention of it in Riddell's Peerage Law, which is an authoritative 18th century textbook upon the subject. What, of course, was the practice in Scotland was a resignation by the holder of the peerage into the hands of the Sovereign, followed by a regrant on a new line of heirs. Often the original grantee of the peerage would make the resignation and there would be a regrant, perhaps because he had no male issue, something had gone wrong and the child had become a traitor, or something of that kind.
It is probably fair to say that in the majority of cases where such a resignation and regrant took place it was within a relatively short time of the initial grant of a peerage so that there was no problem about cutting off legitimate expectations of numbers of the descendants of the original grantee.
I do not know what is the position in England, but I can give one example which might suggest that amendment was not thought appropriate. In 1889, two days after the Earl of Fife married the then Prince of Wales's elder daughter, he was created Duke of Fife with remainder to the heirs male of his body and 11 years later, having had two daughters and no son, he was again created Duke of Fife with a special remainder to the two daughters and their male issue. That strongly supports the view that an amendment to an existing writ was not possible.
An amendment would have been extremely simple. It would have been necessary only to add to the initial patent the words "whom failing" and the named daughters and their heirs. That was not the course adopted. The Queen conferred a second dukedom upon the Earl of Fife with the result that on his death, survived by only two daughters, the first dukedom died out and the second dukedom passed to his elder daughter. I have grave doubts about whether it will be competent for Her Majesty to amenc an existing charter of patent of peerage.
1294
However, let us assume that it is competent. What does Clause 1(a) mean? Does it mean that only the present holder of the peerage can petition for himself or his descendants? Does it mean that the present and any subsequent holder can petition? If so, does he ask for descent to the eldest child of himself and his descendants or only of himself?
The problem is created by the use of the word "child", which never occurs in a charter of patent of peerage. It is always "heir" and that is for obvious reasons. One can be the child only of one's parent but one can be the heir of one's ancestor six, seven or eight generations back. The introduction of the eldest child — and that must be the eldest surviving child— is a totally novel concept in peerage law.
The patent is a grant to the nominee and the specified line of heirs. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said on the previous occasion on which the House debated an Hereditary Peerages Bill, it is a grant or gift to the whole family. Clause 1 seeks to terminate the existing line and to substitute whoever applies to Her Majesty— that is, the holder or the petitioner— an entirely new line of heirs to the succession.
On the other hand, by the use of the word "relative", Clause 1(b) appears to recognise that descendants of the original grantee who are not descendants of the petitioning Peer would enter as future holders of the title. These are somewhat contradictory provisions. The word "relative" is one of great imprecision. If the Peer who applies to have the destination altered has no children no doubt it will be simple to provide some formula, such as the daughter of his deceased brother, to follow him. But how does he provide fir one of a number of relatives succeeding his own eldest daughter in the future?
The introduction of the word "relative" is a novel concept. Perhaps I may give your Lordships two examples. A petitioner's only daughter dies without children and is predeceased by two first cousins. Cousin A, the elder, leaves a daughter and cousin B, the younger, leaves a son. How does one devise a formula which will ensure that A's daughter takes to the exclusion of B's son? Alternatively, the petitioner dies without children and is survived by the daughter of an elder brother and by his younger brother. What will happen in that case? Will the succession go up, as it would to the heir of the original grantee— that is, to his niece— or does it go down to his younger brother as being the heir of him? These matters are not mentioned in the Bill. To add to a writ or to a patent such words as "whom failing heirs female or heirs general" would do no good because, as everyone knows, an "heir female" can very well be a male. So that would not achieve the Bill's objective.
I have thought long and hard to find a formula which will achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, clearly wants. Although one can cover some eventualities, I find it virtually impossible to cover such eventualities as are covered by the use of the well-known expression "heir". If, on the other hand, the amendment were to take the form of a total regrant— and then, of course, one would cut the legitimate expectations of persons in life now who could have

1295
succeeded in the event of the petitioner and his line dying out— one could result in extinction where that would not otherwise have taken place. If one limits the descent to the descent of the petitioner applying to have the devolution altered and his descendants die out, then persons who might have succeeded otherwise would be cut out and that would be the extinction of the peerage. Finally, one has the impossibility of devising a formula.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, the Bill does not deal with baronage by writ nor does it deal with the situation in which the charter of the peerage has been lost, such as in the case of Ruthven of Freeland. There must be other peerages where such an event has occurred. Nor does the Bill deal with the plurality of peerages. If the holder of the peerage is to apply and he has several peerages, can he apply for one and not for the other? Can we envisage a situation in which we have a Lord Mowbray, a Lady Seagrave and perhaps a Lord Stourton of future generations sitting side by side? I do not know, but those problems necessarily would be addressed.
As I said when the previous Bill was debated. The devolution and succession to peerages, with all their different destinations both in Scotland and in England, was far too complex a subject to be dealt with in a one-clause Bill. I am afraid that even though the Bill has doubled in size I must express the same view. Therefore, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, like noble Lords who have already spoken, I salute the perseverance, courage and good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. However, the purpose is to support the amendment and to oppose the Motion.
Although the Bill accepts that the holder should not influence a succession and cannot initiate change, it is flawed and is open to the most serious objection on other grounds. If the Bill were to be given a Second Reading substantial amendments within the wide ambit of the Long Title would be tabled. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, fairly concedes, they would alter the whole form and intendment of the Bill. That surely would render commitment to a Select Committee inappropriate and premature as the form and intendment would not have been resolved by the time the Motion was moved. There is also the point made tellingly by my noble friend Lord Hesketh that the Bill is not suitable for commitment for all the detailed reasons my noble friend gave and for the reason in principle that the measure cannot be improved by any amendment. The principle is not capable of amendment.
Surely, the fundamental question is whether the limitation upon the Crown to grant a peerage which descends according to the rule and practice of modern times should be removed—that is to say, whether the modern practice of descent to heirs male of the body with an occasional addition of special remainders with ultimate descent fixed on the heir male—should be abrogated as proposed in the Bill. Your Lordships may consider that that practice should be varied, but surely not as proposed in the Bill. It could be varied to confer
1296
descent only to the eldest daughter, the eldest lawfully begotten female child of the body where there is no lawful male heir and no relative to whom the peerage may pass under the grant in order to save extinction of the peerage. That would have the effect of saving the peerage from extinction and would, it is thought, be compatible with the dignity of the monarch by the process of grant and re-grant, or by some formal amendment, if that, subject to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, said, was possible.
Such a form of variation of the practice would not operate with retroactive effect in defeasance of any legitimate expectation of vested (albeit contingent) rights of the heirs. As my noble friend Lord Hesketh rightly said, the proposals as drafted in the Bill apply a new principle to the past. The suggestion that I have made to vary the form in which descent may be granted, derives from the Heirs General Consent which governs the destination of many Scots peerages. In fact, as noble Lords probably know, male descent in Scotland is the exception rather than the rule.
As to the amendments which would alter the intendment, first, there would be the amendment to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, to confer an entitlement to descent upon the eldest lawfully begotten female child of the body with ultimate descent fixed in an heir male line to save extinction of the peerage. Secondly, an amendment would surely be required to confer jurisdiction on the courts, both in England and in Scotland, to deal with the practical problems arising where property descends through trusts to male heirs and from separation of property from title in such circumstances. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I wonder whether, with his analogy to the tax legislation, he has really given sufficient thought to the intricacy of the problem. As a common lawyer, I confess that it is beyond my province. It is extremely complex.
The third type of amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, is under the Baronies by Writ to save abeyance if there is no male heir and to establish an entitlement upon the eldest daughter so that it does not fall into abeyance for want of agreement between the daughters. The final amendment which, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, would no doubt be tabled would remove the divergence between the laws of England and Scotland as to the law on legitimacy by subsequent marriage as affecting succession to a peerage.
I mention those amendments because, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, such amendments could not be drafted without specialist expertise of the highest order. Noble Lords may well think that such questions are of sufficient importance to warrant consideration, perhaps, by a Royal Commission, but that really the Bill should not be given Second Reading to afford consideration. At all events, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, pointed out, Clause 1(a) confers a discretion upon Her Majesty to confer descent to the eldest child if so pleased, "whether male or female" but without any obligation to exercise such a discretion. Apart from the substance of the provision which is open

1297
to objection for reasons that have been given, Clause l(b) would go, Clause 2 would go, and new clauses would be introduced to reflect the amendments which would be tabled by your Lordships.
As I understand it, the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in tabling the Bill is to avoid sex discrimination and to afford equal opportunities. The sincerity of his motive is assuredly not called into question. But is it really not much to be doubted whether such discrimination as ordinarily understood arises at all? One cannot deal with sex discrimination or unequal opportunities by, so to speak, this back door. Perhaps a Royal Commission would be an appropriate body to take such representations into account. On objective analysis, this is not the occasion upon which we are concerned with the quality of distaff contribution to your Lordships' House which is of the highest order; or, indeed, with the composition of the House on which it is understood the policy of the Benches opposite is to reject the hereditary principle of statutory legislators. It is a veritable hornet's nest of controversy beyond the remit of our considerations today.
The question is whether, in the light of cogent objections in principle, the Bill should receive a Second Reading as an appropriate vehicle for amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages, having regard to the fact that if it were to survive a Third Reading it would be an altogether different Bill. Even the female phoenix which rose from the ashes would be a total stranger to the daydreams of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to whom noble Lords are assuredly most indebted for this opportunity to debate this matter.
7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we are discussing a Bill which is truly an example of somebody having listened to one debate and come back having answered the questions that were put to him for that debate. However, he has now had a new set of questions put to him. A lot of what is said here depends on your interpretation of logic. We seem to be interpreting logic in the way that perspective is interpreted: it depends on where you are standing.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury— whom I hope I may refer to as a friend, if not my noble friend— gave us a wonderful example of somebody taking their view of what was logical from where they were standing and the problems around them. There are always problems around you depending on the viewpoint. I would put my argument as someone who is standing in a different position.
My father had an elder sister and I have an elder sister. I have always regarded it as luck or pure chance that I was entitled to be part of your Lordships' House. I have no special qualifications. I came to this House very young. People say of elder sisters— as indeed did my noble friend Lord Redesdale on the previous occasion that this matter was debated— that they would not want to be a part of the place. I remember what it was like when I first came here. My first impression was, what on earth am I doing here. Anybody who in
1298
their early twenties came to your Lordships' House and did not have that feeling, I would suggest. should be banned from the building.
We have heard much about legal problems. Of course there are legal problems with this, but the reason for most of them is that we seem to be tinkering with law as opposed to fundamentally changing it. The function of Parliament as a whole is to change law. On the previous occasion we heard about history being changed. We change history every time we pass a Bill. We made a fundamental change in our system of government when we chopped off the head of a monarch who had been divinely anointed and chased out one of his sons. Parliament in general then decided that the sovereign would be a sovereign within Parliament. Then another place decided to get rid of the franchise as it stood in 1832 and replace it with a different system. Many of the seats and boroughs of that period had a far longer history than my title and indeed the titles of most of the hereditary Peers who are Members of this House. Some are older but the majority would find themselves relative newcomers compared to some of the medieval franchises. Those were done away with. So we probably have an historical precedent, if we are going to worry about history, for a radical change in the membership of Parliament.
When it comes to dealing with sex discrimination we are probably in a situation where it just does not make sense. There is nothing else to say. We have accepted that the female of the species has equal rights, yet we turn around and say but they cannot join this selective club which comes about by accident. Those attitudes are not compatible. Either women are treated on even terms or they are not.
If we accept that we can change the membership of Parliament, we next come to consider the principles behind the noble Lord's Bill. If there is a perfect piece of legislation I have not seen it yet. I know that I have been here only five years, but I have not seen it— certainly as a full-time Member of this House. But we can change some aspects of the Bill if we want to.
I appreciate that the points that I make from my moral standpoint and the position in which I find myself may well not be endorsed by other Members of your Lordships' House. But we must ask ourselves some very big questions. We are sovereign in Parliament. If we can agree and take something forward on which we can convince the other place, we can change anything. It may be difficult and take vast amounts of time, but we can do it. There is no question about that. Also, all of this can be done with the right will. Whether or not we want to or whether it makes sense to individual Members is something totally different. But the fact is that we can do so if we want.
I am afraid that I oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the simple reason that I do not believe it is something that we should discuss away from the Floor of the House. This matter is fundamental to us; it is not just a point of detail. If we wish to go further with this debate, it must be done on the Floor of the House. There must be full co-operation and voices must be heard from all round the House. It is a radical decision. But we have already tinkered with the number

1299
of people who come to this House. The fact that there are Life Peers and noble Baronesses in this House at the moment proves that we can bring about change at the edges. We are now talking about changing the centre. But we can make changes. There is no reason why we cannot pass this matter through our own House if there is sufficient will. I suggest that before we consider how we vote on the various Motions before the House tonight we try to get very clear in our minds exactly why we are voting.
7.6 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is quite right. This is a perfectly legitimate matter to be brought before your Lordships' House. I just wonder whether it would not be a good idea for it to go to a Select Committee because, if the full House considered it very much further, it would take up an inordinate amount of time since it is a complex matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is to be congratulated on his persistence. Last time around, when I was unfortunately away and could not speak in the debate, the Bill was killed off by my noble friend Lord Denham. On this occasion the hatchet has been wielded with great charm and eloquence by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, supported with great vigour by his and my noble friend Lord Hesketh.
In discussing this Bill outside the Chamber I have gained the impression that there is some misunderstanding about what would happen to the Bill if it went to a Select Committee in that it might open up a whole discussion on the more general reform of the House of Lords. I have presumed that any committee, or Select Committee, would consider the Bill as it stands irrespective of whether or not the House is reformed at any future date; in other words, this Bill concerns peerages whether or not they are accompanied by political and legislative privileges and responsibilities. That is a matter on which I welcome the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he comes to speak later in the debate.
I declare an interest in this matter in that I have one son and he has three daughters. There is nothing very unusual about that but, as in the case of many peerages, in those circumstances the title will become extinct as things stand. The reason for my intervention tonight is history, specifically 20th century history. I have no estates, property or grand medieval titles with vast numbers of kinsmen. I have only 20th century history. When my father was ennobled at the end of World War II he incorporated Alamein— his first important battle — into the title. This was a victory which many historians and indeed others consider was the turning point of the war. He subsequently went on to be responsible for much larger and more important military operations such as D-Day, which we will commemorate this year.
It is obviously a great responsibility to bear a title of such great historic significance and I naturally hope that it will continue for that reason. But the point that I have made is specific; and I believe that consideration of this
1300
Bill is probably more suited to a Committee or a Select Committee, or whatever should be decided. Unfortunately, judging by the tenor of many of the speeches we have heard tonight, I am not overconfident that the Bill will get that far, and it is for that reason that I felt it appropriate to intervene briefly at this stage of the proceedings. Obviously I am totally prejudiced in this matter. I have no reason not to be so. I declare that prejudice and for that reason I shall support the Bill.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this bee has been buzzing in the coronet of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for a long time— I believe he mentioned 10 years— and it is splendid that he has again let it out on a nuptial flight. I hope very much that he will be more successful than on the previous occasion although at that time I took leave to oppose the Bill and to speak and vote against it. On this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has made alterations in the Bill to meet the views of those who opposed it last time. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has provided us with a method of dealing with residual difficulties and therefore, in my submission, your Lordships should vote for the Bill today.
On the previous occasion there were three main objections to the Bill which made us feel that it was fatally and irredeemably flawed. In addition there were a number of peripheral difficulties which we felt were not solved by the Bill and were certainly not soluble in a Committee of the whole House but which nevertheless, for reasons that have been given, are soluble in a Select Committee which can take expert evidence and which can discover the facts behind such a difficult subject as the barony by writ and multiple title. The combination of such a Select Committee and the modification of the Bill by the noble Lord should encourage your Lordships to take the usual courteous course of giving it a Second Reading.
I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he said that this should be a matter for a Committee of the whole House. If it goes to a Select Committee, it will come back to a Committee of the whole House. That was a quite unreal objection. On the other hand, the detailed criticism by my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, points strongly in favour of examination by a Select Committee in advance of examination by a Committee of the whole House.
I wish to deal with the major respects in which we found the Bill flawed on the previous occasion but where the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has met our views. First, the previous Bill gave a discretionary option to the holder of a title to petition the monarch to decide between a daughter and a son or other male heir. Your Lordships all felt that that was highly objectionable because it would engender family disputes and bring them into the public arena. The second and connected reason was that the discretionary option faced the monarch with an insoluble problem. It brought her directly into family disputes which would sometimes be of a party political complexion.

1301
The third, and perhaps most potent, reason was that the previous Bill was felt to be unfair to existing heirs expectant. That was put notably by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in moving an amendment similar to that which the noble Earl has moved today, when he said we were in danger, in correcting one injustice— namely, to women— of creating another injustice; namely, to the expectant heir male.
I wish to deal with the concept of heirship. There can be no heir to a Irving person because the heir is the person who succeeds on the death of— to use a technical phrase— his ancestor. What we recognise are heirs apparent and heirs presumptive. We recognise that they are people who are likely to be heirs on the death of the ancestor. If the holder of a title— or property, formerly — has three daughters and a son, the son under the existing law is heir apparent because he will certainly succeed provided he lives longer than his father. On the other hand, the ancestor may have three daughters and a younger brother. The younger brother is an heir expectant because his right to succeed on the death of the ancestor is dependent on his elder brother having no more children.
One must remember that there are cases where children have been engendered by a parent at a fairly advanced age. We are all mourning the departure of Lady Elliot of Harwood. Her father was 80 when she was horn, and she was not the youngest member of the family. There is an example of the heir who cannot be ascertained until death— an heir apparent and an heir presumptive. I shall deal with that matter when we reach Clause 2 because the noble Lord's Bill extends the existing rights of heirs to heirs presumptive as well as to heirs apparent. It would be possible not to go so far. That is the kind of matter your Lordships will wish to examine in Committee.
Those, then, are the three main points, on all of which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has met the views that your Lordships expressed on the previous occasion. As regards the first point, the discretionary option, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, told us that it did not give a discretion to the ancestor— the holder of the title— but was the usual courteous form for imposing a duty on the monarch. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will no doubt tell us whether he agrees with that. However, it is perfectly possible to draft it another way to make it more certain that there is no discretion on the part of the holder of the title and therefore no embarrassment to the sovereign.
I turn to the other matters on which your Lordships felt there were considerable difficulties. The first was baronies by writ. That issue was not addressed by the previous Bill, nor is it by this one. Yet it was one of the anomalies which caused many of us to resist the Bill last time. However, it is essentially a matter for consideration by a Select Committee, which can take evidence if necessary from experts on peerage law. I am well aware that in this Chamber we are lucky in having our own experts on peerage law among our Members. Nevertheless, it is desirable that those who are interested should be able to call their independent experts.
The second issue is the complication as to property. Last time I mentioned that, although the law of entail
1302
has largely disappeared from our English system, nevertheless there are exiguous remains. The noble Earl reminded us that a statutory entail still subsists. I was not sure from the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey whether entail still exists in Scotland. Certainly, there is a famous Scottish novel which has The Entail as its title. The property aspects of the Bill must also be considered; that is best done by a Select Committee.
The third issue is a matter of which the noble Earl made valuable mention last time. I refer to the complication of English peers holding Irish titles and Irish offices. That is again a matter for a Select Committee. There is too the closely allied complication of more than one title being held by a single peer. That could be considered together with the Irish complication by a Select Committee.
A minor complication with which I should like to deal more specifically is the powerful argument that it is distressing in many circumstances if an ancient family name is separated from an ancient title. We will all have felt that particularly poignantly when it was mentioned by the noble Earl. That can already happen. It happens when a woman Peer in her own right marries and adopts her husband's name. One of the Curzon peerages passed to Curzon's eldest daughter, who became a Member of your Lordships' House in 1963. On her death the title passed to her nephew, who has a different name from the family name.
Lastly, I make this suggestion. As your Lordships know, the law recognises something called a name and arms clause. A testator can leave property to a collateral, say, on condition that the collateral accepts the name and arms of the testator. It would be easy to provide for a statutory name and arms clause in circumstances where the title might become divorced from the ancient name of the family. That could also be considered on expert evidence by a Select Committee.
I have dealt with the arguments advanced against the Bill last time. I have tried to show how overwhelmingly they have been met by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and, in so far as they have not been quite met, are perfectly exigible by a Select Committee. I do not like the end of Clause 2. I would omit the whole of the proviso, but again that is a committee point.
I come finally to the two main arguments in favour of the Bill. I need not enlarge on the first because it has been splendidly put to your Lordships. I believe that all of your Lordships are in agreement with the principle, which is very close to the heart of your Lordships, individually as an order and as a house of legislature, namely, consideration for women. That is something to which they are entitled. We would benefit all the more by the fact that it would strengthen your Lordships' House. As always, your Lordships, being practical statesmen, will measure the principle against the practicality and against experience. It is not only a matter of what women are entitled to, but also of the benefit which your Lordships' House will gain from admitting them to be Peers of Parliament in the circumstances that this Bill seeks to promote.
The second principle is the hereditary principle. I make no apology for saying that I am very strongly in

1303
favour of that principle. If your Lordships' House were to be reformed, as is threatened, I would be very strongly in favour of a hereditary element subsisting into the reformed House. This measure strengthens the hereditary element. A practical consideration mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is the extinction of peerages. I looked rather wider than the noble Lord. I looked back to the last 40 years. I was amazed to find that no fewer than 192 peerages— many ancient, many famous— have become extinct during that time.
I cannot avoid the temptation of quoting to your Lordships a famous piece of judicial rhetoric that was enunciated in your Lordships' House in the Oxford peerage case. The Earl of Oxford had died without male issue and the judges were called in to advise the House. Chief Justice Crewe said:
"Where is Bohun? Where is Mowbray? Where is Mortimer? Nay, which is more and most of all, Where is Plantagenet? They are entombed in the urns and sepulchres of mortality. And yet let the name and dignity of De Vere stand so long as it pleaseth God".
Whatever view we take on the Bill, all noble Lords will agree that the question,"Where is Mowbray?" will be most happily answered when I sit down.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is too kind. Perhaps I might humbly correct him on one small point. When the great Marquess George Nathaniel Curzon died, the heir to the Curzon titles as of yore, the Viscountcy of Scarsdale, went to his cousin—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I was referring to the Ravensdale part.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I took the point. Lady Ravensdale, the only daughter, was his heir general, but his heir male was her first cousin who became the next Viscount Scarsdale. There was no reason why she should take the name of Curzon as she was not the heir male.
Having said that, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on bravely bringing back the Bill to your Lordships' House, as he thought, perfected. I fear that he must be somewhat disappointed that it has not been given universal blessings from heaven. Nevertheless, he is earning high marks for trying.
As I had expected to be in the Far East today, I had not set out my speech. When I discovered that I was not travelling until later, I determined to speak. However, your Lordships will not have a long exposé from me this evening. You had a long speech from me a year ago, and that is enough, I am sure. Nevertheless, perhaps I may raise one or two points. I shall not refer to the legal points, which have been cleverly covered by noble and learned Lords and by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not refer to baronetcies when he spoke about hereditary peerages. I know that baronetcies have little to do with the House of Lords, but they are hereditary titles of honour and many peerages have baronetcies.
1304
There is no reference in this Bill or in the noble Lord's previous Bill to that aspect. I should like to say again what I have always stated. In this country there is great respect for hereditary titles. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly pointed out, it is sad to see old family names separated from their hereditary titles. I do not see any of my Welsh friends on the Benches Opposite. But in Wales, as in Ireland, the chieftainships of local clans were always through the male line tradition. You tell the O'Neills that they are not the high kings of Ireland and they will pour scorn. Everyone in Ireland knows that these matters relate to the male line descent.
I do not believe that common sense necessarily supports the noble Lord on the fact that we shall gain kudos by opening up the line to the eldest child. The thought of 80 peerages dying out every now and again does not unduly worry me. It saddens me when old families die out but it does not unduly worry me because we know that, by and large, more peerages are being created. The numbers of Members of the House are not getting smaller. If we increase in numbers too much we shall have to build another House.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke movingly and appealingly from his heart. I thought of a little joke. If the noble Lord was like that at 20 it explains why Pitt was Prime Minister at 20 and Addington was not. Perhaps it is a slightly weak joke. Nevertheless, I remember the first time that I met the noble Lord. He is a most redoubtable person. I found myself next to him in the House of Lords tug-of-war team. We won that contest. I have always thought him a useful ally— although perhaps not on this occasion.
I return to a point about which I have always been worried. As the tourist industry in Britain will be aware, there are some great houses headed by great families with great titles. I think of Chatsworth, Badminton, Boughton, Drumlanrig, in Scotland and in England. Those families have been there for hundreds of years. If you separate the dukedoms and the earldoms from those old families will they continue if one loses the male line descent? Quite often the answer is yes, but sometimes no. For example, the eldest daughter might marry, shall we say, an American film star from Hollywood. The noble Marquess, Lord Bath, might believe that that would cheer things up. But I should also like to refer to my noble kinsman the Duke of Norfolk. He would be in a very tricky position because in the reign of Charles II Parliament tied Arundel Castle and the Earldom of Arundel on the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk. When the ninth Duke died in 1777, Arundel Castle and the title of Arundel would have come to my family when we became heirs general, but thanks to the Howards' cleverness in Charles II's reign the title stayed with the Howards. What will happen if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, becomes law? There one has an example which would have extremely complicated consequences.
The Somerset Dukes of Beaufort at Badminton are direct descendants of John of Gaunt. One cannot do much better than that. The direct Plantagenet line is still with us. It would be a tragedy to see that title going out of that family to a daughter, however worthy the

1305
husband. If there were no brothers, nephews or cousins, so be it. Then petition the Queen and gain a regrant. I suggest that that is the way to go about that situation.
Let us take another of the really old mediaeval nobility: the Nevilles of Abergavenny. Here one has the mediaeval aristocracy which did much good in the wars of France and in the Wars of the Roses, on whichever side they were at the time. They seemed to change their side occasionally. Nevertheless, those families continue very strongly. One can add all kinds to the list: the Scots of Buccleuch and. I mentioned Boughton. It would be appalling if a daughter were to marry a Frenchman and the family became French. Half the fun of the Scots Dukes of Buccleuch would go. My noble friend Lady Carnegy, sitting beside me, is a member of a distinguished branch of the Carnegie family, the Earls of Southesk. They would be appalled to think of the Carnegie blood going out to a Sassenach, or something worse.
I have made all those points before, I only need to emphasise the laws of heraldry about which noble Lords may not know or think much but which are definite, historic and accurate. In European chivalry, heraldry has been well understood since the Middle Ages. It was one of the more civilising influences of the Hundred Years War and all the other horrible wars of those days, just as horrible as our modern wars. However, the heralds were the civilising influence. The quartering of arms, the depicting of arms and the passing of an heir male or heir general, the quartering and differencing, are all part of the apportionment of an estate.
In Scotland, Lord Lyon strictly controls such matters, far more sternly than does Garter King of Arms in London. The Lord. Lyon in Scotland is a judge and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, will know that he can not only summon a person to his court but also he can punish them severely if he wishes. The Garter King can only tell him that he is doing wrong and advise him to pay a sum of money to get the arms corrected.
There are many such points which are peripheral to the debate and I have said enough. I can only beg the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, if perchance he were successful— which I hope he will not be— to consider that if the Bill either reached the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, or the Committee of the whole House, it would be possible for Peers to be allowed to be free of the Bill. There may be Peers who would opt to take their titles out of the Bill and keep the descent as suggested by the original grantees, the kings or queens concerned. That would meet my point of families being able to keep their historic titles. I do not suppose many would wish to do that, but a sizeable minority of substance and fame would. It would be good for the country not to lose those names, with them becoming separate from the titles.
7.44 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if tenacity be a virtue, then the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, must be the most virtuous soul alive. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I do not like this Hereditary Peerages Bill any more than I liked its predecessor. Having said that,1 believe that the law governing the
1306
destination of peerages of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom is capable of improvement by being brought into line with the law of Scotland in this respect. Other noble Lords have suggested this and I propose to explain a bit what that law was and how it arose.
In Scotland in early times, all titles were tied to fiefs or freeholds of land held of the Crown in chief, in return for military service. The right to sit in Parliament was tied to the fief, not to any specific person. Whoever owned the fief had the right, unelected, to sit in Parliament. The Scots Parliament consisted of the three estates: the barons, which included earls and all freeholders, great or small; the Church and the burgesses. All sat together.
The barons were the holders of those fiefs which had been erected by charter from the Crown into a barony or regality, which gave the owner, among other things, the right and duty to administer justice. Some of the very large tracts of land were lordships or earldoms. The first earls were princes and superseded the ancient mormaers or regional princes in the time of Alexander I. Indeed, I think all Scots earls are princes. I do not know about English earls.
There were no dukedoms until Robert III created his eldest son, David, who died young, Duke of Rothesay in 1398. That dukedom is still held by the Crown and is today vested in His Royal Highness Prince Charles. Only six other dukedoms were created in Scotland before 1587 but they were ill-fated and none passed to successors. The first marquesses (which are sort of jumped-up earls, as indeed are dukes) were created in 1597 and the first viscount in 1606.
But the important thing is that every freeholder of a fief, held of the Crown in chief, however small, whether or not it was a barony, as well as the holders of baronies and earldoms, had a seat unelected, as of right, in Parliament. The right to sit in Parliament went with the fief, the barony or the earldom, and passed on the death of the holder to whomsoever inherited the land, as a rule the heir of the body, regardless of sex. If the fief were sold, the right passed to the purchaser, even in the case of an earldom. The destination might be varied when, as frequently happened, the holder resigned his holding to the Crown in return for a new charter, which might, for instance, erect a freeholding into a barony, or a barony into a regality; and a destination would usually be incorporated into that charter. Women were never deemed incapable in Scotland of holding or succeeding to land, and, where the heir was a female, she took, without division. There was no question of going into abeyance, it was cut and dried. The women, could not, of course, sit in Parliament themselves, but it was customary for their husbands to do so on their behalf and sometimes or frequently to take their titles. Eldest sons could sit in Parliament, both as freeholders, where they owned land, and representing their fathers or mothers.
Attendance at Parliament was no joy and privilege then, but a burden, and it was compulsory. Frequently it involved long journeys, at considerable expense. in bad weather, over almost impassable paths, with no inns and with the danger of attack by hostile tribes, even by

1307
wolves, so fines had to be imposed on those who absented themselves. If you were a very small freeholder you really could not afford it and there was no claiming expenses for attending in those days.
When James I returned to Scotland in 1427, after his long imprisonment in England, in the course of which he had received an excellent education and acquired modern ideas on the promotion of trade and agriculture, he was horrified at the poverty and ignorance he found and he resolved to introduce legislation to improve matters. This would involve holding frequent parlia-ments and he realised that in order to secure adequate attendance at these parliaments from the smaller freeholders, to balance the power of the greater barons, reform would be necessary.
The earls and larger barons were therefore appointed to be summoned to Parliament by a precept specially directed to each of them which they were required to obey. The smaller barons and freeholders were not excluded, but their attendance was dispensed with on condition that they appointed two proxies per shire or county to attend in their stead, whose expenses they would defray.
Shortly afterwards, poor chap, he was murdered and the creation of barons as lords in Parliament dates from the reign of King James II, his son. Among the first were Forbes, Gray, Saltoun and Borthwick. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Borthwick, is in his place. These lords received no writs nor letters patent. They merely received the usual summons to attend Parliament and were created by investiture only, such as belting or cinctura gladii, analogous to feudal investiture. An entry would be made in the records or journal of Parliament and might or might not be followed by a charter specifying the destination. Copies were not always kept of the records (no back-up discs!) and many of the records were lost, stolen or sunk in a watery grave. So it is difficult to be specific about the destination in any particular case, except that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it would be assumed to be to heirs of the body.
In 1587 King James VI completed the reform of Parliament which James I had started. He abolished the right that the tenure of land had given to a seat in Parliament. Thenceforth, no commoner had a seat unless elected. Two freeholders were to be chosen from each county to attend at the expense of all. Lords and earls still had to attend, moreover, and could not vote in the election of freeholders, just as today your Lordships cannot vote in general elections. From-then on, all peerages were personal and ceased to be dependent upon the ownership of the lordship or earldom. The impoverished Peer had become a possibility.
Peerages were mostly created by Letters Patent, and were not transferable but strictly entailed. In many cases the entail was limited to heirs male of the body, because only men could sit in Parliament. But in instances where there was no heir male of the body other arrangements were made. For example: the first Lord Balfour of Burleigh had only one daughter, so the destination was to his son-in-law. The first Lord Belhaven, having no male heir, resigned his title to the King, who re-granted
1308
it with remainder to his grand-daughter's husband and the heirs male of his body, whom failing, to his nearest heirs male whomsoever. They did fail, and— I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, whom I see in his place, will correct me if I have got this wrong— the sixth Lord Belhaven was a descendant of the first Lord's great-uncle. The first Lord Nairn had an only daughter, and the remainder was to her husband and to the heirs male of their bodies, whom failing, to the eldest daughter or heir female to be procreated between them, without division. Thanks to those flexible arrangements the descendants of all three sit in your Lordships' House today.
The important point to note is that, although the Letters Patent creating dignities generally specified the destinations of the peerage conferred by them, it was, by the law of Scotland, competent to the grantee or any of his successors to resign such grant into the hands of the Crown in return for a new grant limiting the destination in such manner as the grantee, with the consent of the Sovereign, might direct. I believe that that law has never been repealed and might still be prayed in aid in the case of a Scots peerage. The right honourable William Grant, QC, Lord Advocate in 1962– 63 Session, wrote in Appendix 12 to the report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform:
"The question remains as to whether the resignation procedure … is still competent so far as a Scottish Peer is concerned. I can find nothing in the Act of Union or in any later legislation to suggest that it is not".
I do not know whether this procedure has been used since the Union. I do not think that it has. But no legislation should be necessary to enable the holder of a Scots peerage to take such a course of action, particularly where the peerage in question was in danger of extinction.
In the case of peerages of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, legislation would be required, and it might be possible to amend this Bill so as to achieve that effect. If the Bill receives a Second Reading I should endeavour to do so at Committee stage. But I hope that it does not get a Second Reading, and I shall therefore support the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and vote for his amendment, should he decide to press it.
7.54 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may dwell for a moment on the possible effects that the Bill may have on the peerage of Ireland. I must declare a close interest. Since 1966 this House has unfortunately behaved in what some of us feel to be an unconstitutional manner towards Irish Peers. If it is the Bill's intention to include them therein, then that means that another precedent will be set of illegality. My interest lies in history and tradition— two areas which these days seem to be more and more overlooked. I have to be a little personal here, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. I wish to speak on behalf of the Irish peerage and Irish Peers as a whole. I am the senior identifiable heir presumptive of the Earldom of Ormonde which was created some 600 years ago— another ancient title— including the Chief Butlership of

1309
Ireland, created some 800 years ago. That brings a certain amount of history into perspective. I feel that it is very important that the Irish peerage should be dealt with in the way that it should have been when the Act of Union was signed.
Before 1801, the House of Lords of Great Britain had no control whatever over peerages of Ireland. This House only acquired some such control by virtue of the 1800 Act of Union. The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1971 broke the promise that Parliament had made to the Peers of Ireland in 1800. One of the consequences of that Act was to remove any ground this House may have acquired for having authoritative say in the succession to a peerage of Ireland. It is therefore my conclusion that this Bill cannot be allowed to proceed unless it is made clear that it would have no effect whatever on the Irish peerage. I hope that if the Bill receives a Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will take note of this requirement and accept suitable amendments at a Committee stage. In any event, the Bill is a non-starter.
I go back, I am afraid to say, to my family. The reason why I say "heir presumptive" to the Earldom of Ormonde is simply this. The ninth Earl— my family is descended from the eighth Earl— had seven sons. The seventh son had 10 sons. Each of those sons and lines have to be killed off— for want of a better word— before our claim might have any effect. If this Bill were to come into effect, there would be a danger in the future of including daughters as well, making an already very difficult task virtually impossible, if it is not impossible already.
The other reason why I say the Bill is a non-starter is that to amend patents in this context is clearly breaking a promise. I would also have thought that the Bill is unenforceable. The main aim seems to be to authorise the monarch to create heirs general peerages. I have no quarrel with that principle. I would go along entirely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, and with the equality of women. There is nothing at all wrong with that principle. But one fairly major point has been overlooked; namely, that the monarch already has the power within the Royal prerogative to grant heirs general peerages. I therefore feel that the Bill is superfluous to requirements; I cannot support it and cannot vote to give it a Second Reading.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for introducing this Second Reading debate. I should like to share with noble Lords some of the difficulties of being co-heiresslo to a peerage. The Wharton barony was created by writ in 1544, and is thereby capable of passing to heirs general. It first fell into abeyance upon the death of the sixth baron but was revived in 1738 upon the death of his younger daughter. It fell into abeyance twice more before doing so yet again on the death of my mother, the tenth holder. Sadly, the family name has disappeared; perhaps a future heir could think about bringing it back by adding it to his or her name.
I was well aware that I was my mother's elder daughter, having only one sister and no brothers. But it was far from simple for me to prove that, and much else,
1310
as required under the Sumner Committee rules of 1926. Those rules apply to calling peerages out of abeyance and they necessitate a phenomenal amount of paperwork. My files are 12 inches thick. I was asked to produce every single possible birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce certificate and death certificate, together with copies of all my predecessors' wills over the past 100 years. In all,35 separate documents were required. Naturally, that took a fair amount of time, let alone money.
Among other measures, the Sumner Rules require that there shall be no collusion with any co-heir. While my sister was willing that I should succeed, I can well understand just how difficult it must have been for her to renounce in my favour her rights to the title. There seems to be an inevitable conflict here. It could have created a level of dissension within the family which I feel that the law should not seek to impose.
In attending the Treasury Solicitor's office, my solicitor was advised:
"The Attorney General may well ask the petitioner what she does with her time".
I mention that because it proved necessary for me to produce an affidavit as to my character. I am sure that none of your Lordships had to face such hurdles before taking his seat in this House. While it must be right that a title should not be shared between co-heirs, the existing rules make it very hard to determine which daughter shall inherit.
I come to Clause 1(a) of the Bill. My own view is that the peerage should descend to the eldest legitimate son and, if there are no sons, then to the eldest daughter. In passing, I sympathise with the argument that illegitimate children whose parents subsequently marry each other should have the same rights as the children born of that union.
Clause 2(a) as it stands would appear to be most unfair as male heirs are conscious from a young age of their inheritance. I am opposed to that kind of retrospective legislation. I should not like to have to tell a son under the age of 18 that he will not after all succeed me because he has an elder sister. If anything, Clause 2(a) should only apply to children unborn at the enactment of the Bill. However, if Clause 1(a) we're to be amended as I would wish, Clause 2(a) falls by the wayside.
It is important that there should be clarity in determining who shall inherit. I hope that none of my descendants is asked to go through what I went through in order to bring a barony out of abeyance, particularly when that abeyance is between parent and daughter.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, one of the many embarrassing faux pas that I committed in my first few days as a Member of your Lordships' House, happened when I was at the Peers' Table. I asked a noble Lord, whose name I mercifully cannot remember, whether he was an hereditary Peer. He stared at me with some surprise and said,"There are two types of Peer in this House: orphans and temps. I am an orphan and you are a temp."

1311
It is with very great diffidence at my own presumption that, as someone who has only recently been given the great privilege of sitting with your Lordships, I have asked to speak on a Bill which may have a major effect on the composition of this House and which will impinge entirely on those of your Lordships who are here through the misfortune of being orphaned. I reluctantly intervene because I am the chairman of the Women into Public Life Campaign and a trustee of the Minerva Educational Trust, whose aim is to interest young women in politics and public life. I was the Adviser on Human Rights and the Status of Women to Soroptimist International from 1987 to 1990. Soroptimist International is the largest association of professional and business women in the world. I was also the chairman and executive director of the 300 Group from 1985 to 1988. The 300 Group campaigns to get more women elected into the other place. Obviously, we would welcome an opportunity for more women to be in this House. But that has to be as a matter of equal rights and emphatically not as an act of reverse discrimination. Therefore, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, upon bringing forward this Bill again. I offer him my qualified support for this newest attempt at a Bill.
As your Lordships know, rules of succession in favour of sons have existed since the earliest of civilisations, even as far back as ancient Egypt, when the throne descended in the male line because the pharaoh was believed to be an incarnation of God. In England in feudal times the dignity of a baron was inseparable from holding land as tenant-in-chief of the king. Land was also an essential prerequisite of attending on the king in the great council of the realm. In mediaeval England the organisation of society and public offices was based on that ownership of land and, as men owned it, it was they who held the offices and the titles. In fact, married women were under severe disabilities in the ownership of land. It frequently vested in or was controlled by their husband up to a mere 125 years ago, when a series of married women's property Acts were passed emancipating it. The final act of freeing women from restrictions on ownership of land took place only in 1935, within the lifetime of most of your Lordships. That was the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act. I often wonder what Freudian connection there may be between those two subjects.
The reasons for the inheritance of titles being almost invariably restricted to males were that women's counsel was not valued and women did not own land. Those reasons have long since disappeared. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating the unanswerable reasons why women should no longer be discriminated against in any field of endeavour. Instead, I should like to use my remaining time to explain why my support for the Bill has to be qualified. I have already spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about it.
The noble Lord introduced a similar Bill on 26th November 1992, just 15 months ago. The report of the debate in the Official Report shows that various
1312
objections were voiced by several noble Lords. While I agree with the principle that the Bill seeks to achieve, it seems to me that not all those objections— with which in many cases I agree— have yet been met in the present Bill.
First, the Bill deals only with peerages created by Letters Patent, ignoring the ancient peerages by writ. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seems to think that there are very few of the latter where the title cannot already pass through the female line. That may be so, but my information is that there may be a more significant number. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to that point in his speech. However, it does not matter even if there is only one. All peerages should be treated in the same way.
Secondly— to me this is a major objection— the Bill continues to disinherit some heirs who are at present in place. Even if the heirs themselves are too young to appreciate it, their fathers are not.
Thirdly, the machinery for altering the line of descent is far from clear. In fact, I am not very familiar with it and it seems somewhat ambiguous to me. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on television on Friday and heard him say that his new Bill would make that automatic. If that is his objective, I certainly commend it. But I am not quite sure whether the Bill as presently drafted achieves that aim. The Bill states that:
"Her Majesty … may amend the letters patent creating any … peerage to permit that peerage … to descend".
and so on. I am not a lawyer. I thought "may" did not mean "shall", though I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said about it being polite language. Certainly, I do not think that "any" peerage means "every" peerage; but "that peerage" means a particular selected one and not every one.
So in a sense we are back to the same questions as before. Is there to be a petition each time a title passes with an elder sister on the scene? Is there to be some inter vivos declaration by the former holder? Is he to deal with the matter by his will? Any of those alternatives will give rise to the possibility of disputes, to pressure from elder daughters or from sons liable to displacement, to allegations of undue influence and to casting doubts on the testamentary capacity of the former holder of the title. The opportunity to nominate his successor could bring about a curious situation in the case of those who hold two peerages. The holder could just nominate one for his eldest daughter, leaving the other as prescribed in the Letters Patent.
Furthermore, the Bill is still dependent upon Her Majesty's pleasure. How, when and on whose advice is that pleasure to be expressed? What if the Bill is passed and Her Majesty is never pleased to exercise the power given to her. Parliament would have wasted its time. In my view the only satisfactory solution to those problems would be if all peerages, without exception, were to be made to pass to the eldest child, subject, of course, to the preservation of the expectations of all present direct heirs.
It was suggested that passing the Bill and sending it to the other place might incite some of its Members to try to abolish your Lordships' House altogether. I believe my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein

1313
alluded to that. That argument cannot be totally discounted. But it is also possible that reforming the right of female inheritance will remove one of the arguments some people use against the House.
An important function of this House is as the final Court of Appeal; the last resort of those seeking justice. Is it not right that it should also do justice to, I admit, a small number of citizens— the families of 774 hereditary Peers? If your Lordships were voluntarily to agree to abolish purely male succession at a time when we are still trying to abolish all kinds of discrimination, it would send out a powerful message from your Lordships' House.
I believe that the Bill raises a matter of principle too important to fail on a technical amendment, despite well-founded objections to the method of attaining its ends. I hope your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. There will be ample opportunity to reject it if it does not emerge from Committee in a far better form than when it went in.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had my noble friend's Bill been law when I inherited my title 12 years ago I should not be here now. The title would have passed to my cousin, Ann. Sadly she is no longer alive so the title would now have descended to her eldest son, my second cousin. I am fairly sure that he would not be sitting on this side of the House, despite my family's radical tradition.
Despite the fact that I would not be here and the Benches opposite might have had an additional Member, I fully support my noble friend's Bill on the grounds of justice, self-interest— of this House and the country as a whole— and, above all, on the grounds of logic. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with regard to logic. I feel that true logic stands above partisan viewpoints. It is surely illogical for the male inheritance of titles to prevail in a country which has shown no sex discrimination in the rules of inheritance for the Head of State since Mary Tudor, who noble Lords will recollect was known as "Bloody Mary" because of the way in which she dealt with those who did not share her faith. She came to the throne in 1553. My noble friend mentioned a previous example of a female Head of State, Boadicea, though perhaps in AD 61 the rules of inheritance of titles were governed by a rather different law, if there was a law. I suggest that if one of the granddaughters of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, were to inherit the title of Alamein, Boadicea would be a worthy and suitable predecessor.
I am fully aware that peerage law is extremely complex, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and others pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, says that we in this House have sufficient expertise to discuss the matter in Committee if the Bill should receive a Second Reading. But I wonder whether we could offer the dispassionate advice that a Select Committee could give us. I am persuaded that that is a good reason for backing my noble friend's amendment
1314
to send the Bill to a Select Committee. I strongly support the Bill and if the House should give it a Second Reading I shall support my noble friend's amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for introducing this Bill again and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading. I am also much encouraged by the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the matter be referred to a Select Committee. I feel that the many points and problems of detail raised this evening would best be dealt with in that closed group before they are exposed to the whole of your Lordships' House and take up a lot of our time.
I do not wish to talk about the detail, just about the principle. It seems to me that there are three questions we must ask before giving the Bill a Second Reading. First, should we be looking at the question at all? Secondly, is it a good change for the House? Thirdly, is it a good change for the hereditary peerage?
With regard to whether or not we should be looking at the question at all, the answer is yes. It is important that this House continues to change. Its strength and flexibility come from the changes made in the past. Over 20 years ago your Lordships' House recognised the need for change and was thwarted by another place. There are limitations on what we can propose but we should do our best within those limitations. If we refuse or neglect to change, then change will come suddenly and catastrophically and we shall not recognise this House after it. I do not believe that the Bill in any way infringes the rights of another place. But if it causes them to take an interest in reforming this House I, for one, shall be grateful. I would far rather see this House reformed by the present Government than by one of another colour later.
Secondly, is it a good change for this House? The answer is resoundingly and obviously yes. Its result would be to produce more women Peers and that, given the track record of that species to date, can only be good.
Thirdly, is it good for the hereditary peerage'? I also answer yes to that question. The hereditary peerage is a cultural and not a genetic heredity. When we talk of hereditary peerages one automatically thinks of genetics and inheriting the abilities and make-up of our parents. But only half of my genes come from my father and that process, that diminution, carries on back through generations. In fact, if we look down the male line 20 generations— which is well within the compass of many of your Lordships— there stands a man whom we would regard as an ancestor and who may be one of the founding fathers of the family, but the chances are that not one single gene in one's body has come down the male line from that man. Anyone who has read Matt Ridley's book The Red Queen, will know that to be an established fact. They will know that there is no genetic meaning to the concept of the male line.
The concept of the male line is a cultural one; it is the inheritance of power, of honour, of possessions. And in a male-dominated world, in which many of the hereditary peerages were created, male succession was

1315
right. But now that is changing. It has not changed completely but it is changing and I hope that it will change permanently to a situation where women rank equally with men. If we want the hereditary peerage to retain the value and respect which it now holds, and if we want it to be something which the society of the future can look upon with honour, then we need the values of that society to be matched by the values which go with the symbol of a hereditary peerage.
My peerage is one which can descend through the female line. It was given to a woman in respect of the achievements of a man. I inherited it from my mother; she inherited it from her mother. I do not believe that anything that has happened in the course of my heredity, looking back at my family, detracts from its history and the sense of family, even though it has dodged between the male and the female line with great regularity. So on all counts I believe that we should take this Bill forward, give it a Second Reading and discuss how and to what extent it might be put into action.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, when I read the admirably brief Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I asked myself what was the central thrust and purpose of it. Is it to rationalise the British peerage? That is impossible. It is an irrational structure and, as Oscar Wilde said, the best thing the British have done in fiction. In that it reflects our constitution in general, and it is none the worse for that. I am not criticising it for being irrational. It has its own internal rationality, I suppose, which is entirely esoteric to itself and has no parallel. But it has shown greater strength than some of the constitutions of cartesian rationality which have been devised by our neighbours in Europe. But still, I cannot believe that the noble Lord has so impossible an ambition as to attempt to rationalise the British peerage.
Is it then to admit more women Peers to this House? But for that it is unnecessary. We have a mechanism whereby women Peers can be created ad limitum and brought in not haphazardly by accidents of an unreal genetic descent but rationally and on merit. There is no obstruction to the ambition to bring more women Peers into the House. Equally, patents in future could be altered in order to make the peerage descend to the heirs general instead of, as has been customary in patent peerages hitherto, to heirs male.
Is it then to save ancient peerages from extinction? Listening to some noble Lords, that seems to be an argument used. That, I feel, is like tae Cavalier philosophy: romantic but wrong. But I shall come back to that. Whatever the purpose, I think that the Bill can be described as at the same time radical, reactionary and romantic. It is radical in the methods which will be necessary to carry it out. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, cited as a precedent the execution of Charles I. I do not know that we would particularly wish to follow that precedent. But certainly it is a radical measure and some noble Lords have touched on that.
How is it to be done? Are all the peerages by patent issued since the 14th century to be called in and new ones prepared? I do not know: perhaps we will be told.
1316
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, made an interesting point. I do not know whether patents of former kings can be valid by later legislation. He cited an instance in Scottish peerage law— the second creation of the Dukedom of Fife because it was impossible to adjust the previous patent in order to provide for a variation of inheritance. He said that he did not know whether that happened in English peerage law.
Lord Jauncey of Tultichettle: My Lords, it was a United Kingdom patent in the 19th century.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, there is another instance in English history that comes to my mind which points the same way. In the 18th century the famous Duke of Newcastle had no male heirs. His dukedom was by Letters Patent and restricted to male heirs of the body. He wished to be succeeded by his nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, but he could not change the patent. For all the influence which he exercised at the court of George II he could not do it. Therefore he contrived a very ingenious method. His dukedom was the dukedom of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He persuaded the King to create him Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyme with a special remainder. So the dukedom of Newcastle-upon-Tyne became extinct with him but the dukedom of Newcastle-under-Lyme passed to his nephew — and it appears, as one always leaves out the "Tyne" and the "Lyme", to be a continuous inherited dukedom.
The argument is the same as the argument offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. This is a legal matter on which I would not give my own opinion but it seems to show that a patent of a former monarch is not variable. Therefore, all the patents would have to be called in and new patents issued. They would be new creations. One can imagine what practical difficulties that would cause. The Bill is radical in that sense because the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wishes with one half-page of print to sweep away all the writs and patents issued in the past seven centuries by 30 kings. That seems to be quite a radical gesture.
I say it is reactionary in another sense; that is, as again has been suggested by some noble Lords, it will positively extend and strengthen the hereditary system. I have nothing against the hereditary system but some people do. Our eager reformers are anxious to do away with hereditary legislators. We can see that in the past history of this House. In the history of this House one can detect a continuous but muted dialogue between governments seeking to contain the hereditary element and social pressure aided by the ingenuity of well fed peerage lawyers seeking to extend it.
We see the extension particularly in the 1830s and 1840s when the new usage of abeyance was introduced into peerage cases. Suddenly antique peerages thought to be extinct for 400 or 500 years broke from underground like fountains— a stream of them— and took precedence over all the peerages by patent. That great explosion of hereditary Peers started in about the 1830s and the fountain was still playing freely when parliamentary time, one would have thought, would have been pre-empted by the burden of the First World War.

1317
Therefore, in that sense I believe that the measure is reactionary. It is tending to strengthen the hereditary element which recent policy has tended to seek to attenuate because it cannot escape everyone's notice that in the past 30 years practically no new hereditary peerages have been created, I believe with one exception; namely, for persons who under the present system would be the only holders so that they are in effect no different from life peerages.
So we must face the fact that this measure, which would give greater survival capacity to hereditary peerages, is in that sense a step back. It is a move back towards the 1830s. Another episode was the government's attempt to redress the balance in this House by creating life peerages in, I believe,1856. That was vetoed by this Chamber after, we are told, a brilliant speech by Lord Lyndhurst, who was 87 years of age and blind but who by his eloquence carried the day. After that Bagehot wrote that two things were necessary to reform the House of Lords: one was to abolish proxies, which would make it a real House, and the other was to introduce life Peers, which would make it a good House.
Proxies have been abolished and life Peers introduced. I mention that as an illustration of the continuing dialogue between the Crown attempting to control hereditary peerages and the social pressure which has pressed for their extension. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is supporting what I call — absolutely neutrally and I am not moralising at all — a reactionary measure.
As regards the romantic aspect, I believe that, despite the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Mowbray, most of us would agree that mere titles are, as the Earl said to Mr. Salteena, in The Young Visiters, "piffle before the wind". It is really agreeable piffle and it is the stuff of romance. But I do not really believe that merely preserving ancient peerages because of romantic attachment to them is going to carry us very far.
What then is the ultimate, central purpose of the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond? It is not against discrimination because there is none. Women Peers can be brought in at any time. It smells to me a little of — what is the phrase?— "political correctitude". It is not going to make a real difference. It is not going to make an enormous difference in the actual practicalities of carrying it through. There will not be a great difference in fact, or at least there need not be.
Therefore, I am going to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. This Bill is rather like the operation of burning down the house in order to have roast pig, or, alternatively, if I may, change the metaphor, as if to burrow through antique architectural rubble in order to create a difficult sideway into a house of which the front door is wide open.
8.35 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but his enthusiasm for his cause is moving too fast. If he had proposed that the normal destination for peerages should be to heirs general, as is the case for the monarchy, he would have received considerable support; even more so, if he had allowed an opt-out for
1318
those Peers who preferred the status quo. A number of Peers accept that the peerage law should be modernised. But I believe that there should be an evolutionary process and not a quantum jump, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, proposes. The move to heirs general would be progressive, would increase the number of women peers, would keep a few titles and estates together and could be acceptable to the House.
The amendment of the noble Lord, the Earl of Shrewsbury, although produced for positive reasons, has a very negative ring to it. It suggests that as a House we are incapable of considering any change whatsoever. However, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is positive. I believe that he is proposing a sensible way forward. A Select Committee would give us the facts and advise us as to what changes were feasible. So I shall be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in anticipation, perhaps optimistically, of being able to support the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, we do not know how far back we can take the history of the House. I believe it is further than the 13th century with the adventitious circumstances that Writs of Summons to attend the House have survived. I believe that Enoch Powell was quite right in his book, The House of Lords in the Middle Ages, to take the history of the House back to the Saxon witan.
My family began well before surnames. We are ultimately descended from Charlemagne, who in his turn was descended from Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, who died in 672. So if I have an interest to declare, it is that, from the time we reached England in the reign of Edward the Confessor, our earliest titles were not hereditary. We are descended from Edward the Confessor's nephew Ralph, Earl of Hereford. His earldom was not hereditary; it merely meant that he was the king's chief man in the county in the way that the sheriff later became. He was also commander of the fleet at the time of Godwin's exile when all the crews absconded. That is why Godwin was able to return. Again, at the end of the 13th century, we were summoned to attend the House of Lords. It is clear from Enoch Powell's book, The House of Lords in the Middle Ages, that to be summoned then to attend this House did not convey a hereditary peerage.
The Bill is to be criticised on two broad counts. The first is mischief in loosening the strength of the hereditary principle in the form which was well adumbrated by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and into which English society has hardened during the course of the Middle Ages. Our early kings did not succeed by any good, hereditary title, which created difficulties of disputed succession, the most notable being the civil war between Stephen and Matilda. The period in which our kings first succeeded each other by a good, hereditary title has to be marked by the minority of Henry III. Equally, this House was not hereditary until the end of the 14th century, when it became so for reasons of administrative convenience.

1319
The arguments are very old about the conflict between the elective principle of government and the hereditary principle, which has lasted for far longer since the fall of the Roman Empire.
The best arguments in favour of the hereditary principle belong to the 18th century, with its belief in a mixed constitution, derived from Aristotle and from Joseph de Maistre, who demolished the nonsense of the French Revolution. It is unfortunate in this respect that most of our history books have been written by Whigs, absorbed with the increasing ascendency of the House of Commons, when this House has an important history in its own right which has been seriously overlooked.
Still, let me remark quickly that we need to consider the importance of this House, with its male hereditary composition, since the end of the 14th century. In the 15th century, when the Crown was weak and the Commons had not achieved its later ascendency, this House was the principal element in the constitution. Again in the 18th century it was very powerful. It did not exist by itself, but had a large element of control over the other place since noble Lords owned so many rotten boroughs. The Duke of Wellington opposed the Great Reform Bill of 1832, which abolished rotten boroughs. We have to ask, who did the Great Reform Bill enfranchise except the wealthy manufacturing interests who created the misery of the industrial revolution? It was left to Disraeli, the Tory Prime Minister, to widen the franchise with the second Great Reform Bill in 1867. In the last century, the Tory Party was always at the forefront in the amelioration of the condition of the people.
It is possible to cite instances of how this House has been more honourable than the other place. We have to think of the trial of Strafford. The other place had to resort to the mediaeval Bill of Attainder because, very properly, this House would not allow the other place to get away with an impeachment. This House insisted on judicial fair play.
The second broad count on which we must criticise the Bill is on the separation of the peerage from the estate which supports it. Much has been said about equal rights for women. The role of women in the past was different but clearly complementary. The role of women was the obvious one of marriage. In his English Genealogy, our Clarenceux King of Arms, Sir Anthony Wagner tells us that it is through marriage to heiresses that the great families of this House were built up. In various instances, the heiresses belonged to new families which wished to enter the aristocracy. If the old families had blocked that, as happened on the Continent, it could have precipitated a revolution.
The idea that property creates no obligation is a modern and liberal one in contrast to the old thinking according to which the great families and their primogeniture had, and still have, a purpose— that their property creates obligations. In that respect, a seat in Parliament is very appropriate. Our hereditary aristocracy is landed and the understanding that land carries obligations is especially important today when for more than a century land has hardly paid for itself. I speak here not exclusively as a reactionary, but would
1320
seek the sympathy of noble Lords opposite since in this century the Conservative Party has been affected by liberal thinking on economics. On matters of the environment, the party opposite can be more satisfactory than my own.
Here, in parenthesis, perhaps I may plead with noble Lords opposite the appropriate reason for which this House rejected the 1909 Budget of Lloyd-George which led to the 1911 Parliament Act by which this House was shorn of so many of its valuable powers. Since the agricultural depression set in in 1879, land has needed protection. Joseph Chamberlain started off as a radical, just as rude about the aristocracy as Gilbert and Sullivan, but then underwent a very satisfactory political conversion and by 1903 advocated protection for agriculture. The Welsh attorney, Lloyd-George, with his Budget of 1909, went the other way and attacked land when Joseph Chamberlain recommended that a much better means of raising money was by expanding the imperial economy through imperial preference.
To turn in conclusion to the present, we must be mindful of the contributions to land by Peers who have inherited in the male line and kept their estates. I shall give three instances. I refer to the magnificent contributions to debates in this House on forestry, especially by Scottish noble Lords. Secondly, I can cite instances of the refusal of noble families to sell their land for development; thirdly, I refer to the problem, which is more acute in the South than in the North, of who our villages are for— are they for weekending stockbrokers or for those who work on the land? Where some houses are sold to weekend visitors, the village is destroyed as a cohesive social unit.
For the reasons given, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has thought out the implications of his Bill in sufficient depth. I oppose it.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but I must confess that I am still not clear on the thinking behind Clause 2 (b). Could the noble Lord say a little more about that clause and, particularly, why the period that he nominated was 10 years?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when my late father died 30 years ago, he did not donate a peerage to me. I share that distinction with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on my right and my noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Dean of Beswick who are always to my left. He did leave me, however, a memory of his being a lay preacher in North Wales in the Church of Wales. He always remarked on the pleasure of a large and attentive congregation. He would say cynulleidfa go dda. In North Wales the audience here this evening would count as a large and attentive congregation.
Our approach is quite different from those of your Lordships who have spoken so far. We believe that the Bill is a worthy attempt but that it simply tinkers with an undoubted problem. It does nothing to tackle the fundamental question on which noble Lords who spoke

1321
earlier touched— has the hereditary principle any acceptable place in a legislative assembly in 1994? Our answer, which will come as no surprise, is plain, clear, and unambiguous: no.
Nothing, of course, that I say is meant by way of personal criticism of any hereditary Peer. Some of my best friends are hereditary Peers. All without fail or failing have treated me with infinite courtesy.
When one has listened to the speeches this evening or listened, as I did, with enormously innocent pleasure on 26th November 1992, one realises that hereditary Peers are a mixed bunch. They have mottled backgrounds. Some are the descendants of those who simply purchased their ennoblement from the late and revered Lloyd-George. Some are the inheritors of party placemen throughout the centuries. Some are the ultimate legatees, as we heard on the last occasion from the interesting speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, of those whose ancestors were attainted or decapitated. Some, a fairly small percentage these days, are the favoured relicts of the illegal immigrants who came to this country at the time of the Norman Conquest.
Great antiquity I s not a characteristic which attaches to most hereditary peerages: 620 were created following the great Reform Act in 1832, of which no fewer than 500 hereditary peerages have been created since 1918. In that context, those of us who inhabited parts of these islands long before the most ancient of hereditary peerages approach your Lordships worries on the other side of the argument with a good deal of sympathy.
One problem that concerns me is the precise mechanism that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, intended in Clause 2. It seemed to me on a superficial reading that that might be a defect in the Bill. However, after the noble Lord's explanation and in particular, if I may say so in his present absence, after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it is perfectly plain, at least for present purposes, that what is suggested is an automatic mechanism, not a discretionary mechanism. Assuming the improvement that would come from commitment to a Select Committee— and I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to that effect— the principle, limited though it is, is welcome.
The blunt truth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, is that women have always been the object of discrimination and unfairness. They still are — and they still are in this House. One hundred and twelve years ago —but a day, I know, in the recollection of some— the Married Women's Property Act was passed. It allowed married women, for the first time, to approach equality in holding their own property. Many thought that it would be the end of civilisation as they then understood it to be. There were many devious, curious, subtle arguments used against that revolutionary step— an argument similar to that which has been presented this evening. None of the arguments then held water, and the bucket still has a big hole in it this evening.
In the end, the advantage to us of the Bill, modest though it is, is that it would provide at least a modicum of equal treatment: nor women, which is long overdue. In
1322
the House there are few women life Peers; there are few hereditary women Peers; there are no female bishops; no female Chief Rabbi is likely to sit with us; there are few High Court judges who are women; there is one in the Court of Appeal; and it will amaze no one to know that the number of women sitting in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords is nought, as it always has been from time immemorial. I think of that sometimes when I am directed to the attractions of history and tradition. There are few women ambassadors; no chiefs of staff; and only two women in the Cabinet.
What we therefore support here briefly— because our dispositions are respectively laid out clearly— is the opportunity for fairer treatment for women. Our suggestion and belief is that women are treated unfairly; and that that unfairness is endemic throughout out society. There are only two possible explanations why women do not succeed: one, they are just not up to it; and, two, they are never given a fair opportunity. In my opinion, it is the second.
The arguments that we have heard tonight have been attractive. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is not here. He confined his contribution this evening for reasons that he mentioned. His contribution on the previous occasion, and I say this without any frivolity, I found deeply interesting and moving. But it is moving and interesting, as has earlier been said, on a cultural, traditional, historical basis in the same way that anyone's family history is of particular interest to that family; and families, of course, have interest whether they are great and ennobled or modest and obscure. The great and the noble have no finer traditions in the memory of families than those who are modest and never heard of.
The arguments this evening, therefore, have all the seductiveness of history and tradition to which I am afraid I readily apply myself; but the arguments, though they have all the sinuous charm one would expect from your Lordships, if one steps back for a moment, would have raised an eyebrow or two even in renaissance Italy. Charm, however seductive, will not do to mask injustice of the sort that has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and for those reasons our attitude is simple and plain. We recognise the depth of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords. I recognise the sense of tradition that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, described. He did not speak on the previous occasion for obvious reasons. But at the end of the day we say that justice means more than old traditions. Tradition has its place and value, but not to overturn fairness, and therefore we shall support the Bill and, in particular, the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
8.54 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships — many of your Lordships have said this — when I thank the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for giving us another opportunity to consider this topic. I have a particular reason for being grateful to him in that in his reference to his approaching middle age I feel established as yet some considerable distance short of it.

1323
The Bill is intended to make provision for Her Majesty to have the power, if it pleases her, to amend the Letters Patent creating any hereditary peerage so that that peerage may descend to the Peer's eldest legitimate heir— I am not quoting the exact words of the Bill— something which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has previously described as "unisex primogeniture". It differs notably from the previous Bill on this topic which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, introduced during the previous Session. I shall return briefly to that point in a moment.
I am sure that all of your Lordships support the principle that the part that women have had to play in this House has been a considerable one. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has drawn attention to the fact that they continue to outperform their male counterparts in terms, for example, of attendance per head. That is a crude measure of value, but it is at least a measure. It is not always easy to secure a good measure of value, so I put forward that one for your Lordships' consideration. I am sure that all of your Lordships would wish to support the principle of equal opportunities as between the sexes. I believe that the Government's record continues to demonstrate that commitment, and I should like to highlight two aspects upon which I have spoken before in relation to this subject.
The first is the continuing progress of the Prime Minister's initiative to increase the proportion of public appointments held by women and members of the ethnic minorities. When I mentioned that previously I was able to say that the proportion of public appointments held by women had increased from 23 per cent. at the start of the initiative in 1991 to 26 per cent. by September 1992. It has now moved forward to 28 per cent. towards the end of 1993. That is progress in the right direction. It still has some distance to go, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, it still has to reach the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, but that takes a little time.
The other and wider aspect is the Government's support for the aims of the Opportunity 2000 campaign, directed at increasing the quality and quantity of women's participation at work nationwide. Government departments have as part of that campaign been examining their own areas of responsibility and producing action plans for improving the position of women in those various fields. I am happy to say that the Lord Chancellor's Department has not been lagging behind in that, from taking action as an employer, such as encouraging part-time working and job sharing and supporting and developing staff childcaŕ e schemes together with partners such as British Rail, to taking action in my wider fields of responsibility, for example, in relation to judicial appointments.
I referred at the outset to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in amending the Bill to meet earlier criticisms. That work has produced a Bill which is different in a number of respects from the previous one. I should like to compliment him on the concern with which he has approached that task.
From the presentation of the Bill given by the noble Lord, he intends that the first clause should not give a
1324
power in the ordinary sense to Her Majesty, to amend the Letters Patent but to effect that change automatically. My noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey questioned whether that was the effect of the clause. I am prepared to take it that the Bill will have the effect for which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asks, or if on an analysis of the words used that is not its effect, then it can be readily changed to have that effect. The advice that I have been given is that the clause that he has used is probably adequate for his purpose. If there is any question about that no doubt it can be resolved.
The fundamental question that must be addressed is how far this change is intended to go. My noble friend Lord Hesketh pointed out plainly that one could develop the principle for new Letters Patent, making new Letters Patent indifferent as regards gender. That would be comparatively easy. However, the principle of the Bill goes much wider. The principle of the Bill is affecting existing Letters Patent, and Letters Patent that have been granted over a long period.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, guarded himself against the argument that the Bill is retrospective in that sense. Of course, it is retrospective in the sense that it affects deeds and the terms of deeds granted a long time ago. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to the effect of finance Bills and finance Acts; that is, to the change in taxation. But there is a big difference between the kind of change which a change in the taxation system affects and the kind of change that is in question in this Bill. Once a tax is brought in it applies to an existing state of facts and changes that may take place thereafter. One must examine the existing state of facts to see whether the taxing provisions apply, and if so with what result. One might find that certain types of enterprise are affected by a new tax but certain types are not.
This provision is different in principle from that in this way; that the change which the Bill makes to Letters Patent will depend on what is already in the Letters Patent. That is seen by the two provisions (a) and (b) of Clause 1, which cater for different things which may be in the existing Letters Patent. The difficulty which the Bill faces is that the provision is to be automatic and therefore must give a substituted devolution of the peerage for the one in the existing patent. If it is to work it must give a new devolution for every possible type of patent.
My noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey, with his considerable experience of these matters— it relates in particular to Scotland but the principle is the same— indicated that he has been unable to devise a scheme which will satisfactorily apply to all the different types of situation which one might encounter on the death of a holder of a peerage in the various existing Letters Patent. Unless that were possible this Bill could not work. That is the first problem which a Bill on this general principle faces. Therefore, it is a matter for consideration as a matter of principle.
The second main problem which a Bill of this kind faces is how to deal with people already entitled under existing Letters Patent to legitimate expectations of success to a peerage. That is dealt with in Clause 2. As has been pointed out, two different situations are dealt

1325
with. The first relates to an existing child and the age of 18 has been selected. If a person is younger than 18 his legitimate expectations are, in effect, to be disregarded. If he is older than 18 all well and good; he will be entitled to succeed under the old system. But not every existing person with legitimate expectations is in that category. One therefore turns to Clause 2(b). As has been pointed out, that subsection mentions 10 years as the correct method of dealing with the situation. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will answer the questions posed about the 10-year period in relation to the age: of 18, and so forth.
These are all matters of anxiety and no doubt they can be adjusted. However, the point of principle is that if one is going to interfere automatically with existing Letters Patent one must provide some method of dealing with those having legitimate expectations. So far as I can see, those are the matters of principle which arise for resolution under the Bill.
The Government are neutral in respect of the Bill. As far as they are concerned, it is for your Lordships to decide between tae Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on the one hand and the amendment of my noble friend Lori Shrewsbury on the other. If the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is carried, we shall come to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I understand that if, under the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, the Bill is remitted to a Select Committee the result is that it is the Bill that will he considered; in other words, it will not open to the Select Committee a completely wide-ranging remit about anything to do with the reform of the House of Lords, or even that drastic type of reform which leads to abolition. The Select Committee's remit would be the same in principle as the remit to the Committee of the whole House, except that the method by which that remit is pursued would be different. Therefore, the sort of subjects which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, indicated in his support for the Motion would be the kind of matters a: which the Select Committee would require to direct its attention—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but surely that would be a matter for the Motion appointing the Select Committee. I have in mind a Select Committee with very wide powers of remit to consider all the matters about which the noble and learned Lord is talking.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that would depend upon the situation The Motion before the House tonight is one to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. As I take it, that would be the terms of reference of the committee. No doubt your Lordships could appoint a Select Committee to do something else and with a wider remit if your Lordships felt so inclined. However, so far as concerns tonight's Motion— and that is the matter to which I am addressing myself— I believe that its remit is not altered but that it is in accordance with the Motion and thus would be along the lines that I have sought to describe.
In considering the latter, your Lordships have to bear in mind the various issues that have been raised. However, your Lordships may also wish to consider
1326
how much relative importance should be attached to the matter as against other matters upon which a Select Committee might be established. As noble Lords know only too well, the resources of this House for servicing Select Committees are not infinite. Therefore, a certain degree of judgment on priority is required before your Lordships decide to set up a Select Committee. I believe it is only fair to draw attention to the fact that, if the Motion were to be acceded to, it would create a call on those resources which might be in competition with other objects for which your Lordships might think a Select Committee is required. The Government have no firm view on the matter. So far as we are concerned we are leaving it to a free vote of your Lordships' House.
Those are the matters which seem to me to be the principal matters for consideration. We have had a most interesting and wide-ranging debate which has covered all sorts of aspects on the subject. So far as I am concerned, I believe it would not be right for me to try to summarise them. I leave it on the basis that the principal concerns that your Lordships have to address in deciding such matters are the ones that I mentioned.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps I may ask a question. While my noble and learned friend is describing procedural matters, can he tell the House whether it would be within precedent and possible to refuse the. Bill a Third Reading after a Select Committee had returned it in a revised form?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding of the situation is that it would certainly be possible to do so. Each of the stages in the passage of a Bill are debatable and your Lordships can vote upon them. Therefore, it would certainly be possible to reject a Bill on Third Reading that had gone through a Select Committee and then returned to the House for its final stage. No doubt your Lordships would wish to express a view on whether it was likely that that would happen. I am sure that noble Lords would not be particularly anxious to devote the sort of resources required for a Select Committee unless they thought that there was some reasonable prospect that the Select Committee's work would not be in vain. In other words, it is not just putting such a decision even further off.
A certain decision is now required on the practicality in principle of what is proposed in the Bill. I believe that that is implicit in the logic of what we are doing tonight. The first question is whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading. Only then does the question arise as to whether it should be committed to a Select Committee. Therefore, by giving the Bill a Second Reading, your Lordships would be approving the Bill in principle, subject to amendments which might come out of the Committee stage. It is then left open, of course, to reject the Bill on Third Reading if your Lordships felt so inclined. I believe that I have covered the main issues. Of course, I have not addressed all the issues which were raised, but I have sought to summarise what appeared to me to be the principal ones.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the last thing that I want to do is to detain your Lordships for any length of time at this hour. However, I hope that I may genuinely say how grateful I am to all those who listened to the debate. There has been an unusually large attendance in the House for a Private Member's Bill. I am very conscious of the honour that has been given to me with so many noble Lords spending their time listening to the debate. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who sat through the whole debate and who has, once more, given us the benefit of his views.
I should like to answer a few of the specific points raised. The question was asked as to whether the option, which was an unwanted element in my earlier Bill, has gone. I did not do the drafting, but I am grateful to those in this House who did. As I said in my opening remarks, I am assured that that is precisely so. The wording of the Bill,"if it please Her Majesty she may amend the letters patent", is capable of being understood literally. I said in my opening comments that that was the normal and polite form of saying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to amend. If I may put it less courteously, but perhaps more clearly, it is not for us to tell Her Majesty what to do. We never use terms such as "Her Majesty shall". The words used here are well understood and mean precisely what I said earlier, and what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated was correct, namely, that the option has gone completely. As the Bill says, on the death of the holder at the passing of this measure the Letters Patent will be amended to make provision for women to succeed equally with men.
I deal with the question of a Select Committee. I am bound to say that in the first place I approach this rather like the male spider who is several times smaller than the female of the species. He approaches tentatively, knowing that the female has quite an appetite for suitors but not knowing whether or not at the end of the proceedings he will be the bridegroom or breakfast. What has been said tonight has completely clarified my mind. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his contribution and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for explaining the matter with such clarity. I am sure that the Bill will benefit from being examined impartially in the technical way, and with the benefit of witnesses, that the Select Committee procedure envisages. It will not be possible to roam over the total area of reform of the House of Lords, as some noble Lords fear. The process will be restricted in the way the Motion describes. Moreover, the Bill will come back before a Committee of the whole House with a clear written report that will enable us to study in black and white the view of the Select Committee and the reason why it has arrived at it. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for it.
The only other point that arises is whether there should be a Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said twice on the previous occasion— and repeated tonight— that he had no difficulty with the principle of equality of the sexes in inheriting titles. To
1328
use his phrase, he would be quite relaxed if his peerage went to a daughter or son. That is the only principle involved in the Bill. The rest is detail. People may want to have a period of 10 years or other lengths of time. I have been approached by a number of Peers who put opposite points of view. That is fine. Let us get together, argue it out in Committee and decide what is the wish of your Lordships.
In Clause 1 I have tried to meet precisely the objections that your Lordships were good enough to voice on a previous occasion. The same remarks now apply to Clause 2. If people want 10 years, a shorter period, or a longer period, well and good. I cannot satisfy all noble Lords who have spoken to me because they want different things.
Therefore, let us have a Committee stage and be strengthened in those proceedings by any comments that the Select Committee may wish to put before us. The same remarks apply to the age of 18. That was the obvious first choice. The complaint made about it is that it is not 16. It was, I believe, the noble Earl who said that he was anxious about his son who was only 16. It is not worth falling out with the noble Earl over two years. Let us try to meet the differing views of different Peers and emerge with an agreed conclusion.
I am bound to say that I do not understand why those kinds of argument are made against a Second Reading. We all know what a Second Reading in this House means: it only means that one agrees with the principles of a Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made an immensely important point when she referred to the kind of message that would go out from this House if we did not even give the Bill a Second Reading. The message would go out that the House of Lords is so imbued with its previous thoughts of past centuries that it is not prepared to come up to date and even discuss the principles under which women might have the same kind of opportunity as men in this matter. That would be entirely the wrong message and I appeal to your Lordships not to send it out.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, we have had, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, a fascinating debate and I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House is most grateful to him for bringing forward his Bill. Certainly it has been a debate where many new things have been learnt by many people. He is indeed a persuasive and eloquent speaker, even if he did slightly change round the things I said to suit his argument. But then, that is what life is all about.
I have several problems this evening with this Bill. First, I do not particularly like being labelled the hatchet man because the situation is not quite like that. Even worse, I do not particularly like being labelled— as will no doubt happen— a campaigner against women's rights. I can assure your Lordships that nothing could be further from my mind.
I am extremely proud of the way in which we have conducted this excellent debate this evening. I am proud of the way in which we in this House always conduct ourselves. I am also proud of the great history and traditions of this country which are part and parcel of

1329
this noble House, and of its great families, many of whom sit in this House. My arguments are not about history and traditions but about inequality. I would dearly like to see a system in place whereby a title could be handed to a female heir if no other male heirs were in evidence, mainly to ensure the continuance of those titles held by ancient families. I have, of course, a vested interest in that.
If a Bill is brought before this House which addresses this problem and finds a solution to my earlier points about Act of Parliament and other entail male trusts— I think that would be difficult, especially with Act of Parliament trusts— and if it addresses the problem of the future status of peers of Ireland and the inheritance of those titles, and if it satisfies my desire to protect the rights of the already born but nevertheless under-age heir, and if, in my opinion, such a Bill is fair to all parties, it will have my wholehearted support. But tonight that is not the case.
The subject being debated is extremely complex and, especially because of the trust questions, it would be essential to consult legal opinions. There simply is not the time available to attempt to amend the Bill sufficiently to make it workable. In my opinion, the matter is so full of complexities, and the questions are so diverse, that the Bill is incapable of adequate and fair amendment. Surely it is better to ask the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to think again, to address further the complexities of the matter and perhaps then to bring another Bill before this House which provides a much greater level of comfort to those whose families will be affected. We are, of course, talking about families, people and children. It may well be that at that stage the noble Lord will find some certain support from those who share my concerns. Perhaps then we shall feel able to put forward constructive, decent amendments to progress what is really a complete reform of the peerage as we know it.
I would welcome such a Bill, though I reserve the right, of course, to look carefully at it, as would all noble Lords. However, it would show that I am serious about this matter, in that I wish to be completely fair to all parties. This is where my objection lies. Of course there is a cause for change but only with great thought and essential care. In conclusion, I wish to extend my gratitude to those noble Lords who have supported my argument. I must test the feeling of the House on this matter and press my amendment.
9.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months".
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents,74; Not-Pnntpnte 3Q
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.