Lords Sitting of 20 April 1999

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

Lead Replacement Petrol
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce the British standard for additives to be used by oil companies in lead replacement petrol or as marketed by independent manufacturers; and whether the Government will require adequate testing before such products are sold.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, work is continuing on the British standard specifying recommended additives for lead replacement petrol. Agreement has largely been reached on the technical content but other aspects such as labelling are still under discussion. My discussions with the oil companies lead me to have every confidence that the industry will market fuels which meet the needs of motorists. Consumers will also be protected by the Consumer Protection Act which requires oil companies and fuel retailers to market fuels which are fit-for-purpose. We do not however plan to have a separate British standard for additives sold separately but welcome the testing of products which has been carried out by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply I declare an interest in older vehicles. Does the noble Lord agree that without some kind of benchmarking or British standard, several million drivers of older vehicles will be continually apprehensive, perhaps through ignorance, as to the effect on their vehicles of the lack of leaded petrol? Does the Minister agree that it behoves the Government to co-operate with the fuel companies to mount a national campaign of information so that drivers know what steps they can take to minimise any possible damage to their cars after 1st January next? With regard to the 0.5 per cent. of leaded petrol that will be allowed to be distributed, have the Government had any discussion with the fuel companies as to when, how and where this can be done?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to the availability of lead replacement fuel, we are confident that for the vast majority of cars the major oil companies and retailers will produce a petrol to the standard required in time. As I indicated, in technical terms the standard of performance is there. I and my colleague John Reid have had recent discussions with UKPIA and representatives
1014
of the major oil companies. At least two of the companies have announced their intention to provide this product. I believe that all of them, within the next few months, will have indicated the timescale of a gradual introduction from the autumn onwards of lead replacement petrol on petrol station forecourts. As to the 0.5 per cent. continued sale of leaded petrol, I am unable to give the noble Lord the precise details of the distribution. A number of options are being looked at that go beyond purely the racing field. We are continuing to work in that area.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am not sure that the average owner of an elderly motor car shares the Minister's confidence as to the availability of replacement petrol by the end of the year. Can the Minister go further and explain how the fuel companies will organise LRP? Will it contain additives, or will there be separate additives to unleaded petrol? Can he also provide more information about when the whole matter will be resolved? We seem to be hanging on week by week with no official announcement by the Government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that what the noble Lord says is entirely accurate. In co-operation with the oil companies the Government produced some detailed information. Several million leaflets were produced to explain the situation. However, I recognise that there is still a lack of awareness out there and some apprehension on the part of many motorists. In conjunction with the oil companies we shall engage in further publicity. That will include labelling pumps on forecourts. In general, existing four-star leaded petrol will be replaced directly with lead replacement petrol in the months running up to 1st January. The operation will be relatively seamless.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, several times the Minister referred to consultation with the oil companies. Does he recall that when this House last debated the subject it was also suggested that the DTI should co-ordinate with the motor manufacturers to try to persuade them to issue guidance on their older models concerning engine modifications or additives to be used? As far as I am aware, only Jaguar has done so. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have pursued that suggestion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been some consultation with the motor manufacturers and advice has been given. I repeat that for the vast majority of cars it will be a direct switch from four-star leaded petrol to lead replacement petrol and there will be no need for adjustment except in a limited number of cases where engines have been somewhat hammered in which case separate advice on additives may be appropriate. This type of petrol has already been used successfully in several European countries which have gone over to non-leaded petrol for general consumption.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, as regards the 0.5 per cent. to which my noble friend Lord Montagu referred, what

1015
instructions or guidance have the Government given to facilities to sell such leaded petrol? In particular, what safety precautions will be required for such sale?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated in my first response we are still discussing the methods of distribution. Clearly, some commercial decisions will have to be taken by the oil companies. Such petrol will be available for racing, and a number of sites have been suggested, including airfields, car club locations and designated petrol stations. We need to ensure that such distribution system and the regulation of it complies with the directive and our derogation under it. However, further work is required and will be conducted in the coming months.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, following the last question, does the Minister agree that there is a real danger in particular with classic cars involving clubs and small numbers of people? The distances involved in finding sources could result in people storing petrol in domestic houses. It is a danger about which many people are concerned.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely why we need to ensure that we have an adequate distribution system and that safety precautions are clearly known to potential continuing users of leaded petrol.

Mount Vernon Hospital: Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the expert advisory group is expected to report to the Hillingdon Health Authority concerning the future of the plastic surgery and burns unit at Mount Vernon Hospital; and whether the Government expect to be consulted about the decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the expert advisory group will provide its interim report to the Hillingdon Health Authority on 22nd April 1999, prior to making its final recommendations in May. Depending on the health authority's proposal arising from the recommendations of the expert group, further public consultation may be required. If the local community health council contests the health authority's proposal, the matter will be referred to health Ministers to determine.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I should like to say how much I appreciate the courtesy and sympathy with which she received representations on this matter. I am most grateful to her.
1016
However, is the noble Baroness aware of the continuing anxiety caused by the very long time it has taken to reach a decision? I hope that she will bear in mind that this charity's income from charitable sources has been very much damaged in this period.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, I certainly shall. I recognise the contribution that the Restoration of Appearance and Function Trust (RAFT) has made to services on the Mount Vernon site. I know that there is impatience to have some certainty here, but there is also impatience to achieve the right answer and to keep the team which has done such sterling work together. I hope that we shall have some clarity after the final report in May.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the considerable local concern about the lack of independence of the expert advisory group and the fact that it did not necessarily consider all the options in a proper fashion? Is the noble Baroness also aware that some 80,000 signatures have been raised in a petition to save Mount Vernon and its burns unit? Would she or her ministerial colleagues be prepared to meet representatives of the local community and to have their concerns expressed directly to her?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am very aware of the concerns, as are my ministerial colleagues. They have been raised in another place and on other occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in your Lordships' House.
The expert advisory group consists of 25 members including local clinicians, service users and lay representatives. Expert advice is provided externally by representatives from professional and research bodies including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Royal Colleges of Surgeons, of Anaesthetists, and of Nursing, as well as the British Burn Association. The breadth of membership should give some confidence locally that all the issues are being properly addressed. It is because we need to review carefully and make the right decision that it has taken a long period of time.
As I said earlier, if the CHC challenges the final proposal by the health authority, health Ministers will have to determine on that issue.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are two aspects to this problem? The first is the anxiety about the possibly excessive concentration of the burns service over such a large area of the south of England which will cause problems were, for any reason such as accident or infection, the one remaining unit which will serve this huge area to go out of service.
Secondly, is the noble Baroness aware of the progressive increase of concern among the team of specialists and researchers about where they will live, and where their children will go to school, if the service is broken up and if it is not possible for them to continue their work at Mount Vernon? That is resulting already

1017
in a progressive disintegration of the ability of the charity to provide funds for the work which has been done at Mount Vernon which is of such importance.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, I recognise the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raises. There is a range of options as to the eventual location of the services, including Mount Vernon itself. Other options involve not necessarily concentrating services at an existing site. The review of national burns care, which is being undertaken by the British Burn Association, will help us to determine the right catchment area and access to those specialised services.
However, I recognise what the noble Lord says about the importance of keeping that team together wherever it is located. The further the distance that any potential move involves, the more difficult that may be. Together with issues about the right support services, the specialist imaging and the paediatric services, those factors are being taken into account by the advisory group.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that alongside the review to which my noble friend has rightly drawn attention there are three other reviews into specialist services in north-west London? They relate respectively to cancer, cardiothoracic care and orthopaedics. Can the noble Baroness confirm that despite the close connection between all four of those clinical disciplines, the reviews are being conducted in complete isolation from one another? Does she agree that if that is true it is a ridiculous state of affairs?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, one must balance having the right kind of specialist expertise in reviews of specialist services against taking an overall strategic view of major centres. One cannot look at, for example, cancer services without looking at Calman-Hine and the implications of its national implementation. It is the responsibility of the regional office to ensure that when exercises are run in parallel, there is proper integration of thinking so that the consequences of recommendations for other services are taken into account. It is difficult, but it is right provided that the co-ordination is correct. That must be the job of the regional office.

European Commission: Reform
2.50 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they intend to take to reform the European Commission "root and branch".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government have already shared specific reform ideas with our partners. We believe that the Commission should be
1018
guided by efficiency, transparency and accountability. Achieving this will require changes in financial control systems, personnel management and structures.
Heads of Government met Mr. Prodi, the European Council's nominee for Commission President, on 14th April to discuss Commission reform. They agreed to take forward the reform process at the European Council in Cologne on 3rd and 4th June on the basis of more detailed plans drawn up by Mr. Prodi.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Can she confirm that under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty the Government gave the President of the Commission absolute power of veto over nominations to the Commission? Bearing that in mind, and the fact that Mr. Prodi has a serious federalist agenda, does she believe that there is any chance of reforming the Commission by so much as a twig, let alone root and branch?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I believe that there is a great chance of reforming the Commission. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that some of the ideas put forward by Mr. Prodi are similar to those which I am sure your Lordships will approve and which the Government will be pursuing. It is true that the President and member states nominate commissioners by what has been described as "common accord". I am sure that there will be a good deal of accord in those nominations.
Lord Bruce of Doningtort: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Brussels two years ago the member states passed a Convention on the Fight Against Corruption Involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of the Member States of the European Union, a copy of which was placed in the Vote Office yesterday? Will she explain why this is not yet in force? Will she also bear in mind that the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred not only to a reform of the Commission but also to a reform of its mandate and method of operation? What steps are being taken at our governmental level to ensure that that is proceeded with by the Council of Ministers or the European Council, whose meeting on 24th and 25th March in Berlin did little except congratulate the Commission on its past record?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the meeting in Berlin did a little more than that. My noble friend raises some specific points. I must examine exactly what was placed in the Library yesterday, but I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to know that on 15th March the ECOFIN Council agreed to the creation of a new European fraud prevention office which will replace UCLAF, the existing anti-fraud body which my noble friend has criticised in the past. The important point is that the new office will enjoy the broadest possible operating autonomy, including the power to initiate investigations,

1019
and will have full access to documents and officials. The Government have long advocated that course of action and are pleased to see it coming into force.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the expert group made it plain that no charge of corruption or bribery lay against any commissioner? Will she also confirm that much of the management weakness that it found arose directly from requests from the European Council and the Council of Ministers, the effective meeting of which went beyond the capacity of the Commission's staff or its budget? Therefore, will she say how far a reform of the Commission can be extended to examining the interrelationship of the Union's institutions to make the load and the resources balance one with another?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right that the Committee of Independent Experts did not complain about either corruption or fraud on the part of any of the commissioners. Other criticisms were made, but not about that.
The point the noble Baroness makes about the restructuring is important. Her Majesty's Government believe that the Commission will have to set in place management structures to deliver an effective and flexible service. That must be informed by accountability and transparency. We shall wish to see a wide review of the present structures of the directorates-general. We shall also wish to see mechanisms for adjusting to changing priorities and better organisation of the political direction provided by the College of Commissioners. We discussed a number of detailed points in the meeting with Mr. Prodi on 14th April, which I mentioned in my original Answer.
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would my noble friend—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as always, I am in the hands of the House, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, should ask his question first.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, having regard to the extremely urgent matters affecting the European Union, not least Agenda 2000 and matters affecting unemployment, will my noble friend indicate when she hopes the new Commission will be in place? In doing so, will she bear in mind the fact that the Commission will remain a vitally important feature of the whole constellation of European institutions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the timetabling of the appointment of the new Commission depends on a number of factors during the course of this year. The European elections are to be held on 10th and
1020
13th June. Some time after that, in June or July, member states must agree with Mr. Prodi the nominations for the Commission. We expect the new Commission to be in office in September or October this year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that the harmonisation of laws of the 15 European Union countries, with 11 different languages and many different legal systems, has placed an impossible task on the Commission's lawyers? If the European Union were to be further enlarged, that task would become even more impossible. Therefore, will the Government make representations to abolish the duty to move towards harmonisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot undertake to make the representations for which the noble Lord pressed. I understand his point about the enormous volume of work which is occasioned by new members and the necessity of translation. I am afraid that there is little way round that, other than ensuring that the reforms we are examining, which will be discussed in Cologne, will continue. The process will be discussed throughout the year, the Committee of Independent Experts making further recommendations later in the year. I am sure that the points raised by the noble Lord will be of great interest in those discussions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Mr. Prodi's address to the European Parliament accentuated and gave great prominence to the need for Europe to be integrated into a single state? Do Her Majesty's Government agree with that? Have they now become federalists, as they supported Mr. Prodi? If not, will they ensure that Mr. Prodi behaves as the head of a civil service and not as the head of a European country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend's original premise that Mr. Prodi's speech was entirely that of a federalist. I am sure that Mr. Prodi's conduct in office will be entirely proper. However, the extent to which Mr. Prodi focuses on reform and on practical policies is striking and his analysis of the necessity for reform is close to ours. I believe that recently he has argued quite a lot for a decentralised European Union. He also talks a great deal about the role of the European Council and the European Parliament in guiding the Commission. I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to hear that.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government are opposed to the enhancement of the role of this Parliament in terms of giving another place the opportunity to approve the appointment of this country's European commissioners?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I imagine that it was for the same reason as it was opposed by the party which the noble Baroness supports.

National Minimum Wage
3.1 p m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that companies pay their workers the national minimum wage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the national minimum wage is 20 days young. It has the support of the vast majority of employers; a success story despite some reports of evasory tactics. It would be nothing short of astonishing if no attempts at evasion were reported. The Inland Revenue will deal with non-compliance by acting on complaints received and carrying out targeted visits to areas where underpayment is suspected.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Will the Government give us an assurance that the Inland Revenue minimum wage enforcement unit has adequate resources to deal, in a timely fashion, with the increasing number of complaints that it is likely to receive over the coming months?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course we shall ensure that the resources are available. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord that we can expect an increasing number of complaints. This is the time when complaints might be expected. Of the 25,000 calls to the helpline—1,500 a day—since the minimum wage was introduced, only about 200 have been specific complaints.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are fully convinced that there will be no increase in unemployment because of the introduction of the national minimum wage? If the Government are so confident, on what evidence are they so confident?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we are still convinced, as we were at the beginning, on the basis of the very detailed inquiry made by the Low Pay Commission. Of course, evidence post hoc will be available only when the new earnings survey and the labour force survey start to produce results for the period after 1st April, which is three to six months away.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister agree that employers who fail to pay the minimum wage risk free-loading on the budget of the Department of Social Security? Therefore, will the Government attempt to use data-matching with social security records to detect those employers who fail to pay the minimum wage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, employers who fail to pay the minimum wage not only encroach on the social security budget, but also break the law. That is our first position. Issues of transfer of data between the Inland Revenue and social security, as the noble Earl well knows, are extremely complicated.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is the Minister aware that when I introduced the Equal Pay Act, which was passed in 1970. I was dogged by the same dire warnings
1022
that firms would be bankrupted and that without this massive inequality between men's and women's remuneration our economy could not survive? Would he agree that those dire warnings were as irrelevant then as the ones he receives today are now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very pleased to have my noble friend's support and very pleased to be reminded that in this country the kind of dire warnings that she received are likely to arise again and should be ignored as she ignored them. Of course, minimum wages laws have been in force in many countries for many years without the kind of dire effects that people seem to expect now.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said, will he agree that national minimum wage laws in other countries have always had exemptions, which the Government have declined to provide in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not think I can agree. I have inquired into it and the most difficult area of the minimum wage is piecework. I found that the French minimum wage law includes coverage of piecework, as does that of the United States, so I do not agree that ours is a more draconian minimum wage law than that of other countries.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether recourse will be through the industrial tribunals? If so, what steps are being taken to increase the number of people dealing with industrial tribunal cases? There has been a huge increase in the number of employment cases and there is a backlog at the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that such matters will be referred to industrial tribunals in the first instance. There is also the possibility of reference to the civil courts. Of the 200 specific complaints to which I referred and which have been followed up by the Inland Revenue, there have been only 10 refusals to comply with the law. I believe it. is premature to make arrangements now to increase the facilities of the industrial tribunals, although we are prepared to do so if necessary.

House of Lords Bill
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, having given notice, I wish to delay the proceedings for just a few minutes.
As we are invited to begin the Committee stage on this momentous Bill, this may be a good time—perhaps the last time—to pause and ask ourselves on what course the Government have set us and where ultimately this House is headed. I have no intention of opposing this Motion and I hope that no one else will, but I believe that it is worth reflecting for a moment before the House resolves itself into Committee.
As I said at Second Reading, things can never be the same again. I do not say that out of anger, envy or regret; it is a simple fact. The Government have tugged at the strings that bind together our constitutional arrangements, and perhaps even our kingdom. The strings have been loosened, the boxes opened and the pieces are falling from their places and we cannot know what will happen at the end of the process.
I do not wish to take the time of the House on other aspects of the constitutional settlement. The fears of many noble Lords on those scores are well known. I refer only to the future of this House and of our Parliament.
I ask your Lordships: is it really too late to stay our hands at a time of such constitutional uncertainty? Is it too late to seek on the way forward some better consensus, for I believe consensus is possible? Is it too late to identify some shared vision, for surely a vision of a stronger, independent House is achievable, unless the executive is wholly determined to stamp its will on Parliament?
Total war on hereditary Peers is not the answer to an old constitutional problem; it is the creation of a new constitutional problem. As I said at Second Reading, you cannot destroy the hereditary peerage without exposing the life peerage and other elements of the House. No one in this House, as the report from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern reminded us, should proceed without that reality firmly in mind.
My noble and learned friend's report changes the whole background against which this debate takes place. I do not say that to detain the House; I say it to remind us that the Bill is not the final answer, but the beginning of many a question. The Government have consistently evaded the answer to the straight question their actions posed. No one wants this Bill or pretends it is the answer. We do not. The public do not. The outside world does not. Even the Government do not believe that this is the answer; after all, they consistently and glibly remind us that this is a two-stage process.
I return to where I began. The world has changed. The House is changing and it can never be the same again. We accept that. The Government accept that. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has demonstrated it to be true. Is not there a better way forward? I ask the Leader of the House to step out of the backroom of party politics and on to the broad ground of constitutional reform. Reform in our Parliament should be cross-party reform; strategic reform; visionary reform. It should not be inspired by the negative motive
1024
of settling an old party score. Reform should be inspired by a clear vision to build a stronger, more independent House with no less power and much more authority.
So I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion and to suspend the consideration of this measure which is partial in every sense of the word. Let us wait for the debate on the Mackay commission to unfold. Let us wait for the findings of the Royal Commission. Then let us come together, as I believe we surely can, with a set of proposals built not on one party's manifesto but on genuine cross-party consensus; built not as a temporary provision, which this is, but for a Chamber that will last.
I give the noble Baroness this solemn assurance on behalf of my party. If she makes that effort she will have from us even now a constructive response and this House can be set on a secure basis for a lasting future. My door and my mind are open. Will the Leader of the House now say the same to this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on another attempt to delay progress on this Bill, although in this instance I do not believe that his heart is in it. Equally, I could challenge him—although I shall not as he was gracious enough to say that he did not intend to press his concerns about this Motion—that much of what he had to say was, as he rightly pointed out, repetition of the points that he made (very effectively if I may say so) at Second Reading.
Perhaps it would be sensible for me simply to confirm, as I have done both at Second Reading and at every other stage when we have debated the subject matter that we are again considering in detail this afternoon, that the commitment the Government have made to this Bill is a manifesto commitment. Because the reform has always been said to be in two stages does not mean that one stage is insubstantial or in any way not to be supported and taken through as we intend.
The noble Lord will recall that this means that the normal conventions of this House, including the Salisbury convention, which his noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish confirmed yet again in his wind-up speech at Second Reading, would be adhered to during the debates on this Bill, stand firm.
Perhaps I may say a word about the way in which we hope to proceed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for emphasising "consensus". That is precisely the way in which we hope the business on this important Bill will be conducted. I believe that the usual channels have now agreed the first three days in Committee on this Bill. It would be the wish of the Government that this Bill could be considered in the appropriate detail and in the appropriate way, but not necessarily delaying your Lordships until an unreasonable hour. On those nights we would hope to finish at a reasonable time.
However, I point out to the whole House that it has not yet been made clear by the Official Opposition whether they have any indication of how many further days they want to take. We shall therefore have to wait and see how we progress. I must also point out that we attempted to achieve agreement through the usual channels for the amendment colloquially known as the

1025
"Weatherill amendment" to be taken as first business in Committee. Such an agreement would have benefited our discussions. It would have meant that we could have had the substantive discussion on the amendment. But that could not be agreed and therefore I hope that we shall proceed in the normal way with the normal understandings.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Mackay commission's report. It is of some interest to us all. It makes clear that there are a number of concepts and issues to be raised in considering the long-term reform of your Lordships' House and does not come out with any one firm proposition. There is therefore no other firm proposition on the table for us to discuss at this time. Let us hope that we can proceed by consensus to long-term discussion at the appropriate moment.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Mackay commission. I should perhaps say that I was immediately struck when I first read it that nowhere in that report is there any hint whatsoever that there should be any special role in the long-term reformed second Chamber for the hereditary peerage. Indeed, the commission's report—I am sure noble Lords have studied it—goes out of its way to say that the link between the peerage and membership of the second Chamber should be severed. I stress for the benefit of the whole House that if the Conservative commission accepted that the rights of the hereditary peerage are to be ended in your Lordships' House, that is important and should be considered when we look at amendments.
I draw your Lordships' attention also to what the right honourable gentleman Mr. Hague said on the publication of that report:
"The hereditary peerage and the right to sit in Parliament is going anyway under the Government's proposals and so we must deal with that situation".
It would be helpful if, in that spirit, the noble Lord would advise those members of his party who have tabled amendments which do not accept that understanding, which seems now to be the official position of the leader of his party and of the commission set up by the leader of his party, to withdraw them so that we can move quickly through the Marshalled List to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill That, I suggest, is the nub of the amendments that we shall consider.
As we have not yet been able to reach agreement on the timetabling and as I do not yet know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able or will wish to indicate to Members of his Back Benches that they might withdraw what I describe in the light of the Mackay commission as irrelevant amendments, I suggest that we now move to the substantive debate on the Government's proposals. We have every intention of pressing this Bill on to the statute book but, of course, wish to hear your Lordships' views on the details of the amendments proposed and suggest that we begin to do so.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she say why she should regard all amendments that do not refer to the Weatherill
1026
amendment as "irrelevant"? They are not irrelevant; they are extremely important.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl misunderstood me. What I said was in the context of what was reported as being of great significance in changing the context of this Bill; that is, the report of the commission chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I suggested that those amendments which referred to the continuation of the hereditary peerage, which seems now not to be accepted by some official spokespersons for the Conservative Party and indeed by Mr. Hague, should perhaps be considered as irrelevant.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  REFERENDUM
  (".—(1) Sections 1 to 3 and 4(3) and (4) of this Act shall not come into force until the people of the United Kingdom have approved their coming into force before the implementation of any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the reform and composition of the House of Lords, in a referendum conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life set out in chapter 12 of Cm 4057–I.
  (2) The referendum referred to in subsection (1) shall not he held until the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been reported on by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2, which is accepted with much gratitude, and Amendment No. 111 to Clause 4 which is consequential. I much regret having to move these amendments at all. It would have been preferable if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had been able to accept the very constructive suggestion of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
  The spirit of these referendum amendments all but evaporated some time ago in "No day named" until it materialised as a reasoned amendment to the "Take note" Motion on the White Paper. It was withdrawn then to avoid unrepresentative division and pre-emption of my own Front Bench. This was at the request of my own party and a body of opinion on the Cross-Benches, Since then, until today, it has hovered around in limbo.
  The constitutional commission, to which both noble Lords have referred, does not bite upon the referendum amendments at all; nor does it, bite upon the transitional House amendment, which I think is Amendment No. 31, because the constitutional commission did not quite consider the question as to whether a transitional House should be set up. But, for the purposes of the report, and quite reasonably the Committee may think, the commission on the options for reform made the hypothetical assumption that a transitional House would have been set up by the time those options materialised. It was on that assumption that the commission concluded that independent members in a reformed

  1027
  chamber can only be to the disadvantage of the political parties. Well, if so, then so be it, but as yet the House of Lords retains its indigenous ethos and independence; it retains its guardianship function of the constitution when the nation is substantially divided against the Government, as indeed is the case on this Bill.
  On the reasoned amendment, the House of Lords concluded that the Government introduced the Bill for party political advantage. None of the six noble Lords whose names appear in support of these amendments is so motivated. The three members on these Benches do not speak for their party; the three members on the Cross Benches have no party for which to speak. We are moved by a tenable belief in a common purpose as a matter of principle. This is—and I say this to the noble Baroness with respect—no ploy, no filibuster to delay, no wrecking amendment contrary to the conventions of the House of Lords. Due notice has been given to the Government of the intention to take the opinion of the House, subject to when we may conclude, if so advised. I am unable to give any assessment. I have been asked by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but as we have done no lobbying we do not know what measure of support we have nor who will speak.
  These amendments, in accordance with the wishes of the people, would delay commencement of the Act until its substance had been approved by the people on a referendum fairly conducted to be held before enactment of any recommendations of the Royal Commission. The purpose is to assert the will of the people; to enjoin due governance under the Queen in Parliament; and, albeit against the odds, to seek the support of this House for some accommodation. To this end, must we not look to the people and accept their judgment as the ultimate arbiter of our differences? If so, hence the referendum.
  Legitimacy derives from the will of two-thirds of the people, as expressed in the opinion polls, who wish to retain the composition of the House of Lords only until the substance of proposed reform is known, a point which was not taken on board a moment ago, if I may say so with respect, when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was replying to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Hence delay until the substance of the Act is approved after the Royal Commission has reported. The people do not want to put to sea in a sieve with any proverbial owl or pussycat. They rejected the stale manifesto commitment reflected in the Title and Clause 1 of the Bill. The Bill as it stands is but a work of supererogation taught by arrogance of constitutional impiety, only 2 per cent. of the people having any recollection whatever that the manifesto proposed reform of the House of Lords.
  In substance, these referendum amendments have already commended themselves to your Lordships' House on the reasoned amendment, notwithstanding the anathema pronounced upon them and on all other amendments: save the deal (as now presented by Weatherill Amendment No. 31) which the Government were then minded to accept, notwithstanding the threats of dire consequences made in the speech of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the Motion to take
  1028
  note of the White Paper and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his celebrated speech on Second Reading.
  May I say, in the irenic spirit to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, that neither that anathema nor those threats were entirely well conceived, for it was no part of the deal between my noble friend Lord Cranborne, whom I see in his place, and her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as no doubt the right honourable gentleman would confirm, that in anticipatory deprivation of parliamentary entitlement the deal should be used to hammer the House of Lords into submission to pass this Bill by consensus. It was never part of that deal.
  I speak to these amendments but as an untrainable apprentice to my noble friend Lord Cranborne, who laid the foundation stone long, long ago. My noble friend has always maintained that stage 1 without stage 2 is wrong, and he said so again on Second Reading. His concept of a referendum on constitutional matters, in context with the guardianship function of the House of Lords, was perfected—I do not know whether any Members of the Committee have seen it yet—in Clause 3 of his Parliamentary Government Bill, a masterpiece of draftsmanship. It is a concept which expressly acknowledged that only the broad assent of the people can confer the authority to legislate,
  "on any provision substantially affecting the constitution",
  a concept invoked indeed by the present Government in Chapter 2 of their White Paper:
  "Parliament is where the will of [the] people is expressed … Parliament is the core of political accountability".
  They say also that,
  "Parliament must rest on the will of the people".
  In the context of the referendums on devolution,
  "the people have made known what they want."
  The resolution of the House of Lords on the reasoned amendment in fact endorsed the commonsense approach of the people. It was carried against the Government with some Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench support by 192 to 126 votes at very nearly three o'clock in the morning. That is a substantial majority of one-third, especially at that hour. It carried the concept that,
  "the Bill radically alters the historic composition of the House of Lords for party political advantage",
  and had been introduced without prior consultation and consensus as to the role or composition of a successor House.
  It is the selfsame situation which arises to be addressed on these amendments. The hereditary element on that occasion which supported the Government was one Duke, a terce of Earls, a sprinkling of Viscounts and a wee clutch of Barons. It is evidently appropriate that some assurance should be given, for it is respectfully suggested that perhaps the last, if not the most noble, act of selfless service which the hereditary Peers could render to the body politic is to seek to safeguard the wishes of the people and to support these amendments.
  As to the assurances, the arguments in support of these amendments, which I put forward, are in no way inconsistent with the speeches made by such noble Lords which I have read. These amendments cannot and do not pre-empt the work of the Royal Commission as to the composition of the successor House. They cannot and do not entrench or seek to entrench the extant successory entitlement to membership of your Lordships' House. Again, with respect, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to that assurance.
  If these amendments were to be carried into the Bill, there would be no substantial division between the Government and the people on this constitutional question, such as is now the case. But as such is the case, is it not the acknowledged function of your Lordships' House to seek to provide some measure of constitutional protection and safeguard and to consider whether it is appropriate to delay the legislation from taking effect as proposed by the amendments?
  The Weatherill amendment, Amendment No. 31, has no legitimacy derived from the people and ignores the current state of public opinion. But, if qualified, as it would be, by the referendum amendments, it could assume an aura of legitimacy in conformity with the very concept expressed in Clause 3 of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. It would avoid pre-emption of the work of the Royal Commission and inhibit fulfilment of the "Quintine" prophecy heralded by paragraph 7.26 of the White Paper.
  To accommodate the Weatherill amendment, No. 31, the mould of the Title must be cracked. That is done by the Title Amendment No. 152 which seeks to substitute "restrict" membership for "end" membership. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appreciated, that would open the door to a series of other amendments to restrict. The noble and learned Lord expressed the Government's attitude to such amendments on a previous occasion.
  This has nothing whatever to do with the referendum amendments, which are entirely free standing. The question of choice—I wish to stress this—that your Lordships have between any form of transitional House amendment and these referendum amendments simply does not and cannot arise save unless (and there is one proviso) it is the settled preconception, come Hades or high water, to support and safeguard the hope of a tentative offer by the Government to accept Amendment No. 31 and only if no other amendments are to be carried into the Bill.
  On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde truly said about an amendment referring to the deal (the arrangement made and reflected in Amendment No. 31) that it falls short of making a bad Bill better.
  At all events, there are many serious problems in relation to Amendment No. 31 as it stands which will have to he sorted out by a series of amendments at various stages of the Bill. Those gremlins may well be laid to rest to the satisfaction of your Lordships' House, or not. I have had a word with my noble friend Lord Cranborne on that matter, as on other matters. It may take much time and more than one stage to sort that out.
  1030
  There is no reason whatever, on that account, to wait until many other problems have been sorted out at subsequent stages, or not sorted out, to delay a vote on this Bill.
  No assurance of safe conduct of passage in another place may be given for any amendment carried by your Lordships. The Motion as tabled in another place and the Official Report of the proceedings on the Bill in another place preclude any such assurance. If the referendum amendments were rejected, the extant hereditary entitlement would soon be severed under Clause 4. If the proposal of the Constitutional Commission at paragraphs 61 to 64 were to be accepted by the Royal Commission this is what would happen: the senate would be instituted at the first meeting of Parliament after the election; all life Peers would lose their right to sit; the House of Lords would disappear at the dissolution of that Parliament; and up to two-thirds of the transitional House would be transferred to the senate. Is that the sort of scheme which commends itself to your Lordships? Is it not preferable to delay implementation of the Act until the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been known and the people have been offered an opportunity to express their opinion of the substance of the Act on a referendum, perhaps to be held in the spring?
  If judgment were to be sacrificed to wishful conjecture, to the dictates or the convenience of this Government or to the opinion of the hour, the people would be betrayed. If that is done in due course by another place, so be it: but surely not by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Gray Lord Gray moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
  Line 3, leave out ("the people of") and insert ("a majority of the parliamentary electorate in")
  The noble Lord said: I fully support my noble friend's contention that there should be a referendum. My amendment seeks only to suggest that it may be advantageous to make the drafting more specific and perhaps avoid the criticism of technical imperfection.
  Citing, as my amendment does, the parliamentary electorate reminds us that it is not the executive, nor yet Parliament, but the electorate which must be the final arbiter when it comes to constitutional change. Noble Lords may take it amiss that my drafting excludes them from the referendum poll. No doubt they will tell me. In any case, words can be altered. However, until we have the proposed referendum Bill enfranchisement formulae will have to be made on an ad hoc basis.
  There is no question that this Bill is of fundamental constitutional import. It alters the structure, character and balance of Parliament. It will significantly affect the balance between the executive and the legislature. It is the case that this Bill has that effect, no matter what comes later. Generally speaking, while I am not an enthusiast for referendums, I hold that they are entirely appropriate when it comes to constitutional issues. To hold a referendum will be to follow precedent, and only

  1031
  through a referendum campaign can we properly inform the electorate of the Bill's immediate consequences. It would be infinitely preferable to hold a referendum which embraces both the provisions of this Bill and whatever scheme of final reform Parliament may yet endorse.
  However, since the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was not prepared to listen to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and unless the Government yet see the sense of withdrawing their intention to enact this Bill as a free-standing measure, that will not be possible.
  In hoping that the Government may yet agree that the proposed referendum should be held, I was encouraged by the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—in replying to my noble friend Lord Waddington on 17th March,
  "I simply do not accept that the ideal of democracy is to have a Parliament where the only direct chance of participation by the electorate is, once every four or five years, a vote on all issues combined together in the way which suits the political parties. Without saying that they should become a substitute in any way for parliamentary government, referendums as they have been used in the past few years, particularly in a constitutional sense, have been a valuable addition to, not a subtraction from, democracy".—[Official Report, 17/3/99; col. 792.]
  Surely this proposal for a referendum fits the case. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Waddington: I want to explain in simple terms why I am attracted to this amendment. The Government's whole case is that this is a two-stage process and that stage one, which will create, without the Weatherill amendment, a wholly nominated House, will not be with us long because it will be followed by long-term, second-stage reform. Every Member of this place knows perfectly well that it is not as simple as that. Those of us who have said often that there might not be a second stage pray history in aid. We all know perfectly well as politicians how enormously difficult it will be to get a second-stage Bill through the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, well remembers, the difficulty was experienced in 1968.
  I took the trouble to read the Second Reading debate in another place. Government supporters were all over the place. Hardly two of them agreed on what was the best solution in terms of a second stage Bill. We read in the papers that today, for all that has been said from the Conservative Benches, there does not appear to be much support on the Labour Benches for the idea of an elected second Chamber.
  So the Government have to face up to the fact that in this current Bill we may be looking at a Bill bringing about a permanent change in the constitution of this place. We have to ask ourselves whether that would be a happy outcome for our country. I do not believe that it would be for one moment. I have often talked about the inadequacies of this Bill. I do not see how anyone in his right mind could contemplate a wholly nominated House without there being written into the Bill all kinds of safeguards against the abuse of power. I do not see
  1032
  how anyone in his right mind can say that our liberties would be secure if there was a second Chamber composed entirely of nominated Peers and the Prime Minister of the day still had in his hands the power to appoint as many Peers as he wished, of whichever party political complexion he wished.
  So I am attracted by this amendment because I look at it as a way of avoiding the worst possible outcome. That would be the passage of this Bill without safeguards; the failure, as a result of opposition in the other place, to approve a second-stage Bill; and our being left with a wholly nominated Chamber with power still in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day to manipulate its composition. This amendment would prevent that enormity because, as I understand it, the public would be asked whether they were prepared to put up with the permanent solution of a wholly nominated Chamber. I do not believe for one moment that the public would subscribe to that as being a reasonable way of addressing our present problems. I have confidence that the people would reject that out of hand and would force the Government to bring forward a second-stage Bill which genuinely brought about lasting and sensible reform of this place.
  Without any safeguards at all this Bill is an enormity. If the Government had come to this place with a worked-out scheme and a Bill which provided for the abolition of the hereditary peerage, but which at the same time provided for the kind of safeguards which I mentioned in a speech the other day, taking entirely out of the hands of the Prime Minister the power to nominate people for peerages; and if there had been another safeguard in the Bill providing for a referendum in case of rejection by the second Chamber of a Bill which radically altered our constitutional safeguards I would not be making, with some passion, this speech today. But the Government have not tried to meet those points. All they have done is to throw before this House a Bill which will take away many of the safeguards against abuse which exist in this country at the present time.
  No one can tell me that a wholly nominated House without a hereditary peerage would not be more easily manipulated than a House in which there is a large number of hereditary Peers. No one really believes that for a moment. Once the hereditary Peers have been removed and only a limited number of life Peers remain, with one party having a marginal advantage over the other, it would be very easy to create enough Peers not only to make sure that one can pass any legislation that one wishes but also to enable this House to vote for a Bill which extended the life of a parliament. That is the very safeguard which the legislators in 1911 recognised had to be left in the hands of the second Chamber.
  I earnestly ask the Government to address these problems. I do not say that this is the only way in which those problems can be addressed, but I refuse to believe that we do not have the public on our side when we say that we cannot leave this as merely a simple exercise to get rid of the hereditary peerage and then leave it to the government of the day to decide on the composition of this place. That is the effect of this Bill.
  Lord Chalfont: I rise briefly to express my support for Amendment No. 1, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I think I can be mercifully brief because I have, before now, made my views known: I do not agree in any way with this Bill. Indeed, I do not believe it to be necessary. I believe that this House works perfectly well as it is. However, all those arguments are long past and gone. We can see what the Government have in mind and that they have a very good chance of bringing it about.
  However, there is one thing that I believe we ought to do. As other noble Lords have said, we ought to find out whether the people of this country really want this change. We start off, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said earlier, with the fact that this is a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party which won the election for which that manifesto was published. I do not think that anyone contests that at all; nor do people contest the fact that a manifesto commitment has a very special resonance and status in Parliament and in your Lordships' House. But I do not believe that anyone sitting on that Front Bench, or on any of the Benches behind it, really believes that a great number of people who voted for the Labour Party in the last election did so because it was going to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I believe that we should find out whether that is what people want.
  I have already said that there is no need for the Bill. In fact, I would go further than that and follow other noble Lords in saying that this is a dangerous Bill unless the Government are prepared to say, before they bring the legislation into effect, what will take the place of the present House of Lords when the hereditary Peers have been removed. Is it to be a nominated House? I should have thought that that would be the worst possible solution. Is it to be a mixture of nomination, appointment and election? Alternatively, as has already been suggested in many quarters, is it to be a fully elected House? We do not know the answer. I therefore join other noble Lords in saying that without that knowledge this simple Bill is a mistake—and a dangerous mistake.
  We apparently thought it necessary to seek the opinion of the people about the governance of London. We thought it necessary to have a referendum about an assembly in Wales. We also thought it necessary to have a referendum about a parliament in Scotland. I would not argue with any of those decisions. But if those constitutional changes were considered important enough to ask the people of this country to support them, why on earth are we not prepared to ask them for support for the abolition of the hereditary peerage in this House? There is long constitutional history behind it; it is fundamental change to the constitution which leaves Wales, Scotland and London looking like trivialities in the political debate and argument of the day.
  If carried, this amendment would have no impact on any other amendment. There has been a great deal of talk today about the Weatherill amendment; indeed, there have been criticisms and adumbrations of it. All I can say is that if this amendment were carried, it would have no impact upon that amendment at all. Anyone who believes that it would can be reassured in
  1034
  that respect. The referendum would not have any impact at all on the proposal to create a transitional House, nor would it have any effect as regards pre-empting the Royal Commission.
  I turn now to my final point. If there is to be a Royal Commission and perhaps a Joint Committee of both Houses to decide upon and recommend the eventual shape, size, composition and powers of this House, would it not be best to wait for that to come forward before engaging upon this half-baked and totally controversial measure? I believe that the Government have already begun to realise that this is not the way to go about changing 1,000 years of history. I very much hope that noble Lords will support this amendment.
  Lord Elton: My noble friend Lord Strathclyde drew from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a response which made it clear that there is no prospect of delaying implementation of the Bill until the findings of the Royal Commission have been published. I believe that that would be most helpful. I see that the noble Baroness looks startled, but my noble friend asked whether it would not be more sensible to await the findings of all the advisory bodies. I understood the noble Baroness to decline that offer—she certainly declined it on Second Reading—and that has frequently been signalled in advance.
  Therefore, when replying to the debate, I hope that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be kind enough to separate the reasons for the resistance which I anticipate they will voice. I make that request because subsection (2) of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway would have the effect of delaying the implementation of the Bill until the Royal Commission has reported. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made it clear that that was something which the Government would not accept under any circumstances.
  I think that my noble friend should consider whether he is wise to couple the two requirements in his amendment; namely, that there should be a seeking of the opinion of the majority of the electorate and that this should be sought only after the Royal Commission has reported. The Government are committed to a two-stage Bill. We all regret that fact and think that it is wrong, but we have to accept their position and majority in the other place. It seems to me that my noble friend could usefully reflect between now and the end of the debate on whether in fact his amendment would have a much stronger claim to acceptance by the Government. and whether the Government would have much less ground in the view of the public, your Lordships and indeed those in another place, on which to resist a referendum for this change to the constitution, after having accepted referendums for so many arguably lesser changes to the constitution. If my noble friend were to remove that excuse for such resistance, I believe that his amendment would be a good deal stronger.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I rise to make a brief intervention in opposition to these amendments. I have two basic, if technical, reasons for doing so.

  1035
  I shall try to stick strictly to the consequences of the amendments. I have listened with some care to the arguments expressed for holding a referendum, which might have had some legitimacy if the Government did not have a mandate for this Bill. Reform of the House of Lords was clearly set out as a two-stage reform in the manifesto upon which, I must stress, the Labour Party won the general election. Although frequently scoffed at in this House, manifesto commitments do have legitimacy—or why did we need the Salisbury Convention?
  Similarly, there is no legitimacy in the view that there is no public support for the Bill. Indeed, 80 per cent of people in a MORI poll taken last October supported the removal of the hereditaries. With the greatest respect to those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments, I have to say that I find it hard to believe that the latter have been tabled as a serious wish to consult people, or that the movers have had a sudden conversion to support the principle of referendums. I rather believe that the amendments have been tabled as a means of delaying the passage of the Bill. If we look at an outline of the timetable for implementation if the amendments were to be carried, that becomes even more evident. It is not just a question of waiting for the Royal Commission. I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. Will she accept the assurance that I have already given that, whatever else we have done, none of us—that is, of the six of us—has tabled these amendments to delay the Bill? I give my word upon that. Will the noble Baroness accept it, or not?
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Obviously I have to accept the noble Lord's words, but I think the consequences would belie that. I shall quickly go through the timetable that would be needed. First, we must await the findings of the Royal Commission and then we must debate them. We must await the findings of the Joint Committee of both Houses and then debate them. We must introduce a referendum Bill for the consideration of both Houses. We must then hold the referendum. I reckon that if we do that in under two years, or perhaps three years, we shall have done extremely well. There is clear evidence that the Bill will be delayed.
  That brings me to my second and possibly more fundamental objection to this amendment. Amendment No. 1 spells out that the referendum should be conducted,
  "in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life set out in chapter 12",
  of its report on the funding of political parties. Acceptable and worthy as those recommendations may be they have not yet been approved by Parliament. Surely it is not the intention of the noble Lords proposing these amendments to deny Parliament that right or to prejudge Parliament's attitude to the Neill report.
  1036
  I am sure that many noble Lords will have strong views on the recommendations in that report, not least on the question that should be put. The recommendations not only spell out the way that referendums should be conducted but they also cross reference with other aspects of the Neill report; they cannot be isolated, not least the establishment of an election commission. The recommendations of the Neill committee on the conduct of referendums are based on the establishment of such a commission. The role of the commission is to oversee the conduct of the referendum and to sanction all the financial arrangements. For instance, page 13 of the report, Recommendation 85, states,
  "The Election Commission should decide which organisations, if any, should be in receipt of core funding".
  Recommendation 86 states,
  "a Campaign Organisation in receipt of core funding should be required to submit audited accounts to the Election Commission".
  Therefore acceptance of these amendments might imply that this House is determining not only how referendums should be conducted but also the establishment of an election commission. Although I am personally in favour of such a proposal, it requires proper and considered debate by both Houses of Parliament.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she aware that there is a Private Member's Bill high in the Private Members' List in the other place which would bring into law all the matters which she and I have discussed arising from both the Neill committee and the Nolan committee, and that Bill could be enacted by the summer if she would only urge her colleagues in government to give it support? It is about to go into Committee; it is a perfectly good Bill, perfectly properly and well written. I gather that there is no objection to it in principle or in drafting. All it requires is the Government's support and the Bill could be enacted by the summer.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: With the greatest respect, that is not what this amendment asks for. This amendment asks for the recommendations of the Neill committee to be the basis on which the referendum should be conducted. We do not know the outcome of the Bill that is going through. As it proceeds through the House many amendments may be made to it. The noble Lord cannot use that as an argument. As I say, I personally support the proposal for the establishment of an election commission—which I think is important—but it must receive proper and considered debate by both Houses of Parliament. The whole report of the Neill committee has to be seen as a package. That is why the Government will bring forward their draft Bill before too long. Therefore it appears to me that while these amendments may appear straightforward and simple they have far-reaching consequences beyond this Bill. For that, if for no other reason, the amendments should be rejected.
  4 p.m.
  Viscount Cranborne: Before I address the speech of the noble Baroness who has just spoken, I wish to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who, with his usual eloquence,

  1037
  supported this interesting amendment. He suggested by implication that I had confirmed my interpretation of the amount of resistance that I would promise the Government—when I was in a position to do so, which I no longer am—in your Lordships' House to this Bill. I hope I may offer some help to the Government—whom I am always anxious to help, as a number of your Lordships have criticised me for doing already—but also to your Lordships' House if I attempt to give my interpretation of the understanding that was reached in that regard between the noble and learned Lord, his right honourable friend and myself.
  My clear understanding of the somewhat joky—dare I say—final exchange between the Prime Minister and myself. which I well recall, was that I looked forward to causing at least as much trouble during the current Session of Parliament for the Government in your Lordships' House as we had in the previous Session. By that I meant—I think I got what I can regard only as a positive response—perfectly clearly that I regarded the obligation of your Lordships' House to examine with care all the legislative proposals put before your Lordships, and within the established conventions of your Lordships' House for your Lordships to perform their perceived constitutional duty to scrutinise legislation and indeed to make suggestions and amendments for another place which another place in due course could reject or accept.
  Certainly I hope that Amendment No. 31, or a version of it, will meet with the Committee's approval. I shall certainly do my best to persuade the Committee of its virtues. As I explained on the previous occasion I addressed myself to this matter in your Lordships' House, I certainly could not undertake to predict, or indeed to deliver, your Lordships' opinion; it is for all of us to try to persuade a majority of your Lordships during the course of our debates. But nonetheless I am absolutely certain that it would be wise for the Committee—if I may be so bold as to venture some advice, which is perhaps unwise of me—to consider the remarkably fine record, since the election, that your Lordships have established for criticising the Government's legislation. I may venture also to suggest that your Lordships' reputation has never stood higher because of the judgment that your Lordships have exercised during the course of your Lordships' legislative performance during the past nearly two years.
  I turn to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I am greatly attracted by this amendment, not least because of the charming puff that my noble friend gave to the Bill that I have introduced into your Lordships' House, which among many other modest and sensible measures suggests that your Lordships' House might in due course be given the duty to determine what constituted a constitutional measure of legislation and, having so decided, to tell the Government that they had an obligation under those circumstances to submit that measure to a referendum for approval or otherwise. For that reason alone I am attracted to my noble friend's proposal.
  1038
  I am also attracted to the reasons of my noble friend Lord Waddington for supporting my noble friend because he gave passionate expression to the view that I have often expressed—as has every single one of your Lordships so far—about our preferred route which has been encapsulated in the not particularly cosy mantra: no stage one without stage two. I associate myself enthusiastically, not for the first time, with everything that my noble friend Lord Waddington said about the Government's approach to this legislation. In fact I stand, like someone else not so long ago, astonished at my own moderation, and indeed at his, in support of that. I shall not weary the Committee with repetition of something which my noble friend was much better able to express than I.
  However, I have to say both to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and indeed to my noble friend Lord Waddington that I find myself in something of a difficulty about supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell. The reason is very clear to me in the case of the inducement trailed by my noble friend Lord Campbell. The inducement was that he was merely bringing about a little earlier one of the admirable provisions of my Parliamentary Government Bill. I am grateful to him for that and for the additional publicity. Unfortunately, if I may say so with the greatest respect to my noble friend, my Parliamentary Government Bill is not yet law. Therefore the provisions which he and I both think so admirable in that Bill are not yet on the statute book, although, of course, I have every confidence that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will nod it through and encourage his honourable and right honourable friends in another place to do the same in very short order—thereby setting an extremely good example for your Lordships' House. But as the Bill is not yet on the statute book, it is with the greatest reluctance that I cannot find myself persuaded by my noble friend's argument, however much I should like to be.
  My noble friend Lord Waddington is right about no stage one without stage two. All of us have repeated ad nauseam our criticism of the Government's approach to reform of your Lordships' House. I never thought I would find myself saying that I was getting bored even with the sound of my own voice in repeating these arguments. For the first time in my life, I have at least some sympathisers among noble Lords opposite when I make that observation. Tempted as I am by the prospect of supporting my noble friend's amendment, it is in direct contravention of what has come to be known as the Salisbury convention. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was perfectly correct when he said that the amendment would in no way impede the provisions of the Bill. But it would impede the implementation of the provisions of the Bill, not only for a few weeks but probably for some months or even some years.
  I yield to no one in my support for such a delightful prospect, but I would strongly advise your Lordships against supporting on the first day of Committee stage debate an amendment the effect of which would be to wreck the Bill. That would very clearly set out a pattern for the remainder of our debates, which might make it

  1039
  increasingly difficult for your Lordships if this pattern were taken up and did not play as well with the outside public as some of your Lordships might like to think it would. That would make it more difficult for us to amend the Bill in other ways, something which I think is equally desirable and perhaps more practicable for another place to consider in due course.
  Your Lordships may think my caution is too pusillanimous—and characteristically so—but I urge your Lordships at least to take a rain check before voting in favour of my noble friend's amendment and to think for a little while. Perhaps my noble friend will be inclined to bring back his amendment on Report after we have gained a little of the flavour of the debates we are about to undertake. Then we may be in a position to set my noble friend's admirable proposals in context, not as a matter of principle but as a matter of practicality in terms of the way in which your Lordships consider the Bill in the coming weeks and months.
  Lord Acton: Before my noble kinsman sits down, can he say whether in his opinion the amendment, whether it is introduced and voted on now or at Report stage, does or does not attract the Salisbury convention?
  Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble kinsman. It always distresses me to see one of my kinsmen sitting on the Benches opposite. I hope that his peripatetic habits will one day propel him back to his proper place. While I defer, of course, to the judgment of your Lordships with greater experience in these matters, since the essence of the Bill before the Committee at the moment is tiny, any provision which appreciably delays, and delays probably for a very long time, the implementation of the substance of the Bill goes against my understanding of the Salisbury convention.
  The Earl of Dudley: Can the noble Viscount tell us whether his grandfather, when he declared the Salisbury convention, took cognisance of the fact that a Labour manifesto not only needs to be published but also widely read?
  Viscount Cranborne: My memory of my grandfather, whose ghost I suspect will stalk our debates perhaps even more than usual, is that he did not. Even in those days manifestos were not widely read documents. I am encouraged in my opinion by a whispered aside from my noble friend Lord Carrington, who confirms my view.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Marsh: Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing to a considerable extent with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I have a complete understanding of the problems which one has within families.
  This is the first time I have spoken on this subject in the House but, like many of your Lordships, I have sat through many hours of debate here during which we have had some hundreds of speeches. For me, it was sad
  1040
  because I found myself sliding into an ocean of loneliness, which is unusual for me. Speaker after speaker from the hereditary Peers on the Opposition Benches expressed with fervour and enthusiasm their support for radical change in the House. Not only had they pursued that line for years—it was not a short-term thing—but in some cases for generations. I have missed out because I think the House does a very good job. It is at least as good as very many second Chambers, despite its somewhat eccentric composition. Given that eccentricity, it is better than some.
  Paradoxically, the hereditary element has produced by random selection a cross-section of people wider than that of the life Peers, and both groups are more representative than the House of Commons. Some of my best friends are hereditary Peers. I keep it quiet outside this House! There are some who have vast wealth, as do some of the life Peers; and some are people of no wealth, like many of the life Peers. They are drawn from a wide range of different occupations. So I am not a great enthusiast for radical change in this Chamber. But it is too late; the opportunities have been missed.
  I was, and still am, puzzled about the enthusiasm for reform yet the failure to obtain it. The Conservative Party has been in control of this country for 33 of the past 50 years, in two periods of office: 13 years in one stretch and 20 years in the other. Therefore, one wonders why they did not do something about the matter. The Labour Party, to my regret, right from its inception has found the existence of hereditary legislators totally unacceptable. But if anyone in this Chamber had not noticed that, along came the much maligned manifesto.
  What does the manifesto say? Like most noble Lords, I always read the manifestos, then leave the country and have a holiday until the election is over. There is a view that these matters are terribly complicated and we could not be expected to understand the complexities of election manifestos. Therefore, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what it said. It stated:
  "The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative … A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform".
  I am bragging, but I understood it immediately. It is pretty clear.
  But then they said: "It caught us by surprise". I was puzzled. I had heard that view expressed previously, but I remember having a considerable argument with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, long before the election on the Labour Party's intentions. Then I remembered that four of my noble friends, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and the late Lord Bancroft, at the beginning of 1995—five years ago—produced a paper entitled The Second Chamber: some remarks on reforming the House of Lords. They already knew what the Labour Party's policy would probably be. The document, written in 1995 by four Back-Benchers on the Cross-Benches, stated:

  1041
  "It was our understanding that the Labour Party intended, if elected at the forthcoming General Election, immediately to abolish the right of the hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. We also understood that they would institute formal consultations—perhaps by means of a Speaker's Conference or Royal Commission—towards a more comprehensive reform of the Lords".
  The document went on to deal with the proposal to abolish the right of Peers by succession to sit in the House of Lords:
  "We turn now to consider proposals to reform the House. To recapitulate our understanding of what the Labour Party propose, they intend to reform the Lords immediately on being returned to power. They envisage a short Bill to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House, to be introduced in the first session of the new Parliament".
  I apologise for this, but it was public knowledge, and this is evidence. It went on to refer to the effect of the proposal for a short Bill:
  "The Labour Party's approach in effect splits the present debate on reform of the Lords into two parts. The relatively narrow question of the abolition of the right of the hereditary peers to sit in the House must be considered at once".
  The document continued:
  "The parliamentary history of comprehensive reform of the Lords is not happy. Limited reforms, by way of short Bills, have proved far more successful".
  I assure noble Lords that none of those people was, or ever has been, a member of the Labour Party.
  "The shorter a constitutional Bill is, the better. A short Bill to deprive the hereditary peers of their seats would therefore seem a practical proposition, and there can be little doubt that, given a sufficient majority for it in the House of Commons, it would pass Parliament, even if in the last resort it was passed under the Parliament Acts, in the second session".
  I should state where I managed to obtain the document. My source was the Printed Paper Office. If the Conservative Party did not know in 1995 what everyone else knew, there really ought to be a shake-up in its research department. We know perfectly well that it was well known.
  That decision has been taken. I have gone through life being disappointed: political parties do not agree with the things that I think are right. The objective now that we are presented with a clean sheet must be to seek to produce the most effective Chamber that we can. The opportunity is available to start afresh. There is no reason why some hereditary Peers will not reappear in this Chamber as life Peers or whatever. They can stand for Parliament or whatever. People can still continue, with this Chamber, seeking the best solution that we can provide.
  To speak at this time of holding a referendum is a constitutional abomination. I oppose it on two grounds. First, in terms of practicality, what question will be posed? Who will put the question? How many months are we going to spend trying to explain to the public the problems that we have with delegated legislation and such matters? The suggestion is totally impractical.
  1042
  I pass quickly over the cost. We do not have many national referendums. I believe that the first, and last, was the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Economic Community—
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: What about Wales and Scotland?
  Lord Marsh: No, with the greatest respect, "national" means in this context Great Britain. The referendum in 1975 cost £11.417,000. I do not think that cost should be the deciding factor in this argument, but noble Lords can amuse themselves working out what it would cost today, 24 years later.
  I turn finally to my key point. In this, I am totally with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The Salisbury convention is the only way in which this Chamber works with the House of Commons. It is wrong, and always would be, for a second Chamber, particularly an unelected one—even if it were elected it would be a subsidiary chamber—to seek to impose its views on a matter on which the government of the day had been elected.
  The manifesto is crystal clear beyond argument and the Bill fits without any deviation whatsoever. When I think of the number of things that this Government have done for which they had no manifesto whatsoever—in terms of student fees, syphoning £5 billion a year from pension funds with the ACT tax charges, and a host of other matters. On this master the manifesto is clear beyond doubt. Not only will the Government get their way at the end of the day; they are entitled to get their way. To seek to say at this stage that basically all the last election obtained was a raffle ticket to enter a referendum is, in my view, a gross distortion and total irresponsibility.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I enjoyed that delightful Second Reading speech of my noble friend Lord Marsh enormously. I am only sorry that he did not list the other commitments the Government made in their manifesto. It is nonsense for the Government to pretend, as they do, that because the Bill formed part of their manifesto commitment, the people of this country elected them to kick the hereditary Peers out of this House. There were many other promises in the manifesto, most of which will have been of much more cogent importance to the majority of voters.
  Therefore, the Government cannot pretend that they have a mandate from the people of this country to do what they are doing. This is a major constitutional change on a par with devolution for Scotland and Wales, on a par with going into the European Community and on a par with potentially giving up sterling for the euro.
  If we can have a referendum to decide those matters, why can we not have a referendum for this vitally important constitutional reform? Is it because of the expense? If the Government could find the money for the devolution referendums, and if they propose to do so for the currency referendum which we have been promised, why can they not find money for this? Is it because they are frightened that the result might not be

  1043
  to their liking? I believe that it is. Then it would be difficult for them to go against the expressed will of the people.
  The purpose of the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and myself is to clarify the composition of the electorate in the proposed referendum. The promised legislation on the conduct of referenda has not, to my knowledge, yet been passed through Parliament. The Committee will remember that we cannot vote in a parliamentary election, so we could have no input into the result.
  For those reasons, I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not think, any more than he does, that this is a wrecking amendment. Even if it were—which it is not—I am not entirely persuaded that in a vital constitutional matter of this kind the Salisbury convention should obtain.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Richard: Many years ago, before I started agreeing with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in the days when he was in the Labour Party, I used to find myself occasionally agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. For 30 years I have not agreed with much that he said, but this afternoon I thought he got it absolutely right. In my limited political experience, I can think of no measure that has been more clearly telegraphed in a manifesto and put before the country at a general election than this one.
  Let us think about it. How does a political party get a mandate for a proposal which it wishes to make, indeed a proposal that it has been making at every general election since 1911? How does it get the mandate? It does what I am sure most of the Committee would think sensible. It puts it in the manifesto and the manifesto is then put to the country. The country then votes either for or against the party. The issue is whether what the Labour Party intended was presented to the country and whether the country was therefore clear about that, if the country wished to be clear about it.
  The terms are absolutely crystal clear. This measure was put before the country as a free-standing measure, to be introduced irrespective of further measures of reform. Whatever one may think about further measures of reform— and no doubt we will discuss that in due course—the fact is that this was presented as the first issue to be dealt with, the first stage of a reform process—those were the words used—and the country elected us with a massive majority. In those circumstances, how noble Lords opposite can argue that we do not have the mandate and we do not have the authority to proceed in this way is beyond me.
  The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made some passing references to the fact that the Conservative Party had been in office in this country for rather a long time. The reforming zeal which is now emanating from those Benches did not exactly reveal itself for most of those years. I have to say to the party opposite that if a decade ago they had come up with a more moderate—in their terms—measure for the reform of your Lordships'
  1044
  House, no doubt by now it would have been in place for a decade and therefore the position might be entirely different. But they did not.
  However the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, seeks to wrap it up—and of course I accept his words, he is a man of honour—the effect of what he proposes is to delay the implementation of a measure for which we have a clear mandate from the British people. Not only that, I have problems with the practicalities of the amendment. As I understand it, the referendum he proposes in Amendment No. 1 is a referendum on whether the House should be reformed in two stages. In other words, it is whether we should be able to implement the first stage before we implement the second stage. That presages a second referendum, does it not? The Royal Commission would report, there would be proposals for the second stage reform—again presaged in the Labour Party's manifesto—at the next election and the noble Lord would say that there had to be a second referendum on the second stage. So he would have two referendums: one to decide whether the first stage should be implemented before the second stage is implemented, and another one on the implementation of the second stage.
  With great respect, that is constitutional nonsense. My party has a clear mandate for what it wants to do and I hope the Committee will back it.
  Lord Crickhowell: I much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I wished that when I was at Cambridge many years ago he had been my history lecturer. That is partly because the lectures would have been enjoyable, but partly because he could have been one of those lecturers whose talks I could have decided not to listen to on the grounds that the advice he gave was unsound. I shall explain why I believe it was unsound.
  It seems to me that one of the principles of an unwritten constitution is that it is dependent upon the retention of a balance of institutions. That is the only defence that we have against an over-mighty executive. In my view, it cannot be right that so fundamental a safeguard can be overturned simply on the basis that a party has achieved a majority, however substantial, in one general election. There I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in an earlier debate that we had on the subject.
  Like others in this House, I have had the fun of drafting manifestos. I would not belittle the importance of a manifesto, but I do not believe that when we are confronted with the removal of fundamental constitutional safeguards a reference in a manifesto is sufficient authority, particularly when the consideration of that item in the manifesto is acknowledged probably to have had only a minimal impact upon the result.
  We have precedents before us. The principle of holding a referendum is not new. Referendums were held in 1975 and 1979, both concerned with fundamental constitutional change.
  "What we seek is a broadly based consensus for change".
  Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, speaking at the introduction of the referendum Bill that

  1045
  was brought in to deal with the constitutional changes in Scotland and Wales. He went on a little later on that day, 17th June 1997, to say:
  "Popular consent will add legitimacy to our proposals—in a sense it is the way to build the settlement into the system—to give it roots".—[Official Report, 17/6/97; col. 1113.]
  I believe there is a perfectly valid case for a referendum to support constitutional change and I do not accept the argument, however lively its presentation may have been, of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Fortunately, the procedures of this House enable us to consider a proposition put to this House at various stages. Certainly a number of points have been made about my noble friend's amendment which may lead him to think that it would be better to bring it forward, having considered the points, at a later stage. I am not necessarily pressing for a vote today, but I have to say that if he were to press his amendment today I would support him.
  I can understand the loyalty that my noble friend sitting beside me has for his grandfather's principles. I understand, too, the importance of the conventions of this House, but whatever commitments might have been given by the leaders of my party I am bound to say I have never felt wholly committed to a principle when it applies to a fundamental constitutional change which removes the safeguards upon which we rely. Although we may not have a chance to vote on this particular amendment in this particular form today, I do not think it should inhibit us from pressing—
  Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for giving way. I just wonder whether he is putting forward the proposition that a permanent Conservative majority in this House is a vital constitutional safeguard.
  Lord Crickhowell: I am not suggesting anything of the kind, and the noble Lord really ought to do better than that. What we are being asked to do by having stage one without stage two is to go blindly down a path without an endgame—and we are learning in a particularly unpleasant war at the moment that not to have an endgame when you start to execute a policy is a particularly stupid and dangerous thing to do. Here we have, on a vital constitutional matter, a government going to the country without the faintest idea of what their endgame is going to be, without any proposition to give to the country, without the faintest idea of how these matters are going to be handled in the future, and dependent entirely upon the recommendations that are to come to us from the Royal Commission.
  It is for that reason, and because constitutional safeguards are being removed without our having the smallest idea of what is to be put in their place, that I believe we are perfectly entitled to seek a delay and to ask for a referendum. I cannot believe that it is right to go through with a measure of this kind, removing fundamental safeguards, without the will of the country, firmly and clearly expressed in a referendum.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  4.45 p.m.
  Viscount Mountgarret: I feel that too much attention is being given to the question of the manifesto and what was contained therein. It is irrelevant that the proposal happened to be in the manifesto. It need not be blindly followed. Let me give an example. Flexibility in all things is essential. A good general leading his troops into battle has a plan, and he decides to go straight forward to his objective. However, halfway there he finds there is some very good reason for changing his plan and going another way.
  I believe that is exactly the position in this case. We all believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, that reform of your Lordships' House is desirable: it is necessary. I do not think there is very much argument about that; but, really, to have to rush at it in such a way without giving any detailed thought—as has emerged in later debates and many speeches—seems to me to be a fundamental mistake.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, merely follows a line which has already been set out by my noble friend Lady Saltoun. Namely, there was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party that devolution would be on the table for Scotland and Wales. And what happened? There were referendums on that proposal. What is sauce For the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Labour Party wishes to change the entire constitution of this country then it is only logical that we should be entitled to ask the people of this country if that is what they wish. It needs to he a positive question, and not tied up with commitments on health, education, pay or what you will—in which I believe the people of this country are far more interested than they are in the constitution of your Lordships' Chamber.
  Another question occurs to me, and other Members of your Lordships' Chamber will be able to correct me if I am wrong. I wonder whether Parliament has the power unilaterally to change the constitution of the country without receiving the positive support of the people. Parliament is there by the will of the people. Parliament has been invested with the power of upholding the laws and the conventions which lead to the understood and unwritten constitution of this country. If Parliament wishes to make a fundamental change to our constitution it seems to me that Parliament should be obliged, to be on the safe side, to go back to the people of the country and say, "This is what we suggest; we think it is in your interests but we would like to be sure."
  I may be quite wrong, but that seems to me to be not unreasonable. For that reason I ask whether there really has to be a mad, lemming-like rush to get stage one through. It ought to be considered not only by the Royal Commission, but the people of the country ought to be asked first. For this reason, I support wholeheartedly the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. I hope very much indeed that, despite the powerful speech of my noble

  1047
  friend Lord Marsh, which I found very impressive and difficult to refute, your Lordships might feel that this amendment should be agreed to.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I am the first speaker in the debate from these Benches at this Committee stage, I would like to argue against the mass—now some 275—of amendments as a whole. I can do that in one sentence, which is that we want the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill.
  We will need to be convinced of the need for any amendments to this Bill, and that goes for the Weatherill amendment also. We are certainly not convinced of the need for this amendment. It calls for a referendum. The use of referendums in the United Kingdom is novel, but it now seems to be accepted that advisory referendums may and sometimes should be held on major constitutional changes or those with constitutional implications—
  Viscount Cranborne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, particularly so early in his remarks. By whom is it accepted that advisory referendums should be held, if he means by that pre-legislative ones?
  Lord Goodhart: Pre-legislative referendums have been held recently in Scotland and Wales. There is not complete agreement, but a considerable consensus, among constitutional experts that that is an appropriate and sometimes desirable course to take. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, the first and only United Kingdom-wide referendum was that held in 1975 on whether the UK should stay within the European Community. Since then there have been other referendums in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London. We may have nationwide referendums on joining the euro or changes in the voting system for the House of Commons. All of those issues, except that relating to London, were very important ones with major constitutional implications.
  But what is the proposed referendum here about? As I read it, the intention is that if the Government wish to bring the Bill into force before stage two they can do so only by a referendum. That referendum cannot be held until the Royal Commission has reported and the Joint Committee has reported on the report of the Royal Commission. Plainly, that is not a referendum on the simple question whether hereditary Peers should be removed from your Lordships' House. It is arguable whether a referendum on that issue would be justified. It is not an argument with which I agree because I believe that the position is quite clear. In effect we had two referendums on the issue in the January and December elections of 1910. The principle that hereditary Peers should leave your Lordships' House was decided in 1910 and has never been reversed by any party in this country since then.
  My party and the government party have always wished to reform your Lordships' House by ending the rights of hereditary Peers. The Conservative Party has not, and does not now, say that hereditary Peers should remain permanently in your Lordships' House. Your
  1048
  Lordships' House voted in principle in 1968 for the removal of the voting rights of hereditary Peers. For these reasons, and also because there is a manifesto commitment—which is as clear as any manifesto commitment has ever been—I believe that a referendum on that issue would not be appropriate. But at least if the issue was whether hereditary Peers should remain here permanently it would be an important and arguable one giving rise to a clear and simple question.
  What, however, is the purpose of the referendum proposed by Amendment No. 1? The question will be whether hereditary Peers are to leave immediately after the referendum or hang on for a year or two until stage two is implemented. That, frankly, is not a major constitutional issue, and your Lordships delude yourselves if you think that the public shares your enthusiasm for that point. It will be extremely difficult to explain to the public what it is all about. Do your Lordships expect major public interest in this question? If so, I am bound to say that you will be disappointed.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am becoming rather confused and am trying to follow the argument. I know that it is my fault. The noble Lord talks about "my party". He uses "we", then "I" and returns to "we". Is he speaking for the Liberal Democrat Party? Is the Committee to hear what I call free-range contributions to the debate that we have heard from the Labour Party and other quarters of the House; or is the noble Lord just speaking for his party?
  Lord Goodhart: The answer that the noble Lord might have concluded from the position from which I address the Committee is that I speak for the Liberal Democrat Party.
  Lord Waddington: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way again. Is he saying that it is the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party to see created a wholly nominated House, with nominations solely in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day? If that is the view of the Liberal Party, it surely was not the view of that party in 1910 and 1911.
  Lord Goodhart: I point out that in 1910 there were no life Peers. The position today is that we do not support a wholly nominated Chamber, but we are anxious that the matter should proceed in the two stages that have been made out and in which our party concurred in the Cook-Maclennan agreement before the previous election.
  Reference has been made to opinion polls that show a majority in favour of retaining the hereditary Peers until stage two. That may or may not be so, but frankly I believe that the whole matter ranks extremely low in issues of public concern. I believe that the public neither expects nor wants a referendum on this question. Just imagine a "yes or no" campaign in this referendum. What would the referendum broadcasts be like? I believe that the whole question would raise apathy to new heights and there would be a wholly minimal turnout. Why delay the referendum until the report of the Joint Committee? Why not hold it now? The

  1049
  conclusion I reach—it may not be the intention, but it is surely the effect—is that there would be no time to hold a referendum before the next general election.
  Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, makes matters even worse because it would require approval by a majority of the parliamentary electorate. In the referendum of 1975, which dealt with a very high profile issue, there was a 64 per cent turnout. Just over two-thirds of those who voted in that referendum voted yes, but even so that amounted to only about 43 per cent of the electorate. The chances of getting more than 50 per cent to vote in favour of the proposition in a referendum of this kind are negligible.
  In reply to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and others, we do not believe that the retention of hereditary Peers makes a proper stage two any more likely. It has always suited the Conservative Party to preserve the status quo. After this Bill becomes law that will no longer be the case. In the unlikely event of the Government not committing themselves to stage two by the time of the next election, the Conservatives will he able to put forward proposals for a new second Chamber and gain support for doing so.
  I believe that this is a wholly inappropriate question for a referendum. It is in practice a wrecking amendment, even more so when it delays the operation of the Bill for some two years. I add my voice to others—I refer in particular to the very powerful speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—and urge your Lordships not to agree to this amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: It may be worth while if I make a short speech on behalf of these Benches at this stage of the debate before it goes on very much longer. I begin by making one or two comments on what some noble Lords have already said. In doing so I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to the debate. He told us that this was the first time that he had taken part in the debates on reform of the House of Lords. He accused the Conservative Party of being surprised by the development that had taken place and by the fact that the Government intended to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. I am not in the least surprised, and nor should he be. It was while we were still in government that we held a two-day debate in this House on the future of the House of Lords in which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, then Leader of the Opposition, made clear the position of noble Lords opposite—or at least as clear as it was then, which was not much clearer than it is now in terms of the longer-terns position. However, I recognise that he himself has, in modern parlance, moved on from the position then taken.
  Lord Richard: Will the noble Lord confirm that on behalf of the Labour Party I made it perfectly clear at that stage that we would have stage one in which the rights of hereditary Peers would be abolished, and stage two would take place after consultation?
  5 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted to confirm that that was my understanding then, as it is now. The point I seek to make is that the noble Lord has come forward with his own ideas for longer-term reform. I welcome that as part of the general debate that needs to he had about the long-term future of this House. But the amendment raises a number of questions which the Government need to answer. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that what the Government intended for this House was widely known by the country. That may or may not be true; I do not know. But there were a number of other issues which were also widely known by the country, not least the whole situation on devolution.
  The point is that the issue of the House of Lords seems to be the only matter on which the Government are not prepared to entertain a referendum. Since 1997 we have had referendums on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is proposed—I think in this Parliament—that there be a referendum on proportional representation; and at some stage in the future on the European single currency. I need to ask the Government this one immediate question. They will have considered it. When they were writing their manifesto they made a decision. The decision was to include a referendum on some important constitutional issues and not others. I wish to know the answer to this question; the House has a right to know it. What is so fundamentally different between those issues and the issue of Parliament itself? What reason did the Government have for not including the issue of the House in the referendums? As a party, we are not intrinsically keen on referendums, but the Government are. We have seen the evidence of that several times over the course of the past few months.
  However, there is another reason why the Government are more committed to this. Recently, they published a White Paper, Modernising Parliament. In it they boasted of the importance of referendums. They say:
  "People across the country have made clear what they want. Referendums and subsequent developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have shown a clear appetite for change, and a determination to achieve it…The people of London have made clear how they want to be governed … All these developments will reconnect people with power in Britain … Parliament is not exempt from this process of reform, nor should it be".
  Yet the Government have made a decision that Parliament should be left out of this process of referendums.
  All I wish to know—it is a relatively simple question—is this. What are the Government afraid of? Is it that they think hereditary Peers are so popular they might lose? I cannot believe that that is their reason; but it might be. If the amendment were carried, what justification would they have for reversing this in the House of Commons?
  A short while ago there was a question from my noble friend Lord Cranborne to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Is it the Government's position that they prefer pre-legislative referendums rather than post-legislative referendums? I believe that the constitutional rule should

  1051
  be that the people are asked after Parliament has been asked. It is part of the locks that have withstood the test of time, although that was broken by the pre-legislative referendums in the case of Scotland, Wales, and London.
  I am not sure why the Government are in such a flap over this issue unless they are nervous of the proposition which is outlined in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway: that the Committee on Standards in Public Life should govern the referendum. If that is the case—if the Government decide to change their mind and have an amendment—it cannot be beyond the wit of Government or Parliament to pass a short referendum Bill, or to attach one to this Bill, if they so wish. I suspect that they do not wish it. Almost exactly two years ago we passed a referendum Bill in a little under two months. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was running his referendum Bill. It was a good deal more contentious. It had a good deal less cross-party support, and yet it happened.
  I also wish to quote the Government on subsection (2) of the amendment, about the joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. Are the Government still committed to this? I do not say that they will necessarily have made up their mind, but it would be useful to know whether they have considered the matter. Have they any idea how long they will give a joint committee of both Houses to take a view after the Royal Commission has reported; or on the balance of membership between both Houses? Do they envisage that the House of Commons should have a preponderance of Members or that there should be an even balance between the House of Lords and another place?
  I should like also to know the answer to this question. I can see why the Government hide behind the important fig-leaf of the manifesto. But let us accept it as that; it is a fig-leaf. But are they opposed to a referendum as a matter of principle on the long term future of the second Chamber? Have they considered the proposition that obtaining the consent of a wider electorate by a specific question in the referendum may be worthwhile after Parliament has passed a second stage Bill; or, if they are so wedded to the idea of pre-legislative referendums, that whatever the Royal Commission comes up with should be put before the people of this country in a referendum?
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may be right that no one is particularly interested in this issue. Is that what the Liberal Democrat Party is about: to maintain the position that the people of this country are not interested in the make-up of Parliament? I should have thought that this may be an opportunity to make people more interested in Parliament and its operations. That is one good reason for having this debate.
  When the Government reply, I hope that they will be able to tell us the answer to two specific questions. First, what was the reasoning behind there not being a commitment to a referendum on this question when referendums were conceded on so many other issues?
  1052
  Secondly, can they tell the House whether they ever envisage a referendum on the long-term future of this House?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for putting those two points. From around the House we have had a thorough and extensive debate. I would almost describe it as at times ingenious. While I am somewhat tempted to follow some noble Lords who have raised what could be described as Second Reading points, or discussion on future amendments, I shall not do so. But I must make one point. However ingenious one is, I do not understand how one can wrap discussion about this potential second stage of reform in the terms of this amendment. However, whenever and whatever one asked the people of this country hypothetically to vote upon in a referendum on the Bill, I cannot understand how it would illuminate the next stage of reform. That seems to be the issue concerning most noble Lords offering their views on the amendment today.
  Whether or not we should seek a second stage referendum—if one can call it that—which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised is, as I said in reply to his remarks on the Business Motion today, a matter we would hope to proceed with by consent once the Royal Commission and the joint committee of both Houses (which we have no intention of abandoning) have reported. Let us hope that that consensus on the next stage of reform, of which we all speak with such enthusiasm, will come to pass and will enable us to undertake the long term constitutional issues which we need to do when considering a second Chamber fit for the 21st century with reasonable consensus between all those who are part of that discussion.
  The arguments today have been thorough and in some instances subtle. I fear that those who have been subtle may find my response rather simple. Indeed, it is straightforward. But it is no less robust because of that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government do not feel in a flap.
  The general view of the supporters of the amendment seems to be—to encapsulate it in so far as it was described in specific terms—that the people have not made known what they want and should be given the opportunity to do so. I realise that I risk wearying some of your Lordships who have heard the manifesto undertaking, I must repeat it once again. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who is not longer in his place, has already done so. It states:
  "The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will he ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative".
  That is the unequivocal commitment which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, stated, is rightly subject to the Salisbury convention. In spite of those noble Lords who suggested that at this stage we should rewrite the parliamentary constitutional undertakings about

  1053
  manifesto commitments, I do not think that many believe that that is an appropriate argument.
  The people have spoken precisely on this issue. As I said at Second Reading, to suggest that the British people did not understand, or were not aware, of the commitment is both insulting and dangerous. To those who say that no one ever reads the manifestos, that they are in the small print of people's understanding, it is with delight that I say that during the last general election campaign the Labour Party's manifesto was on the best-seller list of the Sunday Times for many weeks. To say that it was not understood is to be extremely insulting to the electorate which gave this Government an overwhelming mandate. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made clear, there have been many opportunities, not least those suggested by the Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' discussions during the past few years, to preview the proposals which the Labour Party intended to make when it was elected, as it was in 1997.
  I believe that we should look at the argument from another angle. I wonder how Members would react if there were, for example, a manifesto commitment which they believed to he a protection of constitutional privilege. There may be one; I stand to be informed. But if there were and the Government decided that they would not fulfil it because they did not believe that the public understood the fine print, there would be a great deal of concern. People would say, "You were elected on this programme. Why do you not fulfil it?". I believe that there would be uproar from the constitutionalists in your Lordships' House, and rightly so.
  Again on the prominence of the manifesto, other noble Lords have suggested that few people voted Labour solely on the basis of the commitment to remove hereditary Peers. We do not know that one way or the other, but if it were to be true we cannot cherry pick over each party's manifesto. I gently ask those who make that argument how many people voted Conservative in 1987 solely on the basis of the proposals to introduce the poll tax?
  A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose views I enormously respect, have quoted the evidence of an opinion poll to suggest that people are against the reform. Perhaps I may respectfully quote something to him:
  "to rely on opinion polls and say to another place that we represent the will of the people and they, the political representatives in the elected Chamber, do not, evinces more than a hint of hubris".
  That was the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on 14th July 1993, at col. 275 of the Official Report, when he was speaking against an amendment to the Maastricht Bill to introduce a referendum. If I did not believe and understand the noble Lord's extreme sagacity and great honesty, I could say to him that of course we all change our minds. In my view, the amendment before us today is not so much a change of mind about the principle of referendums, which he so forcefully argued against in the context of the Maastricht Bill, but more about a policy which he does not particularly like.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It was very shrewd of her to find that quotation. I congratulate her. However, it is not a very fair quotation.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I believe that many noble Lords who are making a lot of unusual noise would not have been aware that for a very long time similar amendments in my name have been in the "no date named" and before this House on the reasoned amendment. What I may have said in the past was when I was probably less foolish than I am today. But we certainly can change our minds and there is no doubt that on this issue, for a long period of time, I have not changed it. My point that it is not a meretricious job to suit this debate; it is a good fun arguing point and I give it to the noble Baroness—as such.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: I would never accuse the noble Lord of being meretricious and I acknowledge, as I did before he rose, that people do change their minds. I simply sought to illustrate the point that issues of constitutional importance arise. I am sure that those noble Lords who in 1993 took part in the extensive debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, otherwise known as the Maastricht Bill, would have been extremely pleased to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in not wishing to promote any amendment to establish a referendum on that Bill.
  That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about whether the Government were cherry picking on introducing referendums. I draw his attention once again to that well known document, the manifesto. The Government believe that the manifesto should herald where the people should be consulted on a specific point. That is precisely what we did. The noble Lord drew attention, for example, to devolution for Scotland and Wales and to an elected mayor and an assembly for London. The position on introducing referendums before those Bills became law was explicit in the manifesto, and that is the position which the Labour Party has always taken.
  Let us take the example of Scottish devolution. The policy of the Labour Party has always been that it should be dependent on the agreement of the population and that was clearly set out in the manifesto. It was on points of such detail that the White Paper and the subsequent Bill were introduced.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that the position of the Labour Party was always that Scotland was to have a referendum. Would she care to remind the Committee exactly on which date the Prime Minister decided to

  1055
  change the position of the Labour Party and opt for a referendum? If she does not, I will come back and tell her.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: I should be only too happy to have the noble Lord give us the calendar date, but I suspect that it will not help the discussion on whether it is right to preview issues on which one wants to hold a referendum in the manifesto. That is precisely what we did in relation to Bills on Scotland, Wales and the London government. They were raised as arguments against the position of not always having a referendum on constitutional matters.
  I turn to an issue which, interestingly, has not been raised today. The incorporation of the EC treaty on human rights into our law was very thoroughly debated. It was discussed in great detail in your Lordships' House last year because it was of enormous constitutional importance. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in his winding-up speech on Second Reading of this Bill, it was of the greatest possible significance to the constitution of this country. I have checked and can say that at no stage during the passage of that Bill was there a request for a referendum. That was taken as an issue which could legitimately be decided on the basis of the debates in this House and another place and on the basis of the manifesto commitment.
  Why was that done? It was done because the Government did not believe that anybody who had voted for them and had understood their wish to fulfil our treaty obligations, which at that stage were many years old in relation to the human rights convention in Europe, could possibly challenge them in a referendum. It is exactly the same argument that convinces us that a referendum on the Bill, which is the first stage of the reform of the House of Lords, is unnecessary.
  Perhaps I can point out that the relevant passage in the manifesto, which has been quoted twice this afternoon and on several earlier occasions, is longer than the main clause of this Bill. It is hard to imagine how a referendum question could possibly be more simple than that.
  That brings me to some practical questions raised by noble Lords on what would happen if the amendment were accepted and the practicalities of the referendum that may then be forthcoming. Questions arise as to how such a referendum can be conducted and what sort of questions would be put. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, slightly tendentiously, said that the electorate would be asked, "Would you put up with a nominated chamber for ever?" That would not be the relevant question, nor would it be the relevant question in the context of the Bill.
  Several noble Lords raised the question of whether the referendum would act as the guarantee of the second stage. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested that that was one way of establishing that the second stage would occur. As I said earlier, I do not want to be drawn into discussions on later amendments. From the Government's perspective, Amendment No. 31, as it
  1056
  now stands, is precisely the guarantee of that. When we reach that amendment I am sure that the arguments will be made in that context.
  I understand entirely the bona fides and integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in not seeking to delay the passage of the Bill, but I must repeat to him what was said by my noble friend Lord Richard and my noble friend Lady Gould: that if Amendment No. 1 were to be carried, the effect would be to delay the implementation of the Bill, on which we have a clear, unequivocal manifesto commitment. The manifesto commitment did not have in brackets "to be delayed until after the Royal Commission has reported", nor did it say that it should depend on the outcome of a referendum. It was to be carried out in view of the overwhelming support shown through the popular election of this Government for their manifesto which, I repeat, includes this commitment.
  For all those reasons I ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, not to press the amendment but to take a rain check, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, rather sensibly suggested. If the noble Lord does press it, I hope that your Lordships will not support it.
  Lord Coleraine: I challenge what the Leader of the House has said about the manifesto and the mandate. I believe that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for introducing this matter into our debate.
  We are a representative democracy, notwithstanding the intentions of some members of the Labour Party to change that. We have a representative House in the other place. It is for the representative House to decide whether something in the manifesto is given legal effect. It is for this House, as the advisory House, to recommend that the other House reconsiders. This has nothing to do with any form of mandate. The mandate arises in connection with the Salisbury convention and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked why we need the Salisbury convention. The answer is simple. It was the quid pro quo by the hereditary peerage for the continuation of, theoretically, a completely unjustifiable arrangement. Once that arrangement is taken away, and legislation is introduced to take it away, the Salisbury convention becomes like the Cheshire cat with perhaps just the grin remaining. The convention has no fundamental validity now.
  Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may be permitted to make one observation. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shaking his head. Perhaps he just has St. Vitus's dance. I have found this debate fascinating. Rather like the conviction of a metronome, I have gone backwards and forwards according to the views of the last person who has spoken, even though I have attached my name to Amendment No. 98, a referendum amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick.
  I hate referenda and I always have done. Incidentally, I believe that the word is "referenda" and not "referendums" as it is Latin. I hate them because they divide Parliament and divide the loyalty of the people.

  1057
  People are sent to Parliament to do a job. One person said the other day, "Why have referenda? We vote for people to sit in Parliament, we pay them a lot of money and then they turn round and ask us what to do".
  The Labour Party let this particular rabbit out of the hutch way back in 1975. Now we are lumbered with the prospect of referenda. There is a perfectly sound argument on this occasion for having one. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that the constitution depends upon having stable parliamentary institutions. This Bill removes those safeguards on which people rely. It is a pretty fundamental removal. I believe that is a perfectly sound case for having a referendum.
  The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that to hold a referendum would be an abomination. That is a pretty strong word. We have had lots of abominations. We have had the abomination over the European Community, over Maastricht, over Wales, over Scotland and possibly over the European currency. However, the noble Lord asked, "How on earth can we explain the problem to the people of the country?" If it is so complicated, that is a very good reason for having a referendum. One could put a simple question, "Do you approve of screwing up the second Chamber, yes or no?" Maybe the answer would be clear.
  The wording of a referendum is always difficult. I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Cranborne, whose advice I always value and admire. I am not sure whether this goes against the Salisbury convention. The Salisbury convention allows the Bill, for which the Government have a mandate, to go through. We would simply be adding an amendment for the other place to consider. That is not delaying the Bill at all. The Bill may be delayed if another place were to say no, and it came back to us and we said, yes, and it went backwards and forwards. We would be giving the other place an option to consider. I do not believe that that contravenes the Salisbury convention.
  There are sound arguments on both sides. I hope that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will consider it prudent not to press this amendment today but to think about it. Perhaps I may suggest that the Government should think about it too. It is not all that easy. Now the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, shakes his head in disagreement. Perhaps he has St. Vitus's dance too. I hope it does not mean that he has a closed mind. He always says he has an open mind and I hope he has an open mind on this occasion too.
  Lord Nunburnholme: I am reminded of Matthew Prior, who said,
  "Be to [their] faults a little blind…
  And clap your padlock—on [their] mind".
  That might be a little difficult in both instances. Good laws evolve from common sense; likewise constitutions. The proposed reform is a forced, unnatural act which is bad for one simple reason. The executive will have total control over Parliament, which means the death of democracy. The pre-supposition that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons should be preserved is not sacrosanct. The United States manages government perfectly well, though nothing is ever perfect.
  1058
  The first Chamber should always be discouraged from displaying an adversarial manner except when driven to it, and then its powers should be awesome against individuals, Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister. The use of impeachment should be reintroduced in extreme cases. I rest.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: It will not be too long before I rest too. We have had a good debate and a good-hearted debate on a serious and emotive problem and I appreciate the spirit in which this matter has been discussed.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Perhaps I can interrupt the noble Lord. The Committee is now considering Amendment No. 2 and that must be disposed of before we return to Amendment No. 1 because it is an amendment to Amendment No. 1. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has other things to say on Amendment No. 2, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to deal with his amendment.
  Lord Gray: I do not need to say very much. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway indicated that he is prepared to accept my amendment. If it persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his party to accept the main amendment, I might have withdrawn it. Instead, I commend it to the Committee.
  On Question, Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, agreed to.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the Deputy Chairman; I wanted to take my rest too soon. I am grateful to the House for accepting Amendment No. 2 as consequential.
  I thank all Members of the Committee for the spirit in which this matter has been discussed. With respect to the views that have been expressed, I do not believe that if Amendment No. 1 were to be carried it would be contrary to the Salisbury convention. I am not prepared to accept a view to the contrary because this situation has never arisen before and I therefore cannot accept that advice.
  This is a Cross-Bench and Back-Bench Conservative amendment and we therefore had to have a majority view as to whether we would divide the Chamber tonight or take the advice of my noble friend Lord Cranborne to take a rain check and come back on another day. By a majority we have decided to take that advice. I often take the advice of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, often when I do not agree with it—I do not agree with it tonight—and am still content to do so, largely because he is supported by my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Crickhowell. In those circumstances one begins to wonder whether one can do other than once again thank the Committee for the spirit in which this debate took place and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 3:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  PURPOSE OF ACT
  (". The purpose of this Act is to create a more legitimate and more democratic House of Lords.")
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with which my amendments are grouped.
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 raise the issue of whether it would be desirable to have a purpose clause on the face of the Bill. These amendments seek to probe the Government's general attitude to such a suggestion and to the specific purposes incorporated in the amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friends.
  The desirability of Bills containing purpose clauses is a topic which arises from time to time as individual Bills undertake their legislative passage through your Lordships' Chamber. Indeed, the whole topic was the subject of an Unstarred Question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton which led to a short debate taking place in your Lordships' Chamber back in January of last year.
  As many Members of the Committee will be aware, purpose clauses, or statements of purpose or principle as they are sometimes referred to, were the subject of a recommendation of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation chaired by my noble friend Lord Renton many years ago. Recommendation 15 of that report was in the following terms:
  "Statements of purpose:

  (a) should be used when they are the most convenient method of clarifying the scope and the effect of legislation;

  (b) when so used, should be contained in clauses and not in preambles".

  It is important to note that when considering this topic and making a recommendation about it, the members of the Renton committee were concerned not only with the scope of the legislation but also with its effect. It may be said by the Government in response that the scope of this Bill is limited. No doubt it could be said that all that this Bill does is to end the membership of the House of Lords,
  "by virtue of a hereditary peerage"—
  Clause 1—and, furthermore, enact certain other minor provisions consequential on that change. I readily concede that on one view the scope of the Bill could be accurately described in such narrow terms. But when the possible effects of this Bill are considered, it is an entirely different matter. The potential effects of the Bill are far more difficult to identify and define. Whatever the difficulty in doing so, the need to do so is of paramount importance. It is not merely what this Bill states that is of significance. The topics it does not deal with are of almost equal importance. It is because of that that it can confidently be said that if there was ever a Bill where the effects of the proposed legislation are uncertain, this is such a Bill.
  On any objective view of the situation, independent observers have every reason to be concerned as to what the ultimate effects of the Bill will be. That is why the questions arise sharply, first, whether there is a need for a purpose clause and, if so, what they should contain.
  There are a number of possible reasons why there is concern about what the potential effects of the Bill may turn out to be. First, the Bill is being presented to Parliament as the first stage, but not the only stage, of a major reform of your Lordships' House. It is presented in paragraph 20, Chapter 2 of the White Paper as a first step in the process of reform,
  "But it is far from the only reform necessary".
  On that basis, it brings about a change in our constitutional arrangements which is not designed to be permanent, however long it may last. Secondly, there are different schools of thought as to how long we will have to wait for stage two to come along.
  The Bill's enactment will bring into being a transitional House which is to be of unknown duration. The transitional House is referred to in such terms in the White Paper in not a little detail in Chapter 6, but finds no mention whatsoever in the provisions of the Bill itself. No one can say for how long the transitional House will exist, because, while the Bill's parliamentary passage is taking place in tandem with the work of the Royal Commission, which has been set a very tight timetable, no similar timetable has been identified, let alone accepted, by the Government as to when the stage 2 proposals will come forward in the form of a Bill which will effectively bring the transitional House to an end.
  A third reason is that the White Paper acknowledges that the transitional House will have a different complexion in addition to a different composition. The White Paper is right to do so, even though there remains a measure of uncertainty as to whether or not the Bill will include a Weatherill amendment, in whatever form such an amendment may take. However, having highlighted the fact that the House will have a different complexion, the White Paper fails to address the consequences of that different complexion. Somewhat naively, it limits its discussion of the functions of the transitional House to a very bald statement that those functions will continue to be to question Ministers and to give its consent to, and where appropriate to revise, legislation. There is no other discussion of what the powers and functions of the House should be and, most important of all, how they might be exercised.
  I doubt whether any Members of the Committee believe that if hereditary Peers are no longer to take part in our deliberations the House of Lords will function as it does at present. In the light of the reasons that the Government themselves have put forward for ending the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House, is it not perfectly possible that the transitional House will feel that it is much more democratic and more legitimate than the House as presently constituted? If Members of the transitional House were to think in such terms, would they not be justified in doing so, because, if they did, that would accord with various statements made by Government Ministers in support of the Bill?
  I refer in particular to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Second Reading. When referring to hereditary Peers who might remain in the House in the event of the incorporation of the Weatherill amendment, he said that such hereditary Peers would have a greater authority, because they would be elected by the whole of the hereditary peerage within their party. The Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, when we were debating reform of the House of Lords, back in October last year:
  "any change which produces a fairer balance … must make this House more democratic."
  A little later she said,
  "I have no hesitation in asserting that the transitional Chamber will be more legitimate than that we have today."—[Official Report; 14/10/98: cols. 923 and 925.]
  I suggest that, armed with such support from such strong quarters, members of a transitional House may well feel that they have more democratic right, more democratic legitimacy, than is sometimes accorded to Members of the House of Lords at present.
  Against that background, when another place approved the Bill without any amendment to its terms, was that what its Members intended should be among the consequences of the Bill becoming law? Is it suggested that when the Bill passed through another place that place accepted that at least some Members of the House of Lords would be entitled to consider that they had a greater authority than they enjoy now? If a transitional House accepts that such a view may be held in the future, does not that raise very sharply the question of whether the Bill should leave the House of Lords without clarification as to whether it would be right to do so?
  There is a further reason for suggesting that a purpose clause would be valuable. Many hold the view that over many years the hereditary Peers have formed one of the more important independent elements of the House of Lords, if not, indeed, the most significant element. That element has to be removed in furtherance of the manifesto commitment about which we have heard so much. When that happens, is it possible that those Members who remain in the transitional House will seek to compensate for the removal of that important independent element? If they do, and if they seek to flex their parliamentary muscles in doing so, how is another place likely to react? Again, that is a matter that should be clarified to guard against the risk, spoken to so fully by my noble friend Lord Waddington, this afternoon, that a purely nominated House might be subject to ultimate control by the executive of the day.
  A final reason for suggesting uncertainty requiring to be clarified is to be found in Chapter 7 of the White Paper, which discusses what the stage two House might look like, how it might be composed and what powers and functions it might have. In that chapter there is a theme which has found some support among a number of Members of the House of Lords—that although the House might have an increased legitimacy, that might be accompanied by a reduction in its powers. I do not seek to pre-empt the outcome of that debate, because it is likely to be a long and stimulating one, which will not be resolved until after the Royal Commission has
  1062
  reported and the Joint Committee of both Houses has met and considered what form stage two reform might take. But if there were to be any suggestion that a transitional House might have reduced powers, and that came to be accepted over the next year or two, or possibly longer, that would inevitably have consequences for how the debate about the stage two House would fall to be resolved.
  For those reasons it is important that this issue be addressed, and now. Accordingly, these amendments have been tabled in the hope that the Government will indicate whether they think it would be valuable to have a purpose clause in the Bill, and, more important, in order to give the Government an opportunity to indicate where they stand on a number of the issues on which Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 focus.
  Do the Government accept that the transitional House will be more legitimate and democratic than the House as presently constituted? Do they accept that the composition of the transitional House will increase the independence of Parliament, and in particular the independence of this House from the Government of the day? Do they accept that the transitional House will enjoy an enhanced ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account?
  In the hope that these questions will be answered, I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, back on the Front Bench, wearing imperial purple, which will thrill all our hearts.
  The Bill before us is quite extraordinary in that the Government have in effect agreed to a wrecking amendment. By that I mean that the Bill has been completely changed by the Weatherill amendment. I welcome this, because the original Bill was a bad Bill. The Weatherill amendment has made it a very considerably better Bill.
  Everything that I shall say during the Committee stage will, I hope, ensure that any influence that I have is exercised so that the Bill will be a much better Bill, so that if peradventure—or "Events, dear boy" as Harold Macmillan used to say—it is possible or probable that there is no stage two then when stage one goes through the House of Lords it results in a Bill and a House of Lords which can do their job and stand the test of time. It is well known to the Committee that I have always been a reformer and have wanted reform. I shall not go anywhere near any ditch for the hereditary Peerage. We have passed our sell-by date. I want to make that absolutely clear yet again. I shall probably have to make that point again and again, otherwise I shall be accused of feathering my own nest.
  Another interesting aspect of the Bill is that the powers which your Lordships have are considerable. But when we have been reformed, even under stage one, those powers will be used much more legitimately. I say "hoorah" to that because I see nothing wrong in the House of Commons saying that it will invoke the Parliament Act. That is what it is there for. If the House of Commons does not agree with us digging in our toes

  1063
  when we are reformed, so be it. It will be said, "We do not agree with the Lords and we are prepared to stand up in public and justify our use of the Parliament Act". The Commons will not be able to use the excuse that it is all those Earls, Marquises and Dukes of ancient lineage coming out of the woodwork because they will not be in the woodwork. Most of the active Peers will still be here. That is the glory of what my noble friend Lord Cranborne has done: he has kept the majority of the hereditary active Peers here, or probably 60 per cent. of them. That is a marvellous deal and that is why I describe it as a wrecking amendment. Any government who are prepared to accept a wrecking amendment to their own Bill must surely be congratulated on the wisdom and foresight of their behaviour. I mean that with a slight sense of irony but, equally, totally genuinely.
  Let us say that, peradventure, stage one passes and, probably even less likely, there is a Tory government at the next election. Good God, a Tory government will have trouble with this House compared with the position in the past. I suggest that that is good. That is why we need a purpose clause: to make clear what we want from the House of Lords. I suggest that it should not be a democratically-elected House because that would impose seriously upon the will of the House of Commons. It should be a House of influence; a House of the powerful; and a House of the great and the good.
  The reason for that is that we shall have legitimacy but not democratic power. The House of Commons is the chamber of the commonality. It is the Chamber of geographical regions. It is from there that it draws its power, and long may that be so. That has been the case in our constitution since the Middle Ages. This House is the Chamber of the influential.
  I want a purpose clause. I do not know whether this is the right one. In my small way, I shall try to make sure that any amendment in my name makes the appointment to this House more transparent and more open to criticism and that it represents, where it can, real power and influence so that it has legitimacy. Stage one may last for many years. I do not in any way accuse the Government Front Bench of being anything other than completely sincere in wanting a stage two, but "events, dear boy, events", intervene. Therefore it is essential that stage one can stand alone and it is perfectly all right for the House, under stage one, to continue for the next 25 years. That is why it is essential to have a purpose clause.
  I hope that the Government will accept that. They may not agree with the wording of this amendment, but I ask them to accept the need for a purpose clause which sets out what we want from the House of Lords. That is what I want.
  The Earl of Longford: I oppose this amendment. I am a strong supporter of democratic principles applied to the House of Commons. I suppose that everybody here is a democrat in that sense. Churchill said that democracy is not a very good system but anything else is much worse. Therefore, for the House of Commons, let us accept that democracy reigns supreme.
  1064
  The last speech seemed a bit dubious about democracy. I do not know which side the noble Earl was on in relation to democracy. But in my opinion, democracy does not apply to a place like this. If the Bill goes through and the hereditary Peers are no longer with us, what shall we have? We shall have a group of highly qualified persons—bishops, judges, leading ex-government officials, former Cabinet Ministers and many high-minded, well-qualified persons who have not been elected. It would be an appalling tragedy were we to have an elected Chamber. What should we have here then? We should have the dregs of politics—people who could not get into the European Parliament. That is the last thing we want.
  We want a highly-qualified, high-minded House. We have that to some extent now. I support the Bill. Do not let us talk about democracy any more in that connection, please.
  Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 5 which is grouped with this amendment. In doing so, I assure the Committee that, with typical Cross-Bench independence, I did not consult the Opposition; nor do I intend my amendment in any way to be in opposition to the Government. I hope that it may be helpful.
  Also, I have no pride of authorship and if the Government prefer the opposition amendment or if they would prefer to take away and consider the idea of a purpose or object clause to reword it, I should be more than happy with that.
  I was greatly impressed when I listened to and read the enormous number of speeches which have been made over the past four days on this subject. It seemed to me that two clear themes emerged: first, the vast majority of speakers from all sides of the House agreed that the days of the hereditary Peerage were, alas, over. But I was impressed by the selflessness with which so many hereditary Peers expressed that view, which is obviously to the detriment of their own personal enjoyment of serving with your Lordships.
  I do not know whether the Government are trying to get the Bill through by consensus or whether, in the end, they want to be seen to be carrying a flaming sword against the anathema of the hereditary Peerage. But if they want consensus, it seems to me that those speeches indicate that they are pushing at an open door; that a consensus is within their grasp if they are prepared to make concessions. Indeed, by implying that there will be a concession in relation to the Weatherill amendment, they have gone a long way down that road. I believe that some sort of object or purpose clause would help in that regard.
  I shall tell the Committee why that is so. The second common theme which I noticed in so many of those speeches was a genuine concern—and in most cases I believe it was not just a delaying tactic but a genuine concern—about what comes after the hereditaries. Will the House be as good and in the best interests of Parliament and the people? It is interesting that in those speeches more than half the speakers were concerned

  1065
  about the reality of the Government's commitment to retaining this Chamber as an effective revising Chamber and as a check on the executive.
  They fear that the Government's ultimate objective is to have a rubber stamp. I confess that I share that fear. I hasten to say that that is not because I impugn for a moment the integrity and sincerity of Ministers on the Front Bench. But in the end, when push comes to shove, will the Government be able to deliver? When phase two is on the table, will the Prime Minister and his Cabinet want and accept a solution which retains and enhances the powers of this House? Will they not feel that such a Chamber may inhibit their ability to do all the good things that they plan for this country. I know, in the field of families and children, that wonderful things are being done. Will they not be tempted, at the last moment, to prefer a rubber stamp?
  The second critical question is whether, even if it can be got through the Cabinet, it can be got through another place. As I see it, the purpose of an object clause is to place on the face of the Bill some of the commitments which have been made verbally to this House. I suggest that an object clause could go some way to calm the very reasonable fears and anxieties, particularly of noble Lords opposite and those on the Cross-Benches, which have been expressed in those speeches.
  I believe that an object clause does not conflict with the Weatherill agreement. I also believe that in any business it is good practice to have an object clause. When that clause goes back to the other place I believe that it will help to clarify their views and thinking. Finally, I believe that an object clause will help the Government to get this Bill through by consensus, if that is what they want to do.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support Amendments Nos. 3, 4 or 5. They seem to do roughly the same thing. I did not speak on Second Reading partly because there were so many speakers and I was not quite sure whether I could stand the pace until three o'clock in the morning. To that extent I apologise to the House for not having taken part.
  I hope that the Government will take very seriously the notion that there should be a purpose clause in this Bill of all Bills because there can be no justification whatsoever for doing anything to this House if it does not make it more legitimate and democratic and if it does not increase its independence and ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account. That must be the purpose of a Bill such as this. If the Bill is not about that, I hope that it is not simply about the vindictive act of removing hereditary Peers because the Government believe that the Left-wing of their party does not like hereditary Peers. I do not believe that that is what they are trying to do; they are trying to improve this House. If the Government are doing that they must accept a purpose clause of this kind. This is a serious and important amendment. I hope that we shall not hear the Government say that they do
  1066
  not want a purpose clause of this kind because if they do they will be admitting something which I hope is not true.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: I would like to deal briefly with Amendment No. 4. It seeks to insert, before the commencement of the Bill, what the noble Lord described as an "objects clause". The amendment states,
  "The purpose of this Act is to increase the independence of Parliament and to enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account".
  I read the Bill as doing nothing of the kind. Its purpose is to abolish the hereditary peerage. The Bill seems to me to do that adequately. I have been in the party for a long time—namely, for the past 65 years—and since that time the objective of getting rid of the hereditary peers has always been on the cards. The Bill is quite simple and I do not see the need to argue with it.
  There is another reason on which I am bound to address the Committee and it is intimately linked with the question of independence, which this Bill does not affect. I sincerely hope that your Lordships' House will give this Bill a speedy passage and that it will reach the statute book with the minimum of delay. But it should not be done with any illusion that it is enhancing the independence of Parliament.
  We shall spend hours and hours discussing this Bill and while doing so the independence of the English Parliament is disappearing week by week. To me the language of priorities is the religion of socialism, which is how I came into the party to begin with. As regards the independence of Parliament this Bill has no relevance at all. It has no relevance to the real priorities that need to be addressed in our country. Every week at least two pieces of European legislation go through Parliament without scrutiny by the scrutiny committees in either House; without even the Government reading them or the Prime Minister knowing about them. Such legislation goes through week after week.
  Parliamentary reform in its broadest sense is dealt with in the Government's very good memorandum on the subject. I sincerely hope that we proceed with sufficient speed, particularly with modernising the regulations and the scrutiny machinery, with the bureaucracy being required to inform people of the truth instead of trying to pull the wool over their eyes. If that is done quickly it may well be worth while.
  I am well aware that Members of the Committee know my views on this subject. I have had the indulgence of the House for a long time, particularly that of my own Front Bench. But I say to them that all this constitutional paraphernalia on which we are now engaged, and on which I believe we shall be engaged for weeks, raises very little relevant to the real needs of our country in terms of the relief of poverty and the gross inequalities of income and status. I hope that that will be borne in mind at some time or other.
  I support the Bill and I wish it Godspeed. I hope that it will enable us to attend to the nation's real concerns and problems when it is passed.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Not for the first time I find myself very much in agreement with the noble

  1067
  Earl, Lord Onslow, as to what we need in the form of a second Chamber and the spirit in which we should frame amendments. But I doubt whether too much importance is being placed on a purpose clause. On the Government Front Bench there is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and on the opposite Bench his predecessor. There is also the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, a former chairman of the Bar Council. My conception is that the only objective and service of a purpose clause is as an aid to interpretation, and that only arises if there is ambiguity in the Bill and the ultimate statute. As the Bill stands, I cannot descry any ambiguity. No doubt some of the proposed amendments might introduce some, but I hope that we shall have ironed out any possible misunderstandings by the time this Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
  There are three purpose clauses—if the Committee believes that we need one—before us. I prefer Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 3 uses the word "democratic" which has been very loosely canvassed during discussions on this issue. "Democratic" has been taken to be virtually equivalent to "elected". We hear about the democratic Chamber meaning that it is the elected Chamber. But democracy goes far beyond that. A society is democratic in so far as that the mass of the people can influence the decisions which affect them. Representative government is only one. A far more important one is to vouchsafe the decision actually to the people themselves. Whatever else one might think of Thatcherism, at least that was done under the previous government.
  My other objection is to the word "legitimate". Again, it seems to be considered that the only legitimacy is that conferred by election. But a constitution or part of a constitution is legitimate in so far as it serves a valid constitutional purpose. I confess that I find the hereditary principle perfectly easy to accept within that conception. It has served this country admirably for many years and I strongly agree with what I believe was implied by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow; namely, that an hereditary element is an independent element. What we should be seeking throughout the proceedings on the Bill is a strong and independent second Chamber where the first is always bound to a great extent to be subservient to the executive.
  When I entered the other place nearly half a century ago, the three rising stars on the Benches opposite were the son of Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Viscount Stansgate (Commander Wedgwood Benn, just previously) and the son of Mr. Alderman Jenkins. That does—does it not?—say something for heredity. It would be idle to pretend that political ability is genetically transmitted, but I think that it is well established now that intelligence and intellect are genetically transmitted. What happens is that certain people grow up in an atmosphere of political culture.
  When I was in the other place, I was a member of the One Nation Group. By far the most commanding intellect there was Mr. Enoch Powell, but his was not the best political judgment. Indeed, the best political judgment was made by a member of the group who belonged to a wide-ranging political family who
  1068
  automatically, almost instinctively, arrived at a wise political decision. I hope that it will not be embarrassing if I mention that we should not close our eyes to the fact that two of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, two Members who have contributed as much as anyone, are sons of the House of Cecil and the House of Russell.
  If we are to have a purpose clause—and I somewhat doubt whether it would have any real value—I hope that noble Lords will adopt Amendment No. 4 which expresses the aspiration which we should have in these deliberations.
  Lord Haskel: From the speeches that we have already heard, it appears to me that if we do agree to a purpose clause it will just open the floodgates and there will be an unstoppable flow of purposes. After all, up until now, my noble friend has suggested that the purpose clause should contain references to socialism; the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, suggested that we should refer to independence; and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested that the purpose clause should refer to democracy. If we accept some sort of purpose clause, it seems to me that we will never agree on what it should be. I feel that the Bill itself is absolutely clear in that respect and does not require such a clause. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am a firm supporter of a strong second Chamber. Whatever may be the complexion of a second Chamber, it must be able to defeat the government of the day in another place in order to ask them to think again. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Onslow said about a revised Chamber: it may well cause a Conservative government more trouble. Goodness knows, this House caused me enough trouble in the 1980s and early 1990s. Indeed, if it had caused me any more trouble, it might have shortened my life considerably more than it did.
  It is for that reason that I think a purpose clause is necessary. Having read the excellent report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it seems to me that he has set out some very cogent reasons why a purpose clause is necessary for a revised second Chamber. It is also important because the revised Chamber that we are discussing will last for a considerable length of time. Although remarks have been made about it by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when speaking to the first amendment, there is no doubting the fact that there has never been a problem in this Chamber with reforming this House; indeed, the problems have always occurred in the other place. I believe that the Government will be pleasantly surprised by the attitude of hereditary Peers when we come to discuss reform. Any trouble with phase two reform will not be here but in another place, as has always been the case. For that reason, this Bill must be as perfect as possible because I can see it lasting many years into the future. That is why, to my mind, a purpose clause is essential.

  1069
  Of the three purpose clauses now before us—and there is of course a fourth one, as set out in Amendment No. 9—I prefer the one suggested in Amendment No. 4. I was surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said. I have agreed with him so much in the past and I am sure I will do so in the future. I should have thought that he would have liked Amendment No. 4. I say that because in the future I foresee this House scrutinising European legislation much more thoroughly than it has been able to do in the past. I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: I thank the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. If he reads the amendment carefully, he will see that it refers to "Parliament" and not specifically to the House of Lords.
  The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, the noble Lord is right. I prefer Amendment No. 4, and was dealing with the independence point because I wish to stress the fact that this House should be more independent and should be able to take a more independent view on Europe. However, that will depend very much on how its composition is made up in the future. I believe that that will he the key amendment on which we will need to spend some time in the days to come. However much we would like to have a strong and independent second Chamber, we shall not get one unless we ensure that we get the composition right. For that reason, I believe it most important for us to have a purpose clause of some sort.
  Lord Bach: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, moved what he described as a probing amendment, I did not feel that his heart was really in it. If ever a Bill did not require a purpose clause, it seems to me that it is this short, unambiguous and straightforward Bill. Moreover, if one is looking for its purpose, it is clearly set out in the Long Title. Perhaps Members of the Committee will forgive me if I remind them that the Long Title refers to the fact that this is a Bill:
  "To end membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage; to make related provision about disqualifications for voting at elections to, and for membership of, the House of Commons; and for connected purposes".
  I give way to the noble Earl.
  The Earl of Onslow: Surely this particular plan has been kyboshed by the Weatherill amendment; indeed, there will be 92 of us jumping up and down. We will be doing so as hereditaries and for no other reason, except that we will be elected and you will not!
  Lord Bach: I look forward to the discussion of Amendment No. 31 just as much as the noble Earl. However, we are not discussing that today. We are discussing this amendment early in this Committee stage. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to have a purpose clause for so straightforward a Bill as this. I am delighted that there is support for my view from someone as distinguished as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He, if anyone, should know which Bills require purpose clauses and which do
  1070
  not. As a probing amendment I think it has value. However, if it were to be taken really seriously, I believe it would damage the Bill a great deal.
  Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that the Government's manifesto stated that this would be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative? If it is the first stage in a process of reform, it is part of that process of reform. Therefore the word "democratic" is perfectly legitimately used in all these amendments, if I may say so.
  Lord Bach: I am grateful for that intervention. I believe that the important words are "first stage". This is a distinct first stage in the long overdue reform of this Chamber. It would be quite wrong therefore to confuse it with the second stage which, of course, will come later and I hope quite soon. I hope that I stick by the convention in saying that in my opinion it would be wrong to make a simple, short Bill such as this have a purpose clause. Where on earth would it end? I believe that would be a mistake.
  Lord Crickhowell: I understand why the noble Lord who has just spoken does not particularly like this probing clause as it exposes the total vacuum at the heart of this short and simple Bill. As so often, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave us a powerful reason why we should perhaps not have a clause of this kind written into the Bill. However, my noble and learned friend who moved the amendment moved it as a probing amendment. As a probing amendment it has already proved extremely valuable. A little earlier we heard from one of the great independent figures in either Chamber; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who added to his desire that the Bill should proceed speedily on its way, the hope that other things might then happen. However, the trouble is that we have absolutely no evidence that something will happen which will put a sensible constitutional settlement on the table.
  Clearly the Government cannot object to a statement that this Bill is designed to create a more legitimate Chamber because they have repeatedly given that as a reason for introducing this simple Bill. One would like to think that they perhaps favoured a more democratic Chamber. However, it has already been pointed out that this will certainly not be in the interim a more democratic Chamber. Some of us who sit in this Chamber have at least on frequent occasions fought and won elections and served in government. But even we are here because we have been nominated. There are others I see in this Chamber who have frequently fought elections but never won them. However, they have also come to this Chamber because they have been nominated. There are others, who are perhaps more worthy than any of us, whose breadth of experience, contribution to public life, wisdom and skill have led them to be appointed to this Chamber. However, I believe that none can claim to be here as representatives of an

  1071
  enhanced democracy, although I take the point that was made about the nature of democracy. It is hard to see that we are particularly legitimate on those grounds alone.
  As for the suggestion that we should increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation, that, I believe, is one of the key objectives that we should have, as I said during the Second Reading debate. The trouble is I am not sure that the Government like independence and I am pretty certain that they do not much care for the close scrutiny of their legislation. We have seen that time and time again.
  There are those who argue that the best solution would be a wholly elected Chamber. I profoundly disagree with that assertion because I fear that we would finish up with a mirror image of the present House of Commons, with all its shortcomings, and a Chamber which would be far from independent and would lack the breadth of wisdom, skill, knowledge and experience that is the great strength of this Chamber at the present time.
  I think the best solution will probably be a Chamber that contains a part elected element but a considerable number of others who come here because of their breadth of skill, wisdom and experience. However, that is for debate on a later occasion. That is the problem that we confront throughout our debates on this Bill. We have a phase one that leaves us in a vacuum and with no idea of what is to come in phase two for the good reason that the Government do not have the smallest idea of what is to come in phase two and are desperately hoping that the Royal Commission will come up with some solution that they will find acceptable and which will be widely accepted by others.
  It seems to me that in moving this amendment my noble and learned friend has done a great service because he has exposed the extraordinary futility of this piece of legislation. Indeed there would be some case for pressing at least one of these amendments because it would then enable us to move a succession of amendments to make this interim Bill a workable Bill, a Bill with a purpose and a Bill which would be of service to the nation rather than leaving us with a Chamber—which we may be left with for a long time—which would be a considerably weaker and less effective Chamber than the one we have at present. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not entirely drop the idea of pressing this amendment, if not today then on some other occasion. For the moment I, for one, am extremely grateful that he has moved it and exposed the futility of the Government's solution.
  6.30 p.m.
  Viscount Cranborne: Not for the first time I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Crickhowell because I too find myself extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon for his splendid idea of moving a probing amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I believe that the whole Committee may have found, like me, that the past 50 minutes or so have not been exactly a waste of time; they have been extremely revealing.
  1072
  Of course I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for putting down his probing amendment. However, I find myself in somewhat greater difficulty as to whether I can necessarily agree with at least the terms of Amendment No. 3. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I find myself slightly more able to support Amendment No. 4. Before I state the reasons for that, when the Minister replies I hope that he might care to consider two matters. The first is the following. Even if he rejects the need for a purpose amendment—for some obscure reason I believe he may feel inclined to do that—I hope he may feel able to follow an example which is very much deprecated by parliamentary draftsmen in the modern age; namely, of considering a preamble.
  During a previous debate this afternoon my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was kind enough to give a puff to a Private Member's Bill I introduced into your Lordships' House. At the risk of wearying the Committee even further on that admirable piece of legislation I draw attention to the fact that it has a rather old fashioned preamble. I venture to suggest that the merits of the preamble are that it enables the framers of a Bill to set the legislative provisions of the Bill concerned within a wider context.
  If I have gathered one thing from the debate today, it is that a number of your Lordships find it difficult to discuss the narrow terms of the Bill without reference to the much broader context of the Government's wider misguided constitutional reforms but in particular what we hope will be the probability of a stage two. It may well be difficult for us within the context of this narrow Bill to refer in a purpose clause to stage two, but it may perhaps be possible to meet the point made so eloquently by a number of your Lordships by thinking in terms of a preamble. In my experience, preambles are rather fun to compose, if only because they enable one to make all kinds of tendentious remarks without getting into trouble with the parliamentary draftsman.
  The second point that I should like the Minister to address is on a hypothetical plane. As a number of noble Lords opposite have already pointed out, the Bill in its present form does not include Amendment No. 31. I hope and believe that by the time it leaves your Lordships' House the Bill will include Amendment No. 31, but, as I keep saying, that is for your Lordships to decide. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the Long Title of the Bill, which begins with the words,
  "End membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
  is broadly enough drawn to accommodate Amendment No. 31. If that is so, I shall be greatly reassured. It will mean that the nightmare I remember from my days as a business manager, when something one wanted to do was not permitted by the Long Title of the Bill, will not be facing the Government, who I know from experience are entirely honourable in their intentions to abide by the agreement contained in the Weatherill amendment.
  I turn, I hope reasonably briefly, to the substance of the amendments. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon told us that he was talking in terms of a probing amendment only. But it must be right

  1073
  for your Lordships to view even a probing amendment with something more serious than a purely cavalier approach. We must look at the terms of the amendments as drafted. We have not yet—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would have reminded us were he still in his place—adopted the rather more cavalier and Napoleonic habits of legislation to be found on the other side of the Channel.
  In Amendment No. 3 it is suggested by my noble and learned friend that the purpose of this Act should be to create a more legitimate and more democratic House of Lords. Again, not for the first time I find myself fully in agreement with the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is at least possible to argue—I put it no higher than that—that it might be desirable for there to be a democratic element in a future upper House. Indeed, I can see myself arguing for at least a partially democratic element in a reformed upper House if by "democratic element" one means at least some of the Members of your Lordships' House or its successor being elected by universal franchise.
  My quarrel—I use the word perhaps rather bravely with my noble and learned friend on the Opposition Front Bench—is that nowhere in the Bill as presently drafted—and that is how we must look at it—can I see anything remotely democratic about its provisions. I can therefore only suppose that, with his usual extraordinary perspicacity, my noble and learned friend is trying merely to make the Bill at least consistent with the record of the Government, who, in my observation, have managed with an extraordinary degree of consistency to declare that they were doing one thing and proceeded to introduce provisions in their legislation and their foreign policy action to bring about exactly the opposite. For that reason I can sympathise with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon when he introduces the word "democratic" because it would at least be consistent with the Government's previous record, although I fear that for your Lordships to introduce that degree of consistency would not be serving the purposes of your Lordships' House as a proper revising Chamber.
  Equally, I am not entirely clear why a nominated Chamber, even one at least partially nominated by the kind of commission that the Prime Minister has trailed before us for Cross-Bench Peers, is necessarily any more legitimate than a hereditary Chamber. During the course of previous debates I have often ventured to suggest to your Lordships that one could argue that it was rather less legitimate for the purely pragmatic reason that at least people like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde owe their positions here to someone who is dead rather than someone who is still alive. Unless one believes particularly in ghosts, someone who is dead would be unlikely to twist my noble friend's arm in the same way.
  That brings me to the question of independence. If I were to introduce yet another smidgen of criticism into what my noble and learned friend has brought forward in Amendment No. 4 and venture extremely nervously to disagree just a little with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it would be over the assumption implicit in Amendment No. 4 that a
  1074
  nominated Chamber would necessarily be more independent. I remember being taken to task by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in a previous incarnation for suggesting, or being thought to suggest, that life Peers were any less independent than hereditary Peers. I would be the last to suggest that any Member of your Lordships' House who is a life Peer is in any way less independent. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to show that life Peers have at least as many independent and free spirits among their number as the hereditary Peers.
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me a brief trip down memory lane. When I had the great honour and privilege of being the Leader of your Lordships' House I remember that an inordinate number of people out there seemed to believe that I had some say in who was to become a Peer. I need hardly add that I never in any way attempted to disabuse them of that illusion. That would have been unwise for a highly ambitious politician like myself. I am sure that those of your Lordships who have also enjoyed the privilege of being thought to be in a similar position would have found the same. In spite of being warned that that would happen, I was astonished at the virulence with which the very great, good and respected people who wished to become Peers made it clear that that was the best way in which they could continue to serve the best interests of the country. They did not usually enjoy queueing outside the Leader's room; it was perhaps a little too public. But I have to tell your Lordships that in the Privy Council Office they queued. Not only did they queue; they made it clear that it would be an absolute outrage if they were not made Peers.
  Noble Lords may think this unworthy, but I must confess that, when confronted with such a person. male or female, great captains of industry, leaders of thought and opinion from every part of the political spectrum, so I thought, inevitably one's tongue found itself creeping somehow uncontrollably towards one's cheek. One found oneself saying, "Sir (or madam), if you were to sit on the Cross-Benches, which undoubtedly in your position you might feel you had to, how could we rely on your vote?". And, mirabile dictu, almost without exception these people used to say, "Ah, of course, I have always been a Conservative". And they would say, "You know that, don't you?".
  Noble Lords will recognise that I knew nothing of the kind. I was astonished at the extraordinary "brass neck" that so many of them displayed, when I knew perfectly well, as they did, that they had never been anything of the kind. I would then say, "But then, if you were to become a Peer, how could I know that we could rely on your vote, particularly if you found yourself sitting on the Cross-Benches?". Not all, but a surprising number, said to me, "Would you like it in writing?".
  I shall not distress your Lordships by continuing this descent into anecdotage. I hope and believe that not one of those people received a peerage—not because I had any say in the matter, but because those who did have a say had a great deal of judgment. I am absolutely certain that the same rigour has been applied by the present Government, although I must confess that there are

  1075
  some mauvaises langues who have implied differently. I hope and believe that that happy situation will continue to obtain.
  However, Prime Ministers are subject to great temptation, particularly when confronted with the possibility of being able to pack their own Benches, and indeed some of the Cross-Benches, with compliant Peers. In an entirely nominated House, there will be a standing temptation to any future Prime Minister to ask a person to make a commitment before he or she becomes a Member of this House, rather than afterwards. It is a sensible principle that all legislation should be framed in such a way as to catch the possibility of dishonourable, as well as honourable, Prime Ministers succumbing to temptation.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Viscount give way? I wonder whether he was in the House when the noble Lord, Lord Archer, read out to the House a letter he received from the then Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, in which he asked as a condition upon which he would recommend the noble Lord for this place that he would agree to vote in support of the Tory Government in every way.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not remember that episode. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he would send me a copy. I am sure that I can find the reference in Hansard as well, but I am, as always, grateful to the noble Lord. He has always endeavoured to save me trouble. If the implication, which I reject, is as I think it is from the noble Lord, that would go towards supporting my case rather than the reverse.
  I have detained your Lordships far too long and I am grateful for your indulgence. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take this point from my remarks about independence. In spite of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my experience tells me that there is a danger that an entirely nominated House would not necessarily increase the independence of this House.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Does it not depend on who makes the nomination? The noble Viscount was right in replying to the noble Lord sitting in front of me that his argument supported the noble Viscount's case. But that is because the nomination is by the Prime Minister. That is the mischief.
  Viscount Cranborne: I wholly accept what the noble and learned Lord has said. The point I wish to make is that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is showing his usual faith in human nature by including the word "independence" in this amendment—a faith which, I am relieved to find, has survived prolonged exposure to the Scottish courts.
  The amendments that we are considering are extremely useful as probing amendments. However, I should find it difficult, for reasons I have attempted to
  1076
  explain, to support them. In view of my admittedly rather feeble powers of analysis, I am not sure that the way in which they are framed bears any relationship to what the Bill will bring about.
  I suggest to the Minister that it would be extremely helpful were he to think in terms of including a preamble, although of course it may not be possible under the rules of the House to do so. I hope it may be possible for the noble Lord to give some reassurance on the matter I raised in relation to the Long Title.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): It is always a great pleasure to listen to Second Reading speeches, particularly in Committee! The noble Viscount has made a number of important contributions. I want to be as helpful as I can. His particular question concerned his trouble about whether the Weatherill amendment might slot into the Long Title. I think the answer to the noble Viscount's question is to be found in Amendment No. 152 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Marsh, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
  Noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Viscount for the scrupulous and conscientious way in which he dealt with the difficult question put to him by my noble friend Lord Acton. His reply was no less than we should have expected, but it was refreshing to hear him answer so plainly and boldly.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, spoke of the purpose of a purpose clause. He described it in two ways, citing the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his former committee. The noble and learned Lord said that one would have a purpose clause which was most convenient to deal with scope and effect. He also said of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that if there were to be anything akin to a purpose clause, it ought to be in a purpose clause, not a preamble. The Committee is thoroughly familiar with it; there was a preamble to the Act of 1911 which, so far as I am aware, had no particular utility in the intervening 89 years.
  Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he mean what he has just said? I seem to remember the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and many others quoting that preamble ad nauseam as a justification for "unfinished business".
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course they quoted it ad nauseam, but that does not derogate from the proposition which I put that they needed to quote it in 1997, 1998 and 1999 precisely because of what I said. It had no practical legislative utility of any kind. As always, the noble Viscount kindly reinforces the point I was making.
  The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, very unkindly I thought, that many persons here had never stood for elective office. That is unfair. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate stood for election as dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh and I myself stood—both of us being successful—as chairman of the Bar in this country. Both of us

  1077
  enjoyed—if that is quite the word I was looking for—electorates distinguished by two central characteristics: barking egomania and rat-like cunning! I can say that in this private gathering. If we survived that, I believe we are reasonably entitled to say that we had a democratic mandate from the brothers and sisters.
  The noble Viscount also spoke of his glee—maybe his mischievous glee—in penning a preamble. I understand that, and it is not unlike penning a valentine and despatching it anonymously. He asked questions hypothetically—he rightly described them as that—about Amendment No. 31. It would be for the convenience of the Committee, as the Chief Whip always tells me, if we discussed Amendment No. 31 in its proper, due place. It is an extremely important amendment. I repeat what the Leader of the House said. It was our wish and it might have been better to have had the Weatherill amendment and its related consequences right at the beginning of our debates in Committee. That is what we suggested. Other noble Lords took a different view. It is their continuing prerogative, but I believe that we might have done the House a better service if we had followed her advice.
  Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On that point, does he agree that it might have been better if the amendments had been agreed in the House of Commons and if the House of Commons had been able to have a proper debate on those matters before they came to this House?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Despite my manifold responsibilities, the conduct of business in the House of Commons is not one. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has to make the occasional partisan political point because there is little else of substance that we are entitled to look forward to. The fact is that it was a perfectly sensible proposition; it was not done for any particular partisan advantage and I repeat that it would have done a service to the conduct of this debate. It may even be that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would agree with me on that.
  The Earl of Onslow: I do.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think it is time I sat down. There is no purpose at all in having any of these variants of this clause, for the reason which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, exposed: namely, it is useful and most convenient when dealing with scope and effect. No one—and I pray in aid the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—could be under any sensible misapprehension about the purpose, scope and effect of the Bill. In fact, the Explanatory Notes make it plainer than anything that,
  "The Bill's main purpose is to end membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
  I do not think that a purpose clause will improve on that.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, asked me four questions. The first was: did I, on behalf of the Government and not trespassing on my own personal views, think it valuable to have a
  1078
  purpose clause at all. My view is that it is not and that coincides with the Government's approach, fortunately. He then asked three questions which I will answer together. We believe that the House which will result from the passage of the Bill will be more democratic. more legitimate, no less independent and better equipped to do its proper job of scrutinising legislation and holding the executive to account. I repudiate the proposition that life Peers are any less independent, stubborn, mulish, offensive to Whips and downright disagreeable than hereditary Peers. It is not true if one looks at the list. Indeed, in moving my head round the assembled panorama, even of those opposite me, were I deeply unkind I could point to one or two of my noble friends who have been extremely independent and have continued to be so, whatever apparent blandishments might have been offered to them before they came here.
  The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord give way? I quite accept all he says about mulishness and the rest, but I do not understand how it is in any way more democratic. Will he please explain that one point?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. If one comes here by nomination—in my case by the nomination of Mr. Major to Her Majesty—it is always necessary to bear in mind recent as well as early history. If one comes on that basis of nomination, one is nominated by someone who himself has an electoral mandate. That: is a good deal more democratic, I suggest, than someone who is here by virtue of a former place offering centuries ago. That is my answer and I believe it to be a proper one.
  A number of Members of the Committee inquired about whether the Government would contemplate a purpose clause at all. One might have a short purpose clause. It might be to restrict the queues of importunates outside the Privy Council office. But that is a tender mercy to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate on a narrow focus. Many of the contributions have little, if any, connection with the point. The noble Lord put it as a probing amendment. I have answered his probes.
  Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down and rather than having to move my amendment in order to speak again, perhaps I may say this. I do not believe he answered any of the points I made. I hope he will read the Official Report because I believe that a purpose or object clause could be extremely helpful for those of us who are concerned about the future of your Lordships' House.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, I have dealt with that. I said that it has no sensible place within the context of a Bill as limited as this. When we come to the discussion on Amendment No. 31, the Weatherill and other related amendments, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will be dealt with. But they are not dealt with by a purpose clause for reasons abundantly stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That is why I referred to him by way of a general citation. They have no proper utility in

  1079
  this Bill. For example, the Life Peerages Bill had no purpose clause. If I introduce a Bill to bring back capital punishment, it does not need a purpose clause because it speaks for itself.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My experience of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the various Bills in which we have taken part is that he either gives a long, full and most interesting answer or he goes for brevity. This evening he has gone for brevity. I do not think it has improved his argument in any way. He might have done better trying to address some of the many points which Members of the Committee have put.
  In his interesting speech, my noble friend Lord Cranborne talked about the possibility of having a preamble to the Bill. That seemed to be dismissed on the grounds that there was a preamble to the 1911 Bill and nothing much happened. Some Members of the Committee may think that a good reason for having a preamble to this Bill. It may be for others to argue that.
  My noble friend was taken up to a slight extent by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he discussed the legitimacy of the various Members of your Lordships' House. If I had thought about it, I would have realised that it was true; I discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I share one thing in common. We were both nominated by Mr. John Major while he was Prime Minister. I am not sure whether that makes us both John's cronies, but certainly it tells your Lordships how we both got here.
  I was discussing this matter with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I asked him whether he was more or less legitimate than I was, as his peerage resulted from the appointment of his grandfather by Winston Churchill, who was the elected Prime Minister at the time. I find that a very difficult question to answer. I know that neither my noble friend's grandfather nor I gave large sums of money to our political parties. I was sent here—I can say this without batting an eyelid, although I think that probably the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may not be quite in this category—by Mr. John Major, not because I was a crony but because I was a friend of his, and I like to think that he thought I might play some modest part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House. Some of your Lordships may sometimes regret that Mr. John Major ever sent me here, but others of your Lordships may appreciate it. I am not sure how we shall end up this evening, or indeed after many evenings discussing this Bill on that particular note.
  I do not believe that it helps our argument to discuss which of us is more democratic or more legitimate. I myself take the view that it is a pretty close run thing. I also take the view, so far as concerns the Salisbury convention, that this is not an issue which impinges only on hereditary Peers. However, if that is the way the Government wish the argument to proceed, that is fine: they will live to regret it.
  1080
  That concerns me when I discuss amendments to government legislation, because I believe that my position is certainly a good deal more legitimate than that of the other place. At least I am not in the category of those who have never stood for elected office. I am not sure whether the Bar Council counts, but I had better be terribly careful because its members are very influential, very important and much richer than I am and can certainly afford to sue me if I were to say anything out of place. I know I am safe in here but—you never know—they might find a way around that. However, I will allow the Bar Council as a serious body from which to receive an electoral mandate. I notice also that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, was the elected Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. I accept that being elected the Dean of the Faculty in Scotland is a great deal more important than being elected chairman of the Bar Council south of the Border!
  Other noble Lords have not been elected to anything, and perhaps they have not even tried: that is probably wise of them, if I may say so. Other noble Lords have tried, tried, tried and failed. I have tried, succeeded, tried and failed, and so I have a semi-democratic legitimacy; or, occasionally in my life I have had democratic legitimacy. However, I do not think it takes us very far to argue that, and I will return to the question of democratic legitimacy later.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bach, intervened. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has been elected to anything, or has even tried to be, and so I do not know which category he comes into. He said that he did not want a purpose clause because he wondered where on earth would it all end. That is exactly the point we are putting to the Government: where on earth is it going to end? My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that the Government have not the smallest idea of what they want in stage two. My noble friend Lord Caithness, quite rightly, said that this stage may last for quite a long time and therefore a purpose clause is essential.
  I am very cautious about crossing swords with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We have debated a number of issues on previous occasions and I am always pretty careful to try, if I possibly can, either to agree with him or to take away what he has had to say and think about it. However, I think that I will disagree with him because the noble and learned Lord said that a purpose clause would be of any value only if there was any possibility that there might be some ambiguity in a piece of legislation. There is huge ambiguity in this piece of legislation, in that the Government do not know what to do next. They keep bringing forward this half of the Bill, and they have no idea where they are going to go with the next half of the Bill.
  That in itself is a good argument either for a preamble or for a purpose clause. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, seemed to be following his Central Office brief pretty well and so I am sure he is right and a purpose clause is not necessary because we could not agree about what it would contain. I think that we would be able to agree about what it would contain, and I shall suggest about

  1081
  five permutations that we could agree on. I am sure that we could agree on three out of the five without any trouble at all.
  The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his attempt at a purpose clause, reminded us that there was a modern obsession with purpose clauses and object clauses. In the Foreign Office, after the election, I think they were called "mission statements". I am not entirely sure whether they remember their mission statements these days, but it is not a had phrase. Let us have a mission statement for this Bill, a preamble or a purpose clause.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned the important points in relation to purpose clauses. The three proposals here underline the role not merely of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned, but of Parliament. There are a number of key words in the three different versions in front of your Lordships: "more legitimate", "more democratic", "increase the independence of Parliament", "enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation"; and then we have "democratic legitimacy" again and "more effective scrutiny".
  Those are the key words, and I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that we should be able to agree on them. Do we not all agree on the importance of improving the scrutiny of legislation? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned in particular European legislation. I could add to that all forms of secondary legislation. I do not think that we deal with secondary legislation at all well. I do not think that we scrutinise it properly. We accept it, as does the other place, in whole or in part and we have a convention that we will not vote against it, although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tried to find ways around that by cleverly devising systems which, while not actually opposing it, qualify secondary legislation. The other place votes, but again it votes on the whole and not on individual parts.
  We will deal with a piece of secondary legislation on Thursday night which. in my view, requires a tiny amendment, but there is no procedure to make any amendment. We either have to accept it in full, as has the other place, or reject it in full. I think that is a mistake. I am referring to the rules and regulations relating to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. There is no provision for a recount, or at least the provision for a recount arises prior to anybody actually deciding that there will be a need for a recount. When we discussed this point in relation to Scotland and Wales, even the Government agreed that there was a serious problem here. But because we are unable to make a small amendment we are left with either accepting or rejecting the regulations as a whole. That is an impossible position. Therefore, the question of the scrutiny of legislation, and in particular secondary legislation, is very important.
  I have suggested that those were key words, and some of your Lordships may well wonder where they came from. I cannot speak for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. but in the case of the amendments in my name and the names of my noble friends I can tell your Lordships exactly where we found some of those words. We took some of them from the
  1082
  "Holy Grail", the manifesto. I always carry my copy with me because I know it is going to be quoted to me and so I want to be sure that noble Lord; on the Government side know their manifesto properly; that they have learnt it off by heart and are word perfect. But perhaps I may help them with regard to a modern House of Lords by pointing out that the manifesto says that this Bill will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and more representative. So I think we have every entitlement to say that the word "democratic" has good credentials.
  I challenge any of the Government's supporters to get up and say that the word "democratic" does not have good credentials as far as concerns the Bill. If they do they will be in some trouble, albeit disobeying the holy writ of the manifesto. That 'was one of the sources. The other words emerged from the debate on the White Paper without a Division. Therefore, everybody, in your Lordships' House agreed with the words:
  "urges Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward the proposals in the White Paper to set as its objectives an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account".
  I believe that the words used in our two amendments and those adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, have perfectly good and legitimate parentage and are worthy of being considered as either the preamble or purpose clause of the Bill.
  Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my friend for giving away. In spite of what he has just said, does he believe that the Bill which followed the insertion of any such clause would carry out the purposes that he has so clearly enunciated?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall come to that in a moment. I do not necessarily believe that the Bill as it stands, or even as it will be amended, presumably, by the Weatherill amendment—which should have been done in the other place and not here—obeys some of the phrases that I have used. Frankly, unless we in this place and Members of another place take certain steps to change the way in which we deal with this matter, no reform of this House will necessarily increase the scrutiny of legislation.
  Lord Peston: Perhaps I may put one question just for enlightenment. For 10 years I sat on the Opposition Front Bench. When did the noble Lord and his noble friends decide that they were in favour of a democratic House of Lords? I did not see the slightest glimmer of it in my 10 years of slog on the Opposition. Front Bench. When did they undergo this conversion and decide that democracy in this House really mattered to them? I do not want the exact day but I would not mind being told the month or year.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am quite surprised by the noble Lord's intervention. I took the word "democracy" straight from the manifesto. Equally,

  1083
  perhaps I can ask the noble Lord when the Labour Party will start to bring forward proposals for a democratic House.
  Lord Peston: We on this side have no difficulty. My noble friend on the Front Bench emphasised that we favoured a democratic House of Lords. He was concerned merely with the purpose clause. I sit here bewildered as to when the noble Lord who has moved the amendment decided that he believed in democracy for this House. Why was he content to sit on these Benches as a Minister and let me and my noble friends slog our guts out in the House of Lords as it was without ever saying that he was deeply embarrassed and wished that the place was more democratic?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to work out how to phrase my response gently. I am aware that the noble Lord becomes impatient. I remember a previous occasion when he became impatient. I have not yet reached the "democratic" bit. In the project to reform your Lordships' House I would not have started from here. But, as the noble Lord is aware, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has produced a report in which two options are given. Those are two options more than the party opposite has proposed—unless the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is a free thinker, has his own solution to the reform of your Lordships' House.
  Like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I have doubts about this House being wholly democratic, because that will bring it into major conflict with the House of Commons. I believe that last time I spoke on this issue I said—perhaps because I am an old lag from the House of Commons—that the other place should be the primary Chamber. I have absolutely no doubt that a fully elected second Chamber, however qualified or tied down, would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. That is one matter to which we must give very serious thought as we consider what kind of Chamber and what democratic input it should have to ensure that there is enough to introduce some democracy but not enough to challenge the primacy of the other place.
  I welcome this debate. We should not be having a debate on this Bill but on the whole package and where we are going. I am aware that in 1998 the Prime Minister said—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, did not echo the remark but was certainly on the same train—that the House of Lords was a democratic monstrosity. The Labour Party manifesto indicates that it wants the House to be more democratic and representative. Amazingly, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:
  "Legislating to stop hereditary Peers being Members of Parliament removes a profoundly undemocratic element".—[Official Report, 14/10/98; col. 922.]
  After Weatherill it will leave 92 of my noble friends—to which I do not object—and all the life Peers. I am not entirely sure how much more democratic we are. However, I have already discussed that and do not want to go over it again.
  As to the proposition that we should not insert a purpose clause or preamble and use any of the words suggested in our amendments or in the amendment of the
  1084
  noble Lord, North Northbourne, I point out that without any division we agreed to words being added to the take note Motion on the White Paper. I repeat those words:
  "urges Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward the proposals in the White Paper to set as its objectives an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account".
  There is absolutely no reason why the Government should oppose a purpose clause or preamble along the lines indicated in the three amendments before your Lordships.
  The noble Baroness the Leader of the House told your Lordships:
  "overall, the Government accept the broad sentiments of [the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold]. Indeed …the first page of the White Paper emphasises that Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy, and that for Parliament to carry out its purpose it must act with authority and integrity. That principle is the basis for our proposals for reform of this Chamber; to improve the effectiveness and balance of the House so that it can play a full and proper role in Parliament, a role which necessarily includes a significant scrutiny of legislation and of the executive".—[Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 847.]
  The noble Lord, Lord Carter, who was given the job of summing up that evening, said at col. 1086:
  "The Government entirely share the view that it is essential that Parliament should be properly equipped to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account".
  Your Lordships who have read the purpose clauses now before them will see the same words. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, went on to say:
  "That is precisely why we wish to reform the composition of this House".
  He continued at col. 1087:
  "My noble friend the Leader of the House has made clear that the Government agree with the first part of it"—
  not the part relating to the power—
  "Who can be against an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account?"
  The only person who appears to be against it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who does not want these words added to the Bill.
  We are disappointed that we have not had a more positive contribution from the Government, but we have heard enough to know that a purpose clause or preamble can be created that will meet some of the objections that we have heard. Perhaps we shall return to this issue under one or other guise at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
  Lord Carter: I think that this would be a convenient moment to break for dinner. In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that we do not return to Committee before 8.20 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

India and Pakistan
7.20 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will promote fresh international initiatives to alleviate the current state of tension between India and Pakistan.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who will contribute to this debate at a time when a nuclear arms race has erupted in South Asia.
Your Lordships will be aware that on 11th April India tested its long range ballistic missile Agni II, followed by Pakistan with the Gauri II, and Iran, too, announced the successful testing of its surface-to-air missile Sayad I. This last round of missile testing has proved that these countries now possess weapons capable of carrying nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction.
Since the independence of India and Pakistan both countries have been at war at least three times. At times of peace there continue to be skirmishes on the border and line of control. Tensions have steadily risen since the election of the BJP Government, rising to peak in May 1998 when the Indian Government, as a result of their actions on 11th and 13th May, started a cycle of nuclear testing.
Many of us were jubilant to see Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif initiate the recent talks with India which led to the Lahore Declaration and the bus service between Lahore and Delhi. Although the summit did not resolve major issues of conflict between the two countries, it was a confidence building measure that set a framework for future relations and a process to resolve the longstanding dispute between the two countries.
It is well known that the single most contentious issue between India and Pakistan is that of Kashmir and the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people. Let me begin by addressing the concern that this is a bilateral issue and thus should not be debated in your Lordships' House. I say that this is an international issue. The reason I say that is, first, that the views of the international community, as expressed in the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949, giving the people of Kashmir the right of self-determination through a free, fair and impartial plebiscite remain unimplemented and on statute.
Secondly, it is well documented in the reports of Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights and Asia Watch that there are widespread abuses of human rights in Indian-held Kashmir. Surely abuses of human rights are an international matter.
Thirdly, dozens of promises made by the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, have never been delivered. I quote:
"We have given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations, we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide".
That statement was made to the Indian Parliament on 12th February 1951. In another statement to the Indian Parliament on 26th June 1952, he said:
1086
"If, after a proper plebiscite the people of Kashmiri said 'we do not want to be with India', we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us. We will not send any army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the constitution if necessary".
There are over 600,000 Indian soldiers in Jammu and Kashmir, almost a ratio of 3 to 1 of the population. It is the densest and largest military occupied territory on earth. If Kashmir was an integral part of India, then why do the Indian Government need a huge number of army and special forces? India is not at war with any of its neighbours. Why do the Indian Army special units need nine interrogation units in Sirinagar alone? Why do the Indian Government not allow the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and others to investigate the abuses of human rights. Anyone caught investigating or reporting the true events in the valley becomes a victim of torture and abuse.
Many journalists have been victims of torture, humiliation and death during their interrogation for reporting the actual events in Sirinagar. Zafar Meraj, a journalist, has been paralysed due to the torture by the security forces. Basharat Abbasi was beaten and tortured to death. To this date his executioners have not been tried for the crime they committed against humanity: and there are hundreds of others who have disappeared from the face of this earth.
Amnesty International published a 71-page report last month of disappearances of Kashmiri civilians and abuses of human rights by the security forces. The situation is very serious and is not reported in the mainstream media here. Even many British parliamentarians, including myself, have not been given a visa to visit Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Since 1989 over 65,000 people have been killed in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Thousands of women have been raped, including children. Schools, hospitals and shops have been destroyed. One can successfully argue that the International War Tribunal should investigate the atrocities committed against the innocent people of Kashmir.
I have recently visited Azad Kashmir and Pakistan and visited refugee camps and displaced persons' camps. I understand that last year the United Nations line of control monitoring group recorded 4,551 violations of the line of control by the Indian Army. Over 60,500 rounds of ammunition, including rockets, mortar and artillery, were fired. One hundred and one civilians were reported killed in Azad Kashmir and 265 wounded and over 50,000 people living near the line of control were displaced due to firing. I am sure they were firing from the Pakistani side too, but this is not confirmed by the UN observers as the Indian Government do not allow them to observe the line of control.
It is 50 years since the United Nations resolutions and 27 years since the Simla agreement. India and Pakistan cannot resolve the Kashmiri issue bilaterally. I believe that only third party involvement could ever find a long-term settlement on the issue of Kashmir and bring peace and prosperity to the region. Britain has a special

1087
friendship with India and Pakistan and, I believe, a moral and legal responsibility to resolve the issue of Kashmir.
Historians like Professor Alistair Lamb claim that the accession of Kashmir with India is not legal and that is perhaps why no one has ever seen to date any documents of accession. Therefore it remains Britain's responsibility to play a major role in bringing the dispute to an end by working with the Indian, Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership for an amicable solution which is acceptable to the Moslem, Hindu and Buddhist communities of Jammu and Kashmir.
In her reply, will the Minister confirm that the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir are valid? Will she encourage the Indian and Pakistani Governments to reduce the number of troops on the line of control and return all Indian soldiers from the streets of Jammu and Kashmir? Will my noble friend consider the following: to ask the Government of India, first, to allow the international human rights organisations to investigate the abuse of human rights and allow access to the prisons and interrogation centres; secondly, to allow access to journalists and free reporting; thirdly, to repeal and withdraw all laws imposed during the past decade and to release all detainees held under those laws; fourthly, to open a ceasefire line and to allow free access to families separated for decades; fifthly, to allow the Kashmiri leadership to visit both sides of the line of control so that there could be a meaningful dialogue; sixthly, to allow trade between the two parts through recognised routes; and, finally, to recognise that the Kashmiris are the main party and that any bilateral decision or suggestion will be subject to the final approval of the people of Kashmir?
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, on introducing the Question, particularly on his excellent timing immediately following the missile launches. I, too, look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about British and international action on Kashmir and the proposals which exist. Are the Government not only encouraging discussions between the Indian and Pakistani governments but also offering to facilitate such discussions in any way acceptable to those two independent and powerful nations?
I wish to mention several other issues which cause problems between the two countries. First, the electoral system in Pakistan keeps Hindus and Christians out of mainstream elections. Four Hindu MPs and four Christian MPs are elected by those respective minorities. Therefore, MPs in the mainstream need pay no attention to these minorities because they are not elected by them. Many locals in Pakistan call that a form of apartheid. Have the Government discussed the electoral system with the Pakistani government and, if so, what reaction are they receiving?
Secondly, I turn to the blasphemy law, which many people describe as ambiguous. No one has been executed under that law, but the fundamentalists take it
1088
into their own hands and persecute the minorities. In both countries there is persecution of the minorities by fundamentalists. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could inform the House what progress is being made on the two calls issued by the EU to the Government of Pakistan, as mentioned by her in the Official Report on 13th April at col. WA 118. She referred to calls made to the Governments of India and Pakistan both on the protection of religious minorities in their respective countries and the countries' blasphemy laws.
The tension which exists between the two countries causes grave difficulties for humanitarian cross-border travel, even for ex-patriates who are working in border areas between India and Pakistan. The tension makes it almost impossible for nationals of one country to cross into another. That tension needs resolving and it is most important that the Government take every step to do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will provide encouragement on that issue.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, one would like to see the United Kingdom taking initiatives such as those suggested by the noble Lord to reduce tension between India and Pakistan and to procure a solution of the outstanding problems between them, in particular the major issue of the constitutional future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
However, to be realistic, one must look to those solutions through the bilateral negotiations which are specified in the Simla agreement and reconfirmed in the Lahore Declaration. There have been offers of help and occasionally Pakistan has suggested third-party involvement. Recent candidates included SAARC and President Mandela. However, New Delhi has always rejected foreign intervention, mediation or even facilitation.
Therefore, if we are to take any initiatives, they ought not to be focused on the substantive issues, but on the creation of more favourable conditions for a productive dialogue between the two states, and in the case of Jammu and Kashmir on the promotion of democracy and human rights so that the people themselves can freely express their views on their own political future.
That means, first and foremost, an end to the violence in Jammu and the valley. The noble Lord mentioned the report from Amnesty International, which states that the official death toll has been 20,000 since 1990, and perhaps another 350 to 400 die in custody each year. But the evidence also shows that many killings are now being perpetrated by foreigners. Political dialogue cannot thrive in the climate of fear and uncertainly which still exists.
If the Kashmiris are to express a view on the negotiations about their constitutional status, as the noble Lord rightly suggests, mechanisms must be created to allow them to communicate. An essential preliminary would be to open up the line of control, under close supervision, to ensure that all those crossing the line do so for peaceful purposes.

1089
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, also mentioned the exchanges of fire across the line of control by Indian and Pakistani forces which killed no fewer than 240 people in 1998. Each side claims that the other initiates the shelling, and the 45 military observers of UNMOGIP throw no light on the matter. As the noble Lord pointed out, its reports are not made public. They are placed in a secret filing cabinet at UN headquarters in New York.
In January, I proposed to the Indian and Pakistan Governments and the UN Secretary-General that these reports should be made public and that the Secretary-General instructs UNMOGIP to comment in each case on who initiates each round of firing. It would be able to do that irrespective of which side of the line of control they stand observing. That could act as a strong disincentive to the aggressor, whoever that may be, and it could even stop this pointless military activity altogether, saving 200 lives a year and making a huge difference to the lives of people in the Neelum Valley and Kargil.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I am grateful to my friend Lord Ahmed for introducing this Question. Since a news item appeared in one of this morning's ethnic newspapers, I have been flooded with advice, but I wish to see the matter in a completely different perspective.
I was born in India and received part of my education in what is now Pakistan. I have emotional and economic ties in the region, where I am a frequent visitor, and have also had the benefit of talking to the policy-makers for many years. I therefore have strong feelings about the aspirations of the people there.
Anyone who has been fortunate enough to know both countries will acknowledge that India and Pakistan are mature societies capable of sustaining democratic systems of government. Both nations are profoundly protective of their sovereignty and proud of their ability to conduct what they believe are independent foreign policies. It behoves us to recognise and appreciate these sensitivities.
We have seen the good will generated by the Indian Prime Minister's recent journey to Lahore, and the very warm and cordial response of the Pakistan Prime Minister. I have had the benefit of meeting the Indian Prime Minister since that visit and he was very hopeful that a solution acceptable to both countries would be found. I shall also quote the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who in a recent statement said:
"When Vajpayee visited Lahore he was very clear that he wanted to solve all the issues, including Kashmir. He was sincere".
It is useful to remember that sometimes external involvements and interventions, even those made with the best of intentions by the best of friends, can aggravate local sensitivities. India and Pakistan know well that Britain's good offices are available whenever requested.
Goodwill is not often sustained by unsolicited involvement in the affairs of friendly states. The fact is that unsolicited help is most unwelcome anywhere. In my view, the best and most welcome contribution that
1090
Britain can make in the sub-continent is to continue to support and encourage democracy. It serves the interests of the region and our national interest as well. We should continue those successful and welcome bilateral efforts and concentrate our focus on them. The goals that we seek—peace and prosperity in South Asia—are more likely to evolve through that approach than any other.
I want to raise one further issue. The Asian community in Britain is vibrant, dynamic and law-abiding, but unwanted involvement, which is seen as interference in the matters of the sub-continent, very often raises passions that divide the community, which we must avoid.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I was one of the lucky few to accompany my noble friend Lord Ahmed on his recent visit to his country of birth. It was a vivid experience and I would like to record my thanks to our hosts, the Pakistani and Azad Kashmiri Governments. Although we were given their views of the conflict, we heard enough from other sources to learn that neither side can claim to be wholly innocent or wholly to blame for the continuing low-grade conflict, with its ever-present risk of escalation now even to a nuclear level.
That threat loomed over our discussions and our journey, which took us through spectacular scenery visiting refugee camps near Muzaffarabad and the village of Chokoti on the line of control. The refugees, of whom there are 14,000, are not recognised as such by the UNHCR, which gives no assistance to Pakistan, Can my noble friend say whether the Government can find a way of overcoming that difficulty?
My overall impression was of a beautiful country but one whose development is still very backward. We were shown ambitious plans for its development in education, agriculture, infrastructure and tourism, for instance, but investment for such matters is not forthcoming because of the unstable military and political situation. The infant mortality rate is still far too high, at 99 per 1,000. Access to healthcare is difficult because some dwellings are remote, up steep mountain pathways. A vast programme of road-building and agricultural investment is needed.
However, both India and Pakistan are devoting high proportions of their resources to military expenditure, largely because of the Kashmir conflict. I suggest that the opening of the Delhi to Lahore bus route and the Lahore Declaration made by the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Avebury, has let in a chink of light. Talks to be held as a result will not exclude Kashmir. Let us hope that those discussions start with small things to build confidence, as my noble friend Lord Avebury suggested. They could include better observance of the ceasefire along the line of control and an end to the move of militants across the line of control, together with—this is very important—a full return to the rule of law in Jammu and Kashmir, especially in the valley. That would be a proper response to the damning Amnesty International report recently published on disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir.

1091
In turn, I suggest that those measures may lead to the opening up of another bus route, from Srinagar in the valley of Kashmir to Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir. That would symbolise the beginning of free movement and trade between Indian and Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. Those would be small beginnings, but small beginnings may lead to more substantial changes such as the mutual withdrawal of troops from Kashmir asked for by my noble friend. Perhaps I am an optimist, but it could be done.
7.43 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, this is a critical time for India and Pakistan and we should celebrate the successful talks which were held recently between the two Prime Ministers. I was warned when I joined this House that the issue of Kashmir almost stifles the debate on India and I hope to avoid that. We do not want to return to 1947. As one who has friends among the vast Moslem minority in India, I would do anything to enable them to live in a state free from the communal violence which occurred recently when the BJP and Shiv Sena first came to power.
It is politically important to the acting Prime Minister that he shows statesmanship at a time when the missiles are being test-fired and there is at least an appearance of an agreement on Kashmir on the horizon. All these events may be eclipsed by the new political stalemate.
We cannot be nostalgic for India's non-aligned, anti-nuclear stance under Nehru, which has long given way to a potentially stronger, more technologically advanced country desperate for international respect, foreign investment and nuclear club membership. In spite of what has been said, today India needs some defence. She appears even more vulnerable than ever to aggression along her northern border.
The big five nuclear "great ghosts", or Panch Mahabhoot as they are known in India, see things quite differently. Japan and the United States are irritated. Our own Government find it hard to reconcile the India of long-range missiles with the nation of 1 billion mostly very poor people for whom we have budgeted a 50 per cent increase to £130 million in aid in the latest public expenditure plans up to 2002.
As one who has experienced India's poverty, I find the arms race in India and in Pakistan both expensive and alarming. I hope that the Indian Government, having swallowed their nuclear pride, will soon swiftly return to their stated basic aims of raising living standards, reforming the economy and restoring relations with Pakistan.
One thing that seems to be agreed is that the two Prime Ministers have developed a mutual respect which goes a lot further than a frontier bus service. The Lahore Declaration demonstrated a willingness to talk on both sides which had not been present for many years. They certainly do not need Tony Blair to help them, as was suggested before Easter in another place by Tom Cox, the Member of Parliament for Tooting. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that since our own bilateral relations with India have not always been easy, we
1092
would do well to support the status quo and the present trend of careful negotiations behind the scenes. We will not necessarily get the same from a return of the Congress government.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmed for instigating this timely debate, in which I take part with great trepidation. As a British parliamentarian I am always mindful of the need for—and I only support—a considered role in international conflict resolution, especially given our relationship within the historical context.
Recent peaceful resolutions of conflict have come about only when both sides have sat down together. One does not need to look further than Northern Ireland, South Africa, Israel and Palestine. Mindful of the details given by my noble friend Lord Ahmed, I hope that the Minister will examine, through the appropriate channels, the allegations regarding the plight of the refugees and in particular the torture and alleged rape of women and children.
Whatever we do in regard to this conflict, I hope that we remember our imperial past. Any role must be restricted to that of a facilitator, but that must be on the basis that both parties ask the British Government for that intervention.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too shall make an extremely brief intervention in this important debate. I want to thank my noble friend for raising this debate. I know that the subject is extremely important to him and that he has done a great amount of work in his short time in this House in raising the issue on the Floor of the House and in the Corridors.
We have heard that India and Pakistan have been at war three times since they gained independence and we have heard that Kashmir is the single most contentious issue between those two countries. I thank my noble friend for sending me the Amnesty International report about disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir.
It appears that the real substance of the debate is how much we can help India and Pakistan resolve their differences bilaterally and whether we can help provide a forum in which they can reach that accommodation. On listening to the debate so far, I agree with my noble friend Lord Paul that it is an extremely sensitive issue. Nevertheless, that does not absolve us of the responsibility of doing whatever we can to help.
I thought it might be helpful for me to make a comment slightly off the beat of other noble Lords. As many noble Lords will be aware, I have a connection with the Council of Europe. It is not too fanciful to point out that both Azerbaijan and Russia, which are members of the Council of Europe, are far closer geographically speaking than they are to this country.
It is worth pointing out too that the whole ethos of the Council of Europe is precisely geared to reconciling the problems between minority groups and democratically elected governments. The very foundation and the most profound beliefs of that institution involve trying to

1093
recognise the dilemma that exists between those problems and the European Convention on Human Rights, which last year we incorporated into British law. Considering the practical implications of adopting the European Convention on Human Rights in this country and other member states of the Council of Europe may be of some assistance in trying to find solutions to help the Indian and Pakistan Governments.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome this debate. There is a danger that debates of this nature could become one-sided, but I am delighted at the number of contributions that noble Lords have made on this subject. I also welcome Her Majesty's Government's repeated assurances that it is primarily for India and Pakistan to reach a solution over Kashmir and to resolve the tension between the two countries.
Following the meeting in September between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan in New York, there has been steady progress in improving relations between the two countries. I welcome that. We ought not to destabilise that process by outside intervention. The two Prime Ministers decided that their Foreign Secretaries could meet to have a composite dialogue on all outstanding matters, including Kashmir. This is an ongoing process, with the next round of meetings in May and June in Delhi and Islamabad. That is certainly a welcome sign.
There have been a lot of further developments since the meetings of the Prime Ministers. There have been trade agreements between India and Pakistan. The Indian Prime Minister undertook a historic visit to Pakistan on a bus journey. All of us would welcome that, especially those of us who travel on Indian or Pakistan buses and who realise how difficult those journeys can be. The Lahore Declaration, a landmark for peace and security between the two nations, was signed in February 1999. That included the taking of immediate steps to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.
The two Prime Ministers also decided to raise the level of periodic interaction at foreign minister level. A number of initiatives emerged from that. Interaction at parliamentary level picked up. An India-Pakistan Chamber of Commerce has now been set up. The visa regime between the two countries has also been relaxed and people are now able to travel. Prisoners from both countries have been released following the meeting of the two Prime Ministers. In spite of the bilateral agreement on pre-notification of flights not yet having been signed, both India and Pakistan informed each other in advance of the recent missile tests.
That is a clear and progressive path of improvement in relations between India and Pakistan. There is a shared desire by the leadership of both countries to resolve all outstanding issues through the process of bilateral dialogue which is already in place. It is also heartening to note that, following the recent developments in India in which the ruling party lost a vote of confidence in parliament, the Pakistan Government announced their intention to continue their
1094
dialogue with India whichever party comes to power. That is a sign of mature leadership and that is what we should be supporting.
Under those circumstances, all well-meaning friends in the international community of nations should wish India and Pakistan the best in their current endeavour and should refrain from any act or suggestion which may only serve to derail the two countries from their chosen path of enhancing peace and security for both. We must influence the confidence-building measures aimed at improving the security environment and refrain from intervention and interference in other nations' internal affairs.
It is right that we should stress our commitment to human rights—wherever, whenever and by whomsoever they are abused. It is unfortunate that we only have one-sided quotations on that subject. Let me read what the Amnesty International report said: "In 1997, Amnesty International documented how such groups have, over the years, harassed, Intimidated, tortured and killed civilians. Failing to distinguish between military and civilian targets, their targets have included civilian men, women and children, journalists and members of the Hindu minority".
We are dealing with the world's largest democracy in India and a stable democratic government in Pakistan. This morning I picked up a report from Reuters from Muzaffarabad which quotes a well-known militant outfit indicating that recent bilateral relations have had an adverse effect on militancy. That is good and that is what we should encourage. We need a language of restraint. We should work towards removing sanctions against both countries. Selective use of one-sided information can only damage this process and may also damage good community relations in this country.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for providing the opportunity for this House to give consideration to the important Question he poses.
There is indeed an urgent need for a fresh initiative from the international community. In the past few weeks we have seen the competition between India and Pakistan grow as the testing of nuclear weapon carriers has taken place. The thought of what might happen if the state of tension between the two countries is not ended is terrifying, not just for the good people of both those nations, but for the whole region and possibly the world.
As my noble friend Lord Ahmed said, central to the difficulties that stand in the way of better relations between India and Pakistan is the unresolved issue of Kashmir. Later this year we shall mark the 51st anniversary of the Security Council resolution that provided for the holding of a plebiscite after demilitarisation and the establishment of a plebiscite administration. The fact that no plebiscite has taken place is well known to your Lordships' House. Many efforts have been made over a long period of tune to draw attention to the need for the United Nations resolution to be implemented.

1095
The tension between Pakistan and India that my noble friend Lord Ahmed described will remain until the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir is resolved. In these few moments this evening it is not possible to record the many false starts and hopes that the people of Kashmir have lived through over the past half century. The time is right for a fresh initiative. Any new initiative should come from the United Nations. Though we bear a historic responsibility for our part in the events of the 1947–48 period, we should be seeking an international initiative to bring this too-long conflict to an end.
Surely we have seen enough in recent times in other parts of the world to realise that unresolved disputes can lead to dreadful consequences. There have been wars, United Nations debates, pledges—some going back to those made by Lord Mountbatten and Nehru in 1947; pledges that clearly indicated an acceptance of the principle that the people of Kashmir must have the right to decide their own future by the recognised democratic method of plebiscite or referendum. That principle of self-determination must be pursued by the United Nations.
Like other noble Lords, I was privileged to go with my noble friend Lord Ahmed to Pakistan and Kashmir. Time does not allow me to go into the detail that I should like to record this evening and report to the House. We visited a camp that I should like to describe. It was late afternoon, exactly two weeks ago today. I sat in a place where I could hear the joyous sound of children laughing and playing as children do all over the world. Even though it was late in the afternoon, it was very hot. The smell of wood fires burning and birds singing brought back happy memories to me of childhood camping.
It was the sight of a small child looking out of a hut that quickly brought me back to reality; a little face expressing the sadness of where we were. We were sitting in one of the 20 refugee camps in Kashmir which currently house over 14,000 people—people who thought they were lucky with their lot. Unfortunately time does not allow me to go into the detail. Others have referred to the 65,000 people killed and 27,000 wounded. I could go on to talk of the 7,000 who have been sexually incapacitated through torture and the 7,000 children between the ages of seven and 10 who have been raped. Those and many other stories we heard are the result of the unresolved conflict that is Kashmir today.
Perhaps I may spend a few moments explaining that the reason I am speaking this evening is that the representative of the refugees concluded his presentation to us of the plight of his people with a request that those who visited should remember that in his and other camps were mothers, fathers and children who looked to the international community to give a voice to their plight. He said if there is a pain in one hand, there is a pain in the whole body. The Question posed by my noble friend Lord Ahmed this evening provides us with the opportunity to fulfil that request.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sorry, I must remind your Lordships that we are acutely short of time in this debate. Noble Lords must try to keep inside their time limit.
8 p.m.
Lord Evans of Watford: My Lords, much of my prepared speech has already been covered by other noble Lords. I shall not, therefore, detain the House with unnecessary repetition. I also had the privilege of visiting Azad Kashmir a few weeks ago. On my visit I was impressed, I was shocked and I was deeply moved.
I was impressed by the dignity and friendliness of the people. They are very pro-British and look to us to help them. After all, we were very much involved in the root causes of the dispute, when a mainly Moslem state was handed to a Hindu democracy. We certainly, therefore, have to bear our share of the responsibility.
I was shocked to see the absolute poverty and the very sad conditions in the refugee camps. As a grandfather of three young children, I was deeply moved to see the state of their poor children. I wonder what future they can look forward to, and this, of course, is partly up to us. I have the feeling that things will get worse before they get better, but I hope that time will prove me wrong.
The recent testing of intermediate ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads is obviously a major cause for concern, not just for India and Pakistan but for the whole world. It seems to me that we are facing the real threat of a nuclear holocaust, and I call upon the Government to put the greatest pressure possible on both India and Pakistan to meet to resolve their differences peaceably.
I was also very encouraged to read the Prime Minister's words last week, talking about Kosovo, when he said:
"This is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated".
What is right in the Balkans must surely be right in south Asia. Ethnic cleansing is now going on in Kashmir—killings, torture, arson, expulsion and gang rapes of women. Apart from the appalling acts of rape and the far worse acts of gang rape, the poor women concerned, once violated, have no chance of marriage. It is a terrible situation.
I support the Kashmiri people's right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations resolution and I hope that they are successful in their negotiations. That said, in reality I believe the United States Government have the greatest chance of persuading India and Pakistan to resolve their differences. I urge Her Majesty's Government to do all that they can to help.
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, we should base ourselves on the proposition that there can be no good relations between India and Pakistan until and unless there is a fair and equitable solution to the problems of Kashmir. The Government and the Foreign Secretary have stated many, many times their commitment to a moral and ethical foreign policy. I therefore urge the Minister that the Foreign Office and the Government should make forthwith a strong and effective commitment to an equitable solution for Kashmir, which, unlike Kosovo, is an area where Britain has both a moral responsibility and strong historic links.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and his noble friends Lord Clarke and Lord Evans have pointed to—that is, their great concern about the continuing war in Kashmir, which when the spring comes tends to become worse as the snows melt from the Himalayas and it becomes easier to continue warfare.
I also recognise that there is a good deal in what they say about some of the human rights violations. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and others have said, it is also important to recognise that the accusations are made both ways and that there is some reason to believe that there has been support by the Pakistani intelligence services for the training of guerrillas who subsequently infiltrate into the Indian part of Kashmir, with some considerable suffering and victimisation of Hindu civilians.
I would not wish to make some Solomon-like judgment in a situation with which we are all too familiar—that is, Northern. Ireland and now Kosovo—a situation of mutual hatreds, of historical vicious circles and of the great difficulty of trying to reach a mutual agreement.
It is of course true that the testing of weapons by both Pakistan and India has made the dangers of a mistake over Kashmir much more serious than they would otherwise have been. But, like many who have spoken, I take great comfort from the coming together at last of the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and of India. The fact that they have been able to meet, that they issued the Lahore Declaration, that they have established a bus line between them, that India has now entered into a contract for natural gas supplies from Pakistan, that there is now a discussion about other ways in which to ease their relations and, as my noble friend Lord Avebury pointed out, the very important fact that each gave advance notice to the other of a missile test are all signs of growing maturity and growing tolerance between the two nations.
My personal view is that it would not be helpful for Britain to try to intervene and suggest that it should be an arbiter. Some will remember the early visit by the Foreign Secretary to India, where just such an approach was strongly repudiated. I doubt whether repeating it would be much more successful.
1098
I believe that as a country we should give every possible support to the establishment of better bilateral relations. We should indicate our willingness to help in any way we can the economic recovery of Kashmir, We should do our very best to encourage both countries to sign the nuclear test covenants, which would assist us in de-escalating the tension that exists today. Here I refer particularly to the comprehensive nuclear test ban. I notice that only today Prime Minister Prirnakov of Russia has strongly advocated to Pakistan and India that they should sign the nuclear test ban treaty. I believe that that is the way in which we should help and encourage them both. I do not believe that our intervention in the bilateral talks now well established would be helpful to either country or in the end to the cause of peace in Kashmir.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, on initiating this important debate—important and timely for several reasons, not least as the two countries in question cover one-fifth of the world's population, with approximately 1.5 billion people.
I fully support the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 are one of the defining events of what is still called the post-Cold-War era. The weakening of the non-proliferation regime, the humiliation of America's vast intelligence gathering machinery, the intensification of geopolitical rivalry in Asia and the risk of destabilising, copycat effects from the Middle East to the northern Pacific are all major consequences, either actual or potential, of India and Pakistan's nuclear "outing".
What can we do to establish a stable nuclear deterrent relationship between India and Pakistan, with particular emphasis on the role which the outside world can play in producing the least malign outcome in this respect? The issue is of major importance, as an unstable nuclear relationship could lead to a catastrophic nuclear conflict.
In the short time available I will confine my few words to India and Pakistan and not go into the future nuclear relationship of India and China. This is a deliberate choice. In a negative sense, this choice does not imply that China's nuclear policy has no bearing on India's policies; indeed, one of the major impediments to a stable deterrent relationship between India and Pakistan is involved here. To alleviate the current state of tension, we need to assess their future nuclear relationship.
India and Pakistan are not nuclear newcomers. In 1974 New Delhi detonated a nuclear fission device nearly the size of the Hiroshima bomb. This was the product of distinguished research in nuclear affairs by India since the 1940s, to which China's nuclear blast of 1964 gave a major impetus.
As a young parliamentarian in 1964, Vajpayee, India's Prime Minister, claimed that,
"The answer to an atom bomb is an atom bomb, nothing else".
India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, stated in 1946, before independence:
"I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes … But if India is threatened, she will inevitably, try to

1099
defend herself by all means at her disposal". As for Pakistan, its excursions into the nuclear realm appear to have begun in earnest immediately after its defeat in the war with India in 1970–71 and to have accelerated strongly following India's 1974 test.
As far back as 1967, Ali Bhutto, Pakistan's future Prime Minister, wrote:
"If Pakistan restricts … her nuclear programme, it would … enable India to blackmail Pakistan with her nuclear technology".
The simmering conflict in Kashmir cannot be forgotten. It is to some degree reassuring that a major inadvertent escalation has not occurred. The first and not least important step that we should recognise is that solutions must be found by India and Pakistan themselves. Hectoring and lecturing, particularly from the established nuclear-weapon states, will be counter-productive, as they are all well equipped intellectually to understand the challenges. Overt pressure to renounce their capability would backfire. Sanctions will not lead either country to abandon its capability and would have a disproportionate effect on the poor.
I seek assurances from the Minister this evening that Her Majesty's Government will look at positive measures whereby we could play a part in diffusing the tension in Kashmir and, on the economic front, I urge them not to support sanctions and not to veto World Bank or IMF credits.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Ahmed for raising this subject. It is of great interest to many people in the United Kingdom and, as we have seen this evening, it raises a number of passionately held views.
Links between the United Kingdom and India and Pakistan are deep-rooted and long-standing. They are embedded in the fabric of British society today, through trade and development and through the close personal ties which nearly 2 million Britons have with the sub-continent. As my noble friend Lord Paul said, they have very strong views about the bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan.
The origins of the tensions between India and Pakistan can be traced back to the time of independence in 1947. There have been three wars between India and Pakistan—in 1948, 1965 and 1971—all of which, to a greater or lesser extent, have been about Kashmir.
In 1947, Kashmir was a princely state. It was up to such states to determine whether they should accede to India or Pakistan. By the time of the British withdrawal, the Maharajah of Kashmir had yet to make his decision. Faced with an uprising in his western territories, he acceded to India, an action which has remained controversial to this day. Indian forces were sent to assist him, but fighting soon widened into a more general war between India and Pakistan. The United Nations arranged a ceasefire, dividing the state along what is approximately the current line of control. I wish to return to the points made about that by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in a few moments. Subsequently, Jammu and Kashmir was provided with an exceptional degree of autonomy under Article 370 of the constitution.
1100
However, in 1989 violent unrest broke out in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Large numbers of Indian security forces were sent to restore order. The local government was removed. Human rights abuses occurred. The state remained under central rule until the Indian Government held state elections in 1996 and a national conference government, under Farooq Abdullah, took power. However, militancy still continues in the state.
Against that history of conflict and tension, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, we have welcomed the resumption of talks last year between India and Pakistan on the issues between them, including Kashmir. The talks in Lahore between the Prime Ministers, Sharif and Vajpayee, were significant, as my noble friend Lord Paul pointed out. That was the first time that an Indian Prime Minister had visited Pakistan in ten years, travelling on the inaugural bus service from Delhi to Lahore.
The launching of the bus service is one of the welcome confidence-building measures that has been seen in recent months, as was the Test cricket series held in India in February.
There are measures that we have welcomed, and they should not be overlooked. They may seem relatively trivial but they are important in those confidence-building measures. Any measure which creates that confidence and warmth between India and Pakistan can only be of benefit to both countries and the region as a whole, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby pointed out.
Hence, we have welcomed the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers' joint statement issued last month reiterating the importance of the Lahore Declaration and agreeing to build upon it, through meetings of experts, for implementation of the declaration.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed raised specific points about family visits, promoting meaningful dialogue and trade. We welcome any action by India and Pakistan which eases the contacts between their peoples. The Prime Ministers, at Lahore, agreed that the two sides would hold consultations with a view to liberalising the visa and travel regimes and reaffirmed their commitment to the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation as a means of accelerating growth, social progress and cultural development—all very important points.
We hope that the next Indian government will take forward the bilateral dialogue and that further talks on topics discussed last November will indeed be held, as was declared in the joint statement. As my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead said, good relations between India and Pakistan are important not only for themselves but for regional stability. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we hope that both countries can maintain the recent dialogue and build on the meeting in Lahore in relation to a number of different bilateral issues.
Of course, Kashmir is one of the longest-running disputes in the world. There is still no resolution after 50 years. The continuing conflict between militants and the Indian security forces affects individual, ordinary Kashmiris. Many have died and many have been forced

1101
to leave their homes. There has been serious violence and human rights violations. Sadly, those continue today.
We remain deeply concerned about the situation there. We condemn acts of terrorism and abuses of human rights that bring suffering to the people. We also call for an end to all external support for any violence in Kashmir. My right honourable friend Derek Fatchett raised human rights issues with the Indian Home Minister, Mr L. K. Advani, in November last year and urged in particular an improvement in the human rights situation in Kashmir. The Indian authorities can be in no doubt about our commitment to human rights. We shall also continue to impress upon them the importance of bringing wrongdoers to justice and the benefits of greater transparency in investigating abuses.
Against that background, we have welcomed the steps taken by the Indian Government in recent years to address human rights concerns. One step forward was the establishment of a national human rights commission in 1993. We have welcomed also the decision by many states, including Jammu and Kashmir, to form their own human rights commissions, another very important point.
I assure my noble friend Lord Ahmed that we shall also continue to urge the Indian authorities to allow more visits by international human rights groups, including Amnesty International and the United Nations rapporteurs to India. Officials from our High Commission in Delhi visit Kashmir regularly and returned just last week from their most recent visit.
Regarding a further point raised by my noble friend, it is, we believe, for India to determine its own legislation in the face of continuing violence from militant groups. We welcome the decision by the Indian authorities to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit prisons in Jammu and Kashmir, another very important point, as I hope your Lordships will agree.
We have long urged both countries to find a just and lasting solution, acceptable to the population of Kashmir on both sides of the line of control, and we shall continue to do so. As my noble friend mentioned, any solution, if it is to last, must involve and reflect the view of the people living in Kashrnir.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised important points about the line of control. I understand that the noble Lord has put ideas on demilitarising the line of control to the UN Secretary-General. We support the aim of making the line of control safer for ordinary people and hope that, through the bilateral process under way in India and Pakistan, some progress will be made in that regard.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, also raised the question of attacks on religious minorities. I hope that the noble Viscount will be reassured by the fact that we have made clear to both India and Pakistan that we are concerned about the recent attacks on religious minorities. India has high world standing for its respect for religious diversity. We trust that the actions announced by the Indian Government will bring the
1102
attackers to justice and prevent further attacks. The Foreign Secretary and Mr. Fatchett have both raised the issue at a very high level with their interlocutors.
The Pakistani constitution protects the rights of religious minorities, but reports of persecution by groups of individuals persist. In February my right honourable friend Mr. Fatchett urged the Minister of Law in Pakistan to ensure that the laws protecting minorities would be fully implemented.
A number of your Lordships have raised questions about missile testing, notably my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. We regret that India and Pakistan have chosen to conduct missile tests. We continue to believe that developing nuclear weapons and missiles systems is not in the interests of India or Pakistan. We urge both India and Pakistan to adhere unconditionally to the relevant non-proliferation regimes and not to deploy nuclear weapons or delivery systems. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said on these points. We need the two countries to continue to build trust and confidence. To do that they have to tackle the root causes of the tension that lies between them.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Evans of Watford dwelt largely on the issues concerning poverty and aid. We have substantial development assistance programmes for poverty reduction in both India and Pakistan. In India we are spending about £100 million this year supporting programmes in education, health, water, sanitation, energy, urban poverty and rural development. In Pakistan we are spending about £20 million this year, directed primarily at improving basic social services such as education, health, reproductive health, water supplies and sanitation. Much of this aid effort will be aimed at women and girls.
From the diversity of contributions that we have had in your Lordships' House this evening we can see that there are no magic solutions to the issues which divide India and Pakistan. We applaud the personal commitments made by the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers to intensify efforts to resolve bilateral issues, including the difficult issue of Kashmir. It is important that both countries work to capitalise on Lahore and to make substantive progress on the issues between them. As my noble friend Lord Paul so wisely pointed out, after all, they are mature democracies. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that the governments of both countries are well aware that we remain willing to help, but any offer of help, whether from the United Kingdom or others, must be acceptable to both countries if it is to have any chance of success. In that respect I agree very strongly with the point put forward by my noble friend Lady Uddin in a short but very telling address to your Lordships.
We wish India and Pakistan success in their search for solutions to this and other bilateral issues. We hope that they can build on the meeting in Lahore and that they will maintain the momentum to reach a just and lasting solution.

House of Lords Bill
8.23 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 6:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

LIFE PEERAGES FOR DISQUALIFIED PEERS
(" .—(1) A peerage under the Life Peerages Act 1958 may be conferred on a person notwithstanding that he is disqualified under section 1 from attending, sitting or voting in the House of Lords, and, accordingly, section 1(4) of that Act shall not apply in relation to any such person.
(2) Where a peerage is conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 on a person who is disqualified under section 1, that person—

(a) shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons in the title (or the most senior title) by virtue of which he is also disqualified, and

(b) shall sit not as a new Peer but in right of that title.")

The noble Lord said: This new clause is designed to be helpful and constructive. I hope that the Government will receive it in that sense. As the Committee will be aware, this Bill provides in Clause 1 that,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
In my view the Government have quite rightly taken the view that certain noble Lords—in particular, those who have been described as hereditary Peers of the first creation—are here on the basis of their own merits and therefore ought to be allowed to continue in the new House. In those circumstances I understand that the Prime Minister has written to nine noble Lords who are hereditary Peers of the first creation saying that they will be made life Peers and thus able to continue in the subsequently reformed House. They will be made life Peers under the terms of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
But it would seem that the Government have overlooked Section 1(4) of that Act, which I shall take the liberty of quoting to the Committee. It says,
"Nothing in this section"—
there are only two sections in that Act—
"shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law".
All hereditary Peers are to be disqualified from sitting in this House by law exactly as the Life Peerages Act 1958 describes. Therefore, it seems to me beyond doubt that the award of life peerages to noble Lords who are presently hereditary Peers in this House and about to be excluded, is not in accordance with the law.
It may well be that a number of noble Lords will receive their life peerages before the House of Lords Bill becomes an Act, if it does. Apparently, it is not intended to go beyond that. It seems to me beyond peradventure that after the House of Lords Bill becomes an Act it will not be possible to confer a life peerage on any former hereditary Peer. We will not be former hereditary Peers in the strict sense. We shall still be hereditary Peers, but we shall no longer have the right to sit or vote in this House. That prohibition is precisely described in the Life Peerages Act 1958 in the way that I have already stated. I am certain that that is not the
1104
Government's intention. It cannot be their intention that all 700 or so of us who will be leaving this House, if the Bill becomes an Act in due course, will never again be entitled to be considered for the award of a life peerage. But I believe that that is the effect of the 1958 Act taken in conjunction with the Bill that we are now considering. It is for that reason that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I begin by stating that our intention here is to be entirely helpful to the Government. In commentary about the Weatherill amendment, much has been made, for example, of the proposition that Peers of first creation should be made life Peers. I make no judgment as to the merits or otherwise of so doing. However, the reality, as my noble friend has explained, is that Section 1(4) of the Life Peerages Act, on strict interpretation, disabuses the Government from being able to deliver that proposition.
On the enactment of this Bill, as drafted, we must suppose that all hereditary Peers will be disqualified from membership of this House—an inelegant and inaccurate phrase in its own terms, but I shall leave that—by force of statute. That being so, within the terms of the relevant section of the Life Peerages Act, I simply repeat the point made by my noble friend. No hereditary Peer, let alone just Peers of first creation and whatever their individual merits, will be allowed,
"to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House".
Of course, I accept that the party on the Benches opposite has long argued that the right of the hereditary Peers to attend this House is wrong in principle. But I had never thought that the intent of that principle stretched as far as saying "never, ever again". I repeat that on a strict interpretation that would be the effect of the Bill without this amendment.
In that context I add a further thought about which I am not entirely certain. It seems to me that a statutory bar on a particular class of person attending a House of Parliament may just fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. We can be certain that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal made a statement on the face of the Bill in all honesty. But, in all seriousness, I wonder what happens in a set of circumstances where the veracity of such statements can be called into question as a result of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I conclude by saying that this really is a matter that needs to be addressed. As far as I am aware, neither I nor my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is particularly wedded to our solution of the problem. However, we can optimistically hope that the Government will be persuaded to give the issue their due attention.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that my noble friends have raised two interesting points. If I understand them correctly, I think that both require the Government's attention. It would be fair to say that one of those points is not hugely serious, but the other

1105
could be. The first is the question of life peerages conferred on people who are hereditary Peers and therefore are currently earls, marquesses or even dukes and whether or not they would be summoned here as life Peers but be able to use the title to which they are entitled under their hereditary peerage, although not at the stage we are discussing as Members of your Lordships' House.
I can give no better example of an hereditary Peer who is very active in the House than the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber this evening; but, nevertheless, I shall pay tribute to him. I presume that the Liberal Democrat Party has some sense and that it will ensure that the noble Earl continues to play a part in this Chamber. I would find it extremely difficult if I had to teach myself not to collar him in the corridor and had to collar another noble Lord. Indeed, we ought to be clear about what we will have to do. It may not be the most serious point in the Bill, but it is one that is well worth clarifying.
A more important point is the one raised by my noble friends; that it may be impossible to give the noble Earl a life peerage because, by the way that the Bill is written, he may well be disqualified from being a Member of your Lordships' House. I say that because he will remain the holder of an hereditary peerage. I give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Longford: I am sure that I have misunderstood the noble Lord. However, speaking as someone who was given an hereditary peerage years ago and who has now been offered and accepted a life peerage, I do not get the point. To be quite honest, I think that it is all nonsense.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope to persuade the noble Earl that it is not nonsense and that it is an important point. The noble Earl has been offered a life peerage now; he is not currently disqualified because the Bill has not yet been enacted. As I understand the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, we are actually talking about something that will happen on the far side of the Bill when it does become an Act. I am happy to hear that the noble Earl will remain with us, but he is not going to be disqualified before he accepts his life peerage. That is the point. On the other hand, after the Bill becomes an Act, hereditary Peers will be disqualified from sitting in the House. The probe is whether they will be able to sit here as life Peers. It is a reasonable probe and I hope that the Government will be able to clarify the position under the law. I also hope that they will carefully consider the question of style.
Viscount Cranborne: I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that the Committee ought to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. It would be extremely helpful if the Government could confirm the suspicion held by my noble friend that it may be difficult to award a life peerage after the abolition of an hereditary Peer's right to sit in this House. Presumably the Government will be able to confirm to the Committee whether that is so: either they
1106
will accept this amendment of my noble friend, or a version of it, or they will confirm that it is technically possible for an hereditary Peer to hold a life peerage simultaneously with an hereditary peerage. I imagine that that would indicate that any hereditary Peer who was offered a life peerage would have to be made a life Peer before the Bill becomes law.
I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on this, admittedly, detailed matter. But, after all, we are in Committee and such details are what Committee stages are mostly about. I say that bearing in mind what has been said on a number of occasions this afternoon and this evening by Members on the Government Front Bench about Second Reading speeches at this stage.
I turn now to what perhaps may be the rather more frivolous part of my noble friend's amendment; namely, subsection (2). This is possibly a matter of convenience to which my noble friend has addressed himself. In my own case, one of the attractions of accepting a Writ of Acceleration, rather than the life peerage that I was originally offered, was partly the enjoyment that I was afforded by taking part in a rather arcane practice. That, of course, is a self-indulgence which no other Member of your Lordships' House has ever succumbed to but which I am afraid I did. However, it was also something which I believe had a practical, if rather personal, purpose.
The Committee will appreciate that, if I had taken a life peerage, I would, on my father's death, have had to endure a change of name on top of the number that I had already endured. The thought of changing my name a third time on top of the number of times that I would have to do it in any event made me think that the arcane device of a Writ of Acceleration was very attractive. In that way, I could at least call myself Cranborne for a number of years until my father died, which, thank goodness, is some time ahead yet.
For the same reason, I suspect that any hereditary Peers who are fortunate enough to be offered a life peerage would, for reasons of convenience and for their own purposes—as well as for purposes of recognition among those who have political—
The Earl of Longford: Can the noble Viscount repeat what he just said?
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise to the noble Earl. Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been in making my point.
However, it occurred to me that it would have been a convenience for anyone who is used to using one name not to have to change it yet again, especially if, like me, one is getting increasingly advanced in years and has become attached to the name one ends up with. Indeed, ambitious politicians may prefer their public to know them by one name rather than the public having to get used to knowing them by another.
The Earl of Longford: The whole thing about titles is pretty phoney. I am called "The Earl of Longford" but I am not entitled to sit here as such. It is an Irish

1107
title like that of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I repeat: it is all phoney. I cannot understand what all this bother is about.
Viscount Cranborne: The noble Earl makes my point for me even better than I could. I am not making some legalistic point. I am trying to persuade the Committee that this is a practical, if rather selfish, matter. Whether one sits as "Lord Cranborne" or as "Lord Hatfield of Newtown" matters not a bit to me. However, I find it tiresome to have to change one's name more than is absolutely necessary. Purely for convenience for the very small number of noble Lords who are affected by this, it would be helpful to have reassurance along the lines suggested by my noble friends. As the noble Earl clearly implies, this is not a matter of huge importance but it is one which, nevertheless, is perhaps more appropriate for the Committee stage than Second Reading.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may attempt to clarify the point a little by reading out the text of Section 1(4) of the Life Peerages Act 1958, which I am sure the Government Front Bench has readily to hand. The section says:
"Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law".
The fundamental point here is not that an hereditary Peer could not become a life Peer; indeed, that is not at issue. What is at issue is that the force of statute of the Bill we are considering will disqualify hereditary Peers by statute; therefore they could not be in receipt of a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords. That is the fundamental point.
Lord Desai: When I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, speak, I recalled my schooldays. One of the great difficulties of reading British history is that the names keep on changing. Someone was known as Wood, then became Irwin, and then became Halifax. I thought they changed names to make people forget what they had done, as it were. One could have several careers in that way!
I may be getting this all wrong but I presume that the Bill states that no one is entitled through a hereditary peerage to attend this Chamber. However, retaining that title, the same person could under another title attend as a life Peer. The Bill does not prevent that, as far as I can see. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, may not be able to attend this Chamber as a hereditary Peer, but if he was to be called by some other excellent term—perhaps we should call him Lord Hatfield—he could attend under that name. The same person can have different persona as far as the law is concerned. That has always been the case. I do not know what the fuss is about. Obviously when the noble Viscount becomes Lord Hatfield he may want to be known as Lord Cranborne, and I am sure we shall indulge him in that.
Viscount Cranborne: As usual, I did not make myself clear. All I was suggesting is that I have no
1108
objection to sitting as one thing and being called another. All I seek—as my noble friend seeks in the proposed new subsection (2) of his amendment, as I understand it—is that this would be permitted as a matter of convenience. I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Northesk that the more important part of this technical amendment is contained in the proposed new subsection (1).
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My noble friend has just given me a look.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I intended to be helpful and also to commit political suicide at the same time by saying that I think I can shed some light on this matter. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to reassure him with regard to that point. As regards the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on the proposed new subsection (2)(b) of the amendment, my understanding has always been that Peers simply use their senior title. In the case of any hereditary Peer who subsequently receives a life peerage, that life peerage would be junior and therefore he would continue to sit in this Chamber under his hereditary title.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: In the hope that I too may attract a look from the noble Baroness I venture the opinion that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne was absolutely justified in claiming that he was putting forward this amendment in order to assist the Government and indeed the whole Committee. By way of brief preface I must say that I feel, not for the first time, much sympathy for the noble Earl, Lord Longford. However, if I may say so, it is all right for him because he has his life peerage. However, those who are concerned about the point of this amendment worry about what will happen when someone who is currently a hereditary Peer and who loses that by virtue of this Bill—if it is enacted—is subsequently sought to be made (if I may use that horrible syntax) a life Peer. My noble friend's point is that that proposal will be caught by Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act, which states,
"Nothing … shall enable any person … to attend the House of Lords … at any time when disqualified therefor by law".
Let us suppose that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had to wait a little for his life peerage until such time as this Bill is enacted, he would then be disqualified by law. Therefore under the terms of the 1958 Act he would be unable to be made a life Peer.
In case the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, were to say that no one will be disqualified, one needs reassurance in the light of the terms of Clause 2 of the present Bill, which speaks of disqualification. Clause 2 states:
"The holder of a hereditary peerage shall not be disqualified by virtue of that peerage for—

(a) voting at elections … or being elected as, a member of that House".

1109
Therefore disqualification is a concept which is known to this Bill. I think therefore that my noble friend has a real point here. No doubt it can be put right if it is found to be a good point. It is proper to raise it in Committee.
I share the sadness of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, at having lost his hereditary right to sit in this Chamber by virtue of an Irish peerage. I myself have a family—
The Earl of Longford: I am afraid the noble and learned Lord has the whole thing completely wrong. I am not here because of an Irish peerage; I am on the same footing as Lord Lucan.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I was trying to make that point indistinctly; namely, that the noble Earl was rather sad that Earls of Longford are no longer entitled to sit qua Earls of Longford.
The Earl of Longford: They never have been!
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Irish Peers were once entitled to sit in the House of Lords. At any rate, if they were not, they should have been. As someone who is connected to the ancient Irish barony of Fermoy, I have an interest, which I declare. It was said of one of my forebears,
"The noble Lord Fermoy
He is a beautiful boy
'Twas said in his youth
He tried to tell truth
He failed and now he don't try".
Baroness Strange: There is not really much confusion here. I started life as Drummond; I got married and became Evans. We moved into the family house and became Drummond again, and then I became Strange. The only confusion is when my husband and I share a hotel room together under different names!
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that contribution and to all noble Lords who have spoken on the subject of the supposed looks that I have cast. I shall attempt to study my notes with religious intensity. I hope I shall be able to explain to the noble Lord and the noble Earl that although I realise their amendment is designed to be helpful and constructive, I think that probably the first part is unnecessary. I believe I can convince them that the remaining part is also probably unnecessary, if not unworkable. If I do so without using too many double negatives, I hope noble Lords will understand, because they are right in saying that the matter depends on issues of disqualification.
There is nothing in this Bill which removes the right of hereditary Peers to be Members of the House of Lords. From being uniquely qualified for membership, they will not become uniquely disqualified. The Bill of course removes the right to be a Member by virtue of the hereditary peerage. Membership by virtue of any other legitimate route remains perfectly possible. Indeed we have always made it clear that we intended this to be the effect of this Bill. Before the noble Lord,
1110
Lord Weatherill, and the noble Viscount suggested various ways in which a number of hereditary Peers might remain in the Chamber, the Government had always made it clear informally—before we reached the point of discussing the details of the Bill—that we expected that some of those who would now be legitimate candidates, and would fall under the so-called Weatherill amendment, were likely to be offered life peerages, as noble Lords have said. We have been given some examples of that.
We have already offered life peerages to hereditary Peers of first creation. As has been pointed out, they are under the net, in the sense that they have already been offered those life peerages. We would not have done that if the effect of the Bill was to make it impossible. I assure the Committee that we were aware of Section 1(4) of the Life Peerages Act, to which the noble Earl rightly drew attention. That section is about ensuring that the normal rules of disqualifications for membership of the Chamber apply to life Peers. If, for example, a Peer were to be disqualified from receiving a Writ of Summons as a hereditary Peer either because he was a minor or because he was bankrupt, he would not be able to circumvent the disqualification by becoming a life Peer.
The present Bill is not about disqualifications from the House; it is about ending one of the routes of membership to the House. The disqualifications remain untouched by the Bill. It will still be possible to be debarred from the House for bankruptcy; it will still be impossible to confer peerages on aliens or on minors. In that respect, the new clause tabled by the noble Lord might be defective in the sense that it might actually oust the existing provisions of Section 1(4) in respect of hereditary Peers so that in future a bankrupt hereditary Peer could take his seat in the House of Lords by virtue of receiving a life Peerage. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lords concerned, but that might be the consequence of the clause. I am sure the noble Lords do not wish to see legislation achieve an effect they do not intend.
As to the second part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, the noble Earl, Lord Longford—he is not rising to make an additional point—has made some of the points about the confusion which may arise when Peers sit under different titles. But the proposed new clause says that in effect someone who is disqualified from attending, sitting or voting in the House by virtue of the hereditary Peerage can, none the less, attend and so forth as an hereditary Peer if he also possesses some other route of qualification. That seems to me to be a fairly illogical position to have reached and probably one in which the constructive and helpful aims of the noble Lords might be regarded with some scepticism because they might lead to the introduction of more hereditary Peers by that route. Whether or not that is what was intended, I suspect that could possibly be an outcome.
Someone who is given a life Peerage in order to enable him to sit in the House of Lords should sit as a life Peer. An hereditary Peerage will not in the future confer a right to sit in the House and so it appears slightly odd to suggest that it might do. When a person

1111
who achieves a life Peerage comes to the House, there is, as several noble Lords have said, no problem at all about what he should be called. We have already had our attention drawn to the 45 Members of the House who are known by Irish titles but who sit by means of a UK barony or some other UK title which is actually junior to the title by which they are known. We have already heard the noble Earl, Lord Longford, describe precisely his situation in that respect.
I think I can help the Committee a little further. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington—I am glad to see him in his place—has kindly given me permission to quote the correspondence between Ministers and Garter in respect of his position, which has led to some general discussion about how noble Lords in this position would be treated. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I read from the guidance which has been given.
"The advice we have received from Garter King of Arms is that any new peerage cannot have the same nomen dignitatis as an existing peerage. This means"—
and of course in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, he is a Peer of first creation—
"that any peer of a first creation accepting a life peerage must have a new title. In Lord Aldington's case this could be achieved by adding a geographical description to his name. However, even if Lord Aldington has to slightly change his title to receive a Writ of Summons, his hereditary title will remain the senior title and it is by that title he would be known in the Lords".
But that is not by virtue of his hereditary Peerage. I hope that is clear. I think that the attempt which is not perhaps in Amendment No. 6—I may be suspiciously reading more into it than is there—to suggest that Peers who returned as life Peers would be regarded as sitting by right of their senior hereditary Peerage rather than using that name and sitting by right of their new life Peerage would be unacceptable to the Government. Frankly, that would fail adequately to break the link between the right of birth and the right to a seat in the legislature, which is precisely what the Bill is intended to achieve. I hope that that explanation is helpful to the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Let me say at once that there was no intention that the amendment should provide some secret route for hereditary Peers back into the House after the Bill becomes an Act, if that is what happens. I was, and remain, genuinely concerned that the provisions of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to which I referred will create difficulties for the creation of new life peerages for those who formerly sat in the House by virtue of their hereditary peerages. Nonetheless, I will study very carefully what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I may return to the matter again at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I intervene at this point. I am not doing so as Minister responsible for the Bill but as Leader of your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 8 with which it is grouped and which have been tabled in the name of the noble
1112
Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, have been printed on the revised Marshalled List. But I am advised by the authorities of the House that in their present form the amendments are irrelevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
As the House knows well, order in your Lordships' House is in the hands of the House as a whole but we look to the Clerks to give advice and to the Leader of the House to give guidance on matters of order. The Companion to the Standing Orders makes that clear in the case of the relevance of amendments, and the working group recently chaired by my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon, on which Peers from all parties and all parts of the House were represented and which reported unanimously to the Procedure Committee earlier this year, stressed on a parallel case that Lords should take the advice of Clerks in such matters. It is a consequence of our procedures that the House has collective responsibility for observing these procedures and that all Members of your Lordships' House therefore need to co-operate to see that procedures are observed.
It is in that spirit that I would seek to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, not to move Amendment No. 7 or Amendment No. 8 in their present form today. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has received notice from the Clerk of the Parliaments in the usual way that he was writing to me with this advice and I have of course given the noble Lord notice of my intention to raise the matter at this time.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for raising this issue. This is the first time that I have heard of an amendment being tabled and the Leader of the House having to make the kind of statement that she has just made. From that point of view, it is an interesting event and relatively unique.
The House will, I hope, appreciate that, as Leader of the Opposition, and following the good guidance of my predecessor, on matters of the House I shall seek to support the noble Baroness. I do so again this evening unreservedly. But it is worth exploring the issue just for a moment and I hope that we shall be able to hear from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I understand that he has an entitlement to bring this issue to the House and he ultimately has the right to ask the House to have a view. I am not suggesting, incidentally, that he should do so on this matter.
I too have received a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments raising the issue outlined by the noble Baroness. I understand that the problem that has arisen on the drafting of my noble friend's amendment is a relatively minor one. I should like to know whether it would be in order for my noble friend to put forward a manuscript amendment to deal with a relatively minor issue which arises only because my noble friend, perhaps deliberately or not—I do not know because I have not spoken to him in detail about these issues—has excluded the right of retired Law Lords to sit in the House. It may be that that was the purport of my noble friend's amendment. But if it is not, I think I am right in saying that he could move a manuscript amendment.

1113
He may choose to do so or he may not. But my main purpose in intervening is to say that we accept the guidance of the Leader of the House and we accept that she has been advised by the Clerk of the Parliaments in accordance with his duties.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Before the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rises to speak, I, too, am advised that if a simple manuscript amendment is tabled, which I understand could then put the amendment back into its original form on the Marshalled List, that would be in order.
9 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am obliged to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend. Let me say at once that I am minded to accept the advice of the noble Baroness and not to proceed with these amendments, certainly not in their present form on the Marshalled List.
As my noble friend said, the purpose and the deliberate effect of my amendment as tabled was to exclude the right of retired Law Lords from the so-called club facilities of this place, which are to be denied to all the hereditary Peers, who are to lose their rights to come to this House.
I was told that the Bill dealt only with hereditary Peers, not with life Peers, but Law Lords are in effect life Peers and that my amendment was therefore out of order. I found that advice more mystifying than usual because in Amendment No. 78, which we shall discuss later in the course of this Committee stage, life Peers are expressly covered. The amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Archer. Therefore, I remain deeply mystified as to why my amendment was not allowed.
That said, that remains the advice of the Clerks. I accept the noble Baroness's request and shall not move these amendments. However, I reserve the right to return to the matter at the next stage.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 9:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

PURPOSE OF ACT (No. 3)
(" .The purpose of this Act is only to alter the composition of the House of Lords and to extend the right to stand for election and vote for membership of the House of Commons, and therefore nothing herein shall be used to justify a reduction of the powers of the House of Lords, which are necessary to the effective discharge of its responsibilities.")
The noble Lord said: We have reached this moment rather sooner than I had anticipated. That just goes to show how difficult it is to predict the progress of this Bill, and indeed many others.
This new clause is another purpose clause. However, I do not wish to go over the same ground as we covered prior to the dinner break regarding the difference between a purpose clause and a preamble, or indeed the nature of such a clause and the desirability of including one in the Bill. That is a debate to which we shall return at another stage. We shall certainly work hard to find the right kind of purpose clause. We believe it
1114
appropriate that there should be one. We very much hope that it might be possible to convince the Government that that is right. I should also make it clear that I have no intention of pressing this amendment to a Division.
The main purpose of this clause is to probe the Government's thinking on the powers of the House of Lords. As I have said many times, while the composition of the House is important, what is even more important are the roles, functions and powers of this House, and in particular what will happen in the future to the powers of this House either in the interim stage or in the longer term.
On 23rd February, in a two-day debate that we held on the White Paper that had been published by the Government, an amendment to the Motion was carried by this House, by which the House urged Her Majesty's Government,
"in carrying forward the proposals in the White Paper to set as their objectives an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account; and therefore specifically calls on the Royal Commission to reject the proposition in paragraph 7.26 of the White Paper that the available powers of this House might be significantly reduced".—[Official Report, 23/2/99; col. 955]
I am sure the House will remember the occasion well. Although a Division was called, the party of Government decided, for reasons best known to themselves, not to vote. They abstained in person and, as my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said in reply to an earlier debate, on the whole accepted the premise behind the Motion that was passed. I was glad to hear that.
The effect of the Bill as drafted is, deliberately I presume, however regrettable that presumption might be, to exclude those hereditary Peers now in the House from having any say in the future powers or functions of the House. I regret that. I do not believe it is the right way to go about altering the nature of a sovereign Parliament. Also, I do not believe that the present House, with all its wisdom and experience over many years, should be denied an opportunity at least to have a view about future powers.
This amendment seeks not only to give the present House an opportunity to debate the issue now, and for the Government to give us an idea of what they believe the future powers of the interim and long-term House will be; it also gives us an opportunity to "mark the card" of the future House as well as pointing the Government in a certain direction.
The present powers are essential to the workings of the House. It does not use all of them very often. But sometimes, as on clear-cut issues, it does. One such issue arose recently in relation to the closed list. Then the House of Lords uses its powers. Even then, rightly, the Commons can override it. But when it does, the world sees and hears the windows being kicked out by the executive. I make no complaint about that. One of the purposes of this Chamber is to seek to embarrass the Government when it thinks they are doing something wrong.
We do not want to slide towards a situation whereby the executive—whatever executive—can capture effective, if not absolute, control of the House and reduce the powers of the Chamber and therefore the independence of the Back-Benchers. This amendment, albeit a declaratory one, puts a modest barrier in the way.
What will be the Government's view? They will say, "Why worry?", and, "Look at our manifesto". The manifesto states that,
"The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered".
That offers good assurance. But again, I wish to probe slightly what that means. With this Government we have learnt, and it is a good thing to learn, that we need to look at the small print, as with so many other matters. It would therefore be helpful if the Government would inform the Committee as to whether that commitment refers to the interim House only, which is what the context of the manifesto implies, or whether it means for all time. If the Minister who is to reply does not have his copy of the manifesto, it does not matter. If he does not wish to answer in the context of the manifesto, I am happy. However, it would be good to have a view as to what the Government believe the long-term future is.
From time to time we have heard how careful the drafting of that section of the manifesto was; so careful that only a few hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that no purpose clause was necessary. He may be right, but we shall continue to probe it at future stages.
It would be helpful if he or the Minister replying could answer the following questions. Does it mean, for example, that the powers over secondary legislation would remain unaltered? I suppose it could. Does it mean that the powers currently enjoyed by this House to delay legislation would remain, or would they be curtailed? Alternatively, does it mean that things would remain exactly the same? I take it from the quote in the manifesto that it might, but it does not entirely say so. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that. There is still room for suspicion because the Government have given conflicting signals on the powers of the House in the past.
One of the problems about the debate is whether the Bill is a stand-alone Bill or part of a two-stage process. It strikes me that there is a tension between the two objectives. There may not be that tension, in which case I hope the Government will explain why not. I am trying to find out what are the Government's objectives in all this. That will help us to do our job and scrutinise the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, when Leader of the House, argued for a restriction on the power to reject legislation. If he did not do so as Leader of the House, I know that he has done so since. I wish to know what thoughts the Government have on that extremely important issue.
Following on from that, the terms of reference for the Royal Commission appear to leave out consideration of powers. I am glad to say that that has not been changed, although it has been clarified by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She laid out the position in our debate on the White Paper. Powers which according to the manifesto were to be unaltered were now to be looked at or, in the words of the Leader of the House,
"The terms of reference … must legitimately include looking at powers, especially in relation to the legislative function".—[Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 846.]
Again there is a tension between what the Royal Commission's clarified terms of reference are and the words of the manifesto that the powers remained unaltered. I wonder where we are on that.
That leads to the now infamous paragraph in the White Paper, Chapter 7, paragraph 26, which says that:
"A better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers".
The House has examined this in detail in the past and I do not wish to do so again. However, paragraph 7.26 suggests that for the future the Government would like to look at the powers, the ability to delay legislation approved by the House of Commons; arrangements to introduce the Parliament Act for Bills which start in this House; and also what they call "special" procedures where the second Chamber wishes to insist on amendments which have been considered and rejected by another place.
There is also the suggestion of formal conciliation arrangements between the two Houses; and, finally, the powers that I have already mentioned over secondary legislation. I cannot help but believe that there is something afoot. There may not be, but at this stage of proceedings on the Bill there is an opportunity for the Committee legitimately to probe what is going on, what is at the back of the Government's mind. That will lead us, I hope, to being able to frame suitable amendments at successive stages so that we can help and guide not just the Government but perhaps a future House as to what the powers should be. I hope that I have clarified the purpose behind the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 97 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has been grouped with this amendment. I wish to make clear that the note at the top of the grouping list reads:
"Although every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings".
No effort was made to secure agreement to this grouping. Neither my noble friend Lord Stanley nor I were approached in any way. We reserve the right to take the amendment individually at a later stage, should we so desire. It might be for the convenience—
Lord Carter: I understood that all the groupings up to this group, with Amendments Nos. 9 and 97, were actually agreed and so I have to apologise to the noble Earl. We were assured that up to Nos. 9 and 97 they were all agreed.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip. I can assure him that no one

1117
has contacted me or my noble friend Lord Stanley on this matter. Therefore I think it might help the House if I talk to the amendment and to Amendment No. 97, but reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage should I feel it necessary to do so.
I think it is important that we spell out clearly the powers of this House. I would go one stage further than my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, because I should like to introduce an amendment at a later stage, spelling out those powers. The reason I would like to do so is very simple. What is happening is not a gradual evolution of the House like the Life Peerages Act; it is a major, sudden change in the composition of this House. We are fortunate in the powers and the functions that we have at the moment, and I think it is important for a successor Chamber to have those spelt out for it.
After all, we know who will comprise the membership of the second Chamber in its initial stages; but we do not know what is going to happen after that. We have absolutely no control over the Prime Minister or the appointments committee. There could be a sudden influx of 100 or 200 new Peers who know nothing about the powers and functions of this House, and at that time there will be no hereditary Peers to guide them in such matters.
The second point of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley and myself is to help the Government. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at an earlier stage that he wished to fulfil the manifesto in full. The simple amendment in our name does exactly that. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just said, the Labour Party manifesto contains the single sentence:
"The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered".
I think it would be helpful to the Government to fulfil their manifesto in full and to have this on the face of the Bill.
At Second Reading I talked a little bit about the composition of the House and the inbuilt Labour majority of regular attendees. I will come back to that at a later stage. That in itself makes it necessary to spell out the powers, because the powers that we do have, as your Lordships will know full well, can be very inconvenient and very embarrassing to any government.
Let me just spell out some of them. First, we have the revising function. That is an important function because any of your Lordships, from whatever part of the House you come, can table and move amendments. No control is exercised by the party whips over what one can do or over the time one can do it: one can do it at any hour the House is sitting. I think that that is an important freedom of this House. It is not like the other place; and these differences are to be treasured and protected.
There is also the power to initiate legislation. That again can be done by the Government or by individuals, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne said earlier. He has put a Bill before your Lordships' House, and I believe that is an equally important right that should continue into a successor Chamber, and should be spelt out on the face of the Bill. Of course, although one has the power to initiate legislation, one should also bear in
1118
mind that another place has the ultimate veto over whatever legislation we introduce here, and so that is the appropriate check to our particular bower to introduce legislation.
There is the contentious, but very important, power to reject a Bill presented by another place at Second Reading. That is an incredibly important power to be taken forward into a successor Chamber. It might be embarrassing for the government of the day, but I believe that the Parliament Act should be enforced more often because if this second Chamber, which I believe should be a stronger Chamber than we have at the moment, is to pull its weight, it must be able to reject a Bill at Second Reading, make the Government think again and, if necessary, bring it forward under the Parliament Act and justify that to the country.
I move on to the important powers that we have with regard to secondary legislation. Here I should like to try to strengthen the powers of our successor Chamber. We talked earlier this afternoon about our inability to question matters involving secondary legislation and to alter them. I believe that a second House should he able to do that. We should be able to look at the detail, amend it and send it back to another place. When it comes to scrutiny, the successor Chamber must never lose the right to make the Government answer to this Chamber, whatever may be its composition. That only stops short of the House having the power to enforce a change of government.
It is important that these powers are well known. It would be better if they were placed on the face of the Bill in the appropriate form so that the successor Chamber would know what it could do. I believe that if we move to a reformed second Chamber it should be able to use the powers a great deal more often and effectively than we have been able to. My noble friend Lord Cranborne observed—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, also said it—that on many occasions one of the weaknesses of this House was that it was not able to use the powers available to it. Surely, if we are to carry out this revision, albeit with a long stage one, it should be clear to the successor Chamber what its powers are and that it can use them however embarrassing and inconvenient that may be to the government of the day.
Lord Richard: I have listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in speaking to this amendment and, having done my best, I am unable to follow them. If there was any provision in the Bill which dealt with the powers of this House, no doubt the amendment would be relevant and apposite and it would be worth while the House debating it. There is nothing in the Bill about the powers of the House. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the powers of the House should be reduced.
What we have on the other side of the Chamber at the moment is an attempt to pre-empt either the deliberations of the Royal Commission or perhaps even the legislation that may have to be introduced after the Royal Commission has reported and its report has been

1119
considered. This is so wide of the issue before the Committee this evening that, frankly, it is somewhat strange.
I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seeks to do. He wants a statement from the Government now which will enable him the better, as he sees it, to conduct the political battle that may be joined when the Royal Commission comes to stage two. That is a perfectly legitimate tactic on his part, but the Committee should recognise it for what it is. There is not a scrap of merit in the argument. It is good old political evasion on the part of the noble Lord, with no merit in it at all. If the Bill said anything about powers then it would be relevant. But, in the absence of the Bill saying anything about powers, if this measure is passed and the House is reformed, what will be the powers of the House? They will be precisely the same in future after the Bill has been passed as they are now. With great respect, I believe that the Opposition should be a little more precise as to what they seek to do.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord can be persuaded to raise his eyes a little further down the road than the next year or two, I believe he will see matters in a different light. That is the light in which I and my noble friends see the current debate about the powers of the House. I tried to express something to that effect in the debate on Second Reading. Hereditary Members of your Lordships' House see themselves as the rearguard, or final trustees, of a mechanism that is designed to protect the electorate of this country from the excesses of an over-powerful executive.
Lord Avebury: What gives the noble Lord the right to speak for the whole of the hereditary Peers in this House?
Lord Elton: Those who disagree with me, such as the noble Lord, will tell me so, but to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I rephrase my remarks. I believe that I am in company with many when I see my functions and theirs as protecting the electorate from the excesses of an over-powerful executive of any party. I speak approximately two years after the arrival of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. I remember how I felt two years after I arrived there, secure and confident in the belief that the country would always be conducted on familiar lines properly arranged by my friends who saw things as I did. The only thought that I leave in the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is that the day will come when this House May be required to protect the electorate from the excesses of a party other than their own. It is in order to ensure that this House does not fall below the level of authority that enables it to check an executive in that way that my noble friends, I believe, are tabling these amendments. In abandoning our trusteeship, we want to be sure that that security remains.
Lord Richard: The noble Lord interrupted what I was saying. I shall continue. The noble Lord,
1120
Lord Elton, will forgive me if I do not follow him down the somewhat bizarre path that the hereditary peerage in this House is the basic guarantor of the liberties of the British electorate. That seems an astonishing proposition, which I would have great difficulty in following.
The noble Lord asks me to raise my eyes and look a little beyond. With great respect to the noble Lord, that is a criticism which is ill directed. I have tried to raise my eyes; and I have tried to consider what is likely to happen in a few years' time. I hope that the noble Lord—here comes the commercial!—will have the opportunity to consider my views when he purchases the modest piece of literature now on the bookstands.
The important point is this. The Bill is nothing to do with the powers of the House. The Bill is about the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. The issue of its powers will no doubt concern this House in great detail, and with considerable passion in months to come. But the Opposition cannot today pre-empt the possible legislation that the Government might wish to introduce after the Royal Commission has reported. With great respect, that is not on.
Lord Skelmersdale: Powers are an issue. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says, with all his authority, on the subject of powers not being a part of the Bill. But with powers go rights and obligations. As we all know, they are circumscribed in this House by the Salisbury-Addison rules or conventions (call them what one will). If the result of the Bill is—as it could well be—that the powers that exist, mostly by statute but also to an extent by Standing Orders, are no longer to be circumscribed by the Salisbury-Addison rules, it is a legitimate subject for discussion.
Lord Richard: An amendment could be tabled dealing with the Salisbury-Addison rules. That is not the amendment we are considering at present, which has nothing to do with the Salisbury-Addison convention. That is a convention between the two sides which the House has adopted. The amendment deals with the rules and powers of the House. There is nothing in the Bill about that. There is nothing in the Bill about Salisbury and Addison, with respect.
Lord Burnham: In the past few moments the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said several times that the Bill has nothing to do with the powers of the House. Does the noble Lord accept that he would make these Benches a great deal happier if the Bill had something to do with the powers of the House?
Lord Richard: First, it is not my function to make the Benches opposite feel happy. Indeed, I have spent most of my political life attempting to do precisely the opposite. Secondly, once we start talking about the

1121
powers of an eventual Chamber after the second stage, this Bill will take a great deal of time in consideration. That may be precisely what the Opposition want.
The Earl of Caithness: My amendment has nothing to do with the powers of the successor to the successor chamber. It relates purely to the powers of the successor chamber.
The Earl of Onslow: What I love about the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is that he moved a Motion of no confidence in the previous government. It was a lovely thing to do, and it had nothing to do with powers. Having said that, I am afraid to say that I slightly agree with him. This Bill is not concerned with the powers of the successor chamber, but it is undoubtedly true that as a result of the passage of this Bill this House will automatically become more powerful.
It will become more powerful because the noble and imperial Lady Jay will not be able to say, "Ah, those silly ass hereditary Peers like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, we do not have to listen to their argument. Should by any chance there ever be a Conservative government again, they will not be able to haul in vast hordes of marquesses and dukes of ancient lineage who only normally come here to vote against poll tax amendments".
Therefore, the House will become much more powerful, which is excellent. It is a good idea and I welcome it. But it is also worth putting on record that it is extremely easy in this House to bring the process of government to a halt. Every time the Chairman of Committees or the Lord Chancellor puts a question, one has only to say, "Not Content" to call a Division. It is not even necessary to appoint Tellers, and Fabius Maximus Cunctator is made to look like Linford Christie, he goes so fast. Therefore, we must accept that the Bill will make the House of Lords more powerful. With great respect to my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Caithness, I recommend that. I hate to agree with the noble Lord. Lord Richard, but on this occasion I do.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I know that the Government and all noble Lords wish to get on, but I believe that my noble friends are justified in suspecting what, for want of a better phrase, I might call "unfinished business" in the Bill. It cannot be irrelevant to our debates that that thought should find expression in the amendment, otherwise it would have been ruled out of order and the authorities of the House would have declared it irrelevant.
Therefore, in opposing the amendment, it is not sufficient to say that there is nothing in the Bill about powers. No doubt it is regarded as relevant because of the words in the Long Title,
"and for connected purposes".
Whatever the reason, the amendment has not been held by the authorities to be irrelevant.
When one is dealing with the objection that we cannot debate what shall be the powers of this House once the Bill is enacted, it is easy to overlook the fact that the
1122
amendment provides only that nothing in the Bill shall be used to justify a reduction in the powers. It does not deal with the question of what the future powers will be, only that nothing in the Bill shall be used to justify a reduction. No doubt the wording can be improved and put into more obscure language, as the lawyers like, but that is the purpose. Therefore, the matter is so easily resolved. All that is necessary is for the Front Bench opposite to say, "We shall not use anything in the Bill to justify a reduction of the powers. That does not prejudice us against whatever we do by separate means later". Everyone would be happy and we would all get on.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Inevitably in a Bill of this kind there will be some reminiscing. I am delighted to welcome back to the Back Benches my noble friend Lord Caithness. We last moved amendments together in 1981, when, unfortunately, he was so misguided as to join the Front Bench. He could not continue to harry his own Front Bench, which we did even though from the, opposite side hereditary Peers are not supposed to harry their Conservative Front Bench. We are told that that is the case.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay in his report suggested that the powers of your Lordships' interim Chamber should be the same as they are today. My problem relates back to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when on the previous amendment he was questioned by my noble friend Lord Mack ay on what the Labour Party manifesto did or did not say about this matter.
Perhaps I may deal first with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I hope to make him happier about the amendment being outside the Bill. I often did so in the past, much to the irritation of my Front Bench. Members of the Committee will remember that the manifesto, stated that the House should be able to revise and improve legislation and,
"be more democratic and representative".
I find it difficult to understand how it can do both. For powers to revise and improve a different sort of person will be needed, and not necessarily the kind of person who will be needed to make the Chamber more democratic. I find that difficult to comprehend. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Richard, can tell me how that can be done. He has obviously read his manifesto.
On balance, I should prefer the House to be, in some form or another, more democratically elected. I do not defend my position as a hereditary Peer. I never have done and neither did my grandfather in 1911. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made some useful and interesting points on that. If we follow the line of thought in the manifesto that the House should be more democratic, its powers must necessarily increase, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said. History reminds us that any democratically elected body always wants, and indeed gets, more powers. Therefore, it is

1123
important to have the Government's and your Lordships' views on future powers for the interim and the future House.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: When my noble friend Lord Caithness was in Government I was rarely in agreement with him. I used to cause him a great deal of trouble. Therefore, in a remarkable turn of events, I find myself entirely in support of what he has said. My noble friend was trying to inject something into the Bill that should be there. Subsequently, he was attacked by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
I have frequently been castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is extremely adept at doing so. He is a powerful and an effective operator and it is easy to be squashed by him. I think that my noble friend Lord Caithness does well to stand up to him. He should not worry about being squashed by the Government on this occasion because, ultimately, it is important to achieve the correct Bill.
Lord Elton: I apologise for having interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Each of the noble Lord's paragraphs has such an air of finality that I expect each to be the last.
I have a simple point about powers which I did not make, although I should have thought it was fairly obvious. If the hereditary peerage is removed from this House, it will be a relatively simple and not lengthy business for a prime minister to appoint a working majority in this House in favour of the executive. At that time the House will lose all power to check the executive. It is for that reason that amendments have been tabled to put that power of patronage of the prime minister into commission.
As the Bill stands, it would need merely 35 or 40 new Peers of the colour of the politics opposite to give effective control to the executive. I am sure that, if we were in power, the Benches opposite would resent that as much as we would.
Lord Marlesford: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. It is clear to me that the powers of this House stem from statute, from convention and from Standing Order. The way in which the conventions and Standing Orders are written and followed is very much a function of the composition of the House. This Bill changes the composition of the House. Therefore, it seems to me to follow that that could considerably change the powers of the House. Partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Onslow, if I were the Government I should probably like something that states that this Bill does not change the powers, because, with the departure of the majority of hereditary Peers, there would be some danger of powers being increased rather considerably.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We traversed this ground a little earlier this evening. It is not a case of being squashed by my noble friend Lord Richard of Ammanford; it is a case of listening to his analysis. It is precise; devastating and overwhelming. No argument has been addressed to dispute his analysis.
1124
Perhaps I may cover one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in assuming finality in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—finality is not a concept with which I associate Committee in this Chamber—said that he was troubled about there being a working majority in favour of the executive. Oh dear! How long has it been that there has been a working majority in favour of the executive? Thirteen defeats per Session under the Tories, 49 since the last election.
I always listen to what is said with varying degrees of incredulity. That one will not run. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I always listen with particular care to what he says, as he knows, and always try to respond to it either in debate or by letter—I take his point that he and others of a similar view, though not of a unanimous view (pace the noble Lord, Lord Avebury), regard themselves as having a duty. I do not disrespect or disregard that.
I simply say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that when Fabius Maximus had discharged his required duties to the state, he retired to his farm. The noble Earl and I have the same recollection of O-level history. I am just underlining the fact that I listen to what the noble Earl says; he did retire, and rightly so.
None of the questions raised in relation to these amendments has the slightest connection to the Bill. The Bill is quite short; it is quite plain. I go back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. We occasionally need a purpose clause if it might be required for interpretative purposes if there is ambiguity. One can peruse this Bill with any sort of microscope or eyeglass. There is no ambiguity in it. The fact that it contains no ambiguity may be what causes heartache and concern. Heartache and concern there may be, but ambiguity there is not.
There is nothing in the Bill that affects the powers of this House. Whether or not those powers may be deployed in a different way in the future is an entirely different question. All Members of the Committee know it to be commonplace that we have notional powers which we rarely exercise. The figures that I gave indicate that the rareness of the exercise sometimes may be coincident with the colour of the present incumbent government.
It is idle to ask what we are going to do about stage two. We are now discussing a Bill that deals with stage one. Many Members of the Committee will feel that that is disagreeable. It may be. That is what the manifesto said and that is what we are delivering. We were chided earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for saying one thing and doing the opposite. No one can say that about this Bill. It is in the manifesto and it is transposed almost literally into the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The Minister says it is disagreeable for us to consider what the future holds. Is it not also slightly irresponsible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not irresponsible to consider in its appropriate place at the appropriate time what the future may be. I simply contend that this is not the time or the place. At the moment an attempt is being

1125
made to introduce a device which has nothing to do with the purpose of this Bill. The plain purpose of this Bill is to stop hereditary Peers sitting in this House by—I quote myself since, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, no one else will—the capricious donation of birth. That is what we intend to do. There is nothing in law which increases or delimits the powers of the House of Lords. That being so, my noble friend Lord Richard is absolutely right: these amendments are nothing to the point; they are of interest in a different connection, in a different context, it may be in different forums. It may be that when we come to the debate on stage two they will be pertinent. At present they are not.
My only surprise is that other things have not been included such as "Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a purpose clause that supported Mom and apple pie?". These amendments are in the same category. They are expressions of desire, of hope, of ambition for the future. They are not unworthy for that reason. But they are not appropriate for the reason that I have set out and for the reasons that were set out with absolute authority by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, earlier.
There is nothing in the Bill that touches on our powers. Therefore, these amendments are properly described as not relevant. That is not to say that I do not recognise and do not sympathise with the point very moderately put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on this occasion and earlier, and I recognise the feeling with which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, addresses these matters.
But—I say this as politely as I may—this is not the occasion to try to alter the Bill. I recognise what has been said. I recognise that the speakers believe in the virtue and validity of what they have said. There may be value in what they have said, but that is the occasion for further debate. It is not the occasion at the moment. The amendments have nothing to do with the Bill at all.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said. He mentioned the number of Divisions. I know that the noble Lord is not ungenerous, and he will of course recall that on many occasions, as is worth stating for the record, amendments were accepted when we were in government. I certainly accepted an awful lot of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in particular, with whom I debated on numerous Bills. Not only did I accept them, but when they were redrafted by the Government I put them back down on the Marshalled List, with his agreement, in his name. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be generous in accepting that there is another dimension—not only the defeats that the Conservative Party suffered but the number of amendments that we accepted that never went to a Division.
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord why, given what he said, the manifesto says,
"The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered",
when referring to phase one.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Because, first, that is what we intended to bring about, and, secondly, that is what we have brought about: in the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I am rather disappointed and surprised by the attitude that the noble Lord. Lord Williams of Mostyn, has taken. He has a great deal of experience in the House of Lords, both in Opposition and as a Minister. He normally conducts himself with great skill, but he has not addressed himself to practically a single point that I made.
The main point that he makes is as follows. I hope I paraphrase him correctly and, if not, no doubt he will wish to put me right. He is saying that the powers are not in the Bill and therefore we should not he discussing powers. I have just been reminded of a point by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who, when he was Minister spoke at considerable length on the Pensions Bill, which will be remembered by many Members of the Committee. The Pensions Bill, not surprisingly, was to do with pensions. One of the matters that it was not to do with was war pensions. I do not remember noble Lords opposite twisting and agonising about whether they should vote on the question of war pensions. I do not believe that the question was raised at all. There was a vote on war pensions. The Government lost and they accepted that position. There is no way that my noble friend would have used the, I am sorry to say, rather pathetic argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The noble Lord is going to put me right now.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a one clause Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to remind me how many clauses were in the Pensions Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure what that has got to do with the argument used earlier by the noble Lord. He has introduced an interesting constitutional device: if a Bill does not include a matter which the Government do not wish to discuss, that matter may not be discussed. My noble friend said from a sedentary position that he would have loved to have been able to use that particular argument.
When I held the position currently held by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, there would have been a huge amount of ammunition in my rather humble armoury. The party then in opposition would not have won anything.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Was there any amendment to the Pensions Bill in the form of a purpose clause?
Lord Strathclyde: It was a failure on behalf of the Opposition not to think of such a thing. It is a credit to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, who has introduced that whole question.
I do not wish to quarrel with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who suggested that there is not much ambiguity in this Bill. But I wish to test this with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, because

1127
it is my view that, while there may not be much ambiguity, there is certainly a great deal of uncertainty for the future.
We are looking at a Bill which will create an interim House. That interim House will wish to find the new boundaries of its powers and to decide whether or not to use them. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who said that the important point about the powers of this House is that they come from convention, statute and Standing Orders. No doubt the conventions and the Standing Orders will be the path by which the interim House will wish to discover the boundaries of its powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, may have thought that I was making a political point, but I believe that it is a far more important point of principle for Parliament to know what is the Government's view about those powers. The Government have made two statements: one in the manifesto and one in the debate on the White Paper, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness. It is a very simple question. I merely want to know which statement applies: the one in the manifesto or the one in the White Paper. There must have been a discussion in government about the powers of the interim House.
One has only to look at the example that we presently have before us. Election campaigns are ongoing in Scotland and Wales. Parties standing in those elections wish to increase the powers of the parliament and assembly. The Government have explained in some detail in this Chamber and in another place why they do not wish to extend those powers. They have made their position abundantly clear. But they have failed to do so in relation to the future of this House.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says that we have no right. But it is legitimate to ask the question and it is right for the Government to give an answer about how they envisage the Chamber that this Bill creates. This Bill is not just about the removal of hereditary Peers. It creates a new House of Lords. I am not asking questions about what will happen in the long term. I am not trying to generate a debate on the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I am asking what is the Government's intention, once this Bill is passed, on the powers of the interim House.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has remarked upon his book, Unfinished Business. We have some more unfinished business here. The question is not the scope of the Bill but its effects.
I am extremely disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I would like to give him another opportunity to reply to me, but if he cannot do so I am honour bound to try to bring forward a similar amendment at a subsequent stage so that we can get the answer that this House deserves as regards what is in the Government's mind. On the basis of what I have said and the commitment I gave earlier on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer now to some of
1128
my amendments. Amendments Nos. 18, 26, 64 and 153 have been inappropriately grouped. I have asked for them to be regrouped. Therefore, I suggest that I speak to those amendments later.
Lord Selsdon moved Lord Selsdon moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
(" .—(1) Except as provided by subsection (2) below, the holder by succession of a hereditary peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, shall not in right of that peerage receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not affect the right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords of any holder by succession of a hereditary peerage who had received such a writ in right of that peerage at any time before the date of commencement of this Act.
(3) Any holder of a hereditary peerage or peer of first creation to whom subsection (2) of this section applies, may by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor within one year after the commencement of this act, disclaim his membership of the House of Lords; and thereupon subsection (2) shall cease to apply to him and any writ of summons to attend that House previously issued to him shall cease to have effect.
(4) In any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act, the temporal members of the House of Lords shall compose members possessing full voting rights (in this Act referred to as voting peers) and other members; the voting peers shall consist of peers of first creation and not less than one hundred hereditary peers nominated by the holders by succession of hereditary peerages whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
(5) A peer who is not a voting peer shall not be qualified to vote—

(a) on any question to be determined by the House (including any committee of the whole House); or

(b) as a member of any committee for the consideration of any Bill or Measure or of any instrument or draft instrument.

(6) Nothing in this section affects the right of any peer to move any motion or to take part, otherwise than by vote, in any proceedings of the House or any committee of the House.
(7) In this section—
"peer of first creation" includes a peer upon whom a life peerage has been conferred under any enactment; and
"vote" means give voice upon question put or take part in a division.")
The noble Lord said: It is extraordinarily confusing for me because I am not quite sure what all this is about. It is a fairly simple Bill about what need not necessarily be a confused subject. I go back to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who quoted Churchill and said that he was the one who had set in motion the desire to reform. In my 36 years in this House I have been longing for the day of reform.
Churchill always read his speeches, which is something I was told one should never do. When he was getting on a bit and at a Conservative Party conference, he read the first page and then turned it over. It did not fall over properly and he began to read the same page again. Everyone said, "The old man has lost his marbles". But halfway down he said, "You know, I seem to have heard that somewhere before and it was rather good, wasn't it? It was worth repeating".
As I said, some people in my early days told me that I should always speak without a note and should have all my speeches stuffed in different pockets. But in order

1129
to gain his ideas Churchill would drink champagne in the morning and cognac in the afternoon and he would have the courage to carry out his ideas. I believe that noble Lords opposite are lacking both in champagne and cognac.
I am in an embarrassing position. I could not work out why I should move an amendment. I want to make it clear that I have not discussed my amendment with anybody on any Front Bench. Except for the Public Bill Office, I am probably one of the few who really understands it. As my text I take Command Paper 37/99. I was born in 1937 and it is now 1999. A White Paper then cost 3s. 6d. When I came to your Lordships' House we had no allowances. Then the cost rose to something like £4 14s 6d, which to the gentlemen of this world was called four guineas. When we came here I thought that the four guineas meant that one counted out how many hours the House sat and one proportioned one's claim against that.
The amendment I have put down today is stage two of the reform of the House of Lords. Many noble Lords opposite should be grateful for the fact that stage one was the introduction of life Peers in 1958. Stage two was the Labour Party proposals—I do not know whether we call it the Labour Party, but the proposals of the party represented by noble Lords opposite—was to reform the House in 1968.
My amendment is effectively the Bill of 1968 with a few little jigs in it. It says in the first subsection that hereditary Peers shall not have the right to sit after the time has expired. It also says in subsection (3) that people shall have the right to resign. It states that Peers will be divided into voting and non-voting Peers. I have added a little bit which says that hereditary Peers shall have the right to nominate 100 people because I could not think of how 96 or 97 worked out.
I was only 25 when I came to the House. I now have to read something which comes from the Command Paper, paragraph 25. It says:
"Two main principles emerge from the examination of these suggestions. The first is that if a reformed House is to have the influence which an effective Second Chamber requires, it must possess a degree of genuine independence".
When this White Paper came before the House, we gave it a majority of 195 and it received something like 160 in another place. However, the other place, about which I shall speak no more in derogatory terms, did not have the courage to implement the proposals, which were soundly based and which could possibly have been amended. None of us hereditary Peers has ever accepted that we have a God-given right to be here. The only problem is: who do we report to? We certainly do not report to a prime minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is having a conversation on the Front Bench—something which would never have been done in my day—had the nerve to point out that he was one of the first generation. In a nice charming way he said that he was appointed by a prime minister who is no longer in office. Therefore. he is second generation; and, in my book, he may well be deemed to be hereditary. Nevertheless,
1130
I have a great regard for him as an advocate, as I do not have the ability to repeat the words and the terminology that he uses.
I feel quite passionately about this. The second stage of reform in my lifetime was aborted by a government which did not have the courage to try to push it through in another place. In my view, that was the second stage and, therefore, we should now have reached the third stage. I believe that 30 years is a long period of time. I had my first involvement in all of this because I really wanted to be an independent. I did not like the idea of being told what to do; but, if you do not have the courage to know what you should do, you sort of sit quietly and feel that it is better to be on the Back-Benches. I have always preferred to be up here looking down on the masses rather than looking up at them.
My worry is that the 1968 Bill was fair and constructive. It provided that hereditary Peers would stay for life. It did not say that anyone would be nominated, but it said that Peers would be non-voting. However, that did not mean they could not participate in debates or could not give of their knowledge. To my way of thinking, this particular Government are saying, "We are worried about the votes. We want the votes, not an independent House. We want to have a balance'". But who decides that balance? I do not know the answer.
However, I have another worry. As I said on Second Reading, I later became a director of a group within a research company. I took over from a really great man who did a lot of work for the Social Science Research Council and the Labour Party, Mark Abrahams. After the aborted 1968 Bill, we undertook a free study for the Labour Party to look into reform of the House of Lords. We consulted 320 Peers, both hereditary and otherwise. I kept much of the information of the research company. I did so because intellectual property belongs to the people who pay for it. We paid for it ourselves. I re-analysed the data with knitting needles and with Hollerith cards over part of last weekend. I sat and went through all the PDVN material that I could find about this House and came to a number of quite interesting conclusions.
The first conclusion was that the party opposite want to get rid of hereditary Peers for a political reason: they do not want to have an inbuilt majority of other people. They forget that some of us can have independent views and that some of us do not kow-tow to Whips or to political bodies. Indeed, some of us stay away when we feel that a vote is embarrassing and does not accord with our political feelings.
The insults that have started to emerge, when this House has normally been a friendly and co-operative place in my lifetime, have really put my [tackles up. Indeed, insults began to be directed towards us. Let us look around the Chamber. Do people realise that the families of some noble Lords have been here for 20 or 30 generations? All of them have served this place well or badly, but they have served it. It should also be realised that of those who are here today many have been here for over 50 years, others for over 30 years,

1131
and some have only been here for a few years. It is not the length the service that necessarily counts; it is the commitment to what one believes in and to whom one reports, if anyone. According to my Letters Patent and according to consultations that I have had, I believe that I report to Her Majesty the Queen, and that I do willingly. However, I do not report to the House; nor, I believe, do other people here. We have a courtesy and duty to each other.
What I have done—it has amused me—is to study this previous information 30 years on. I regret that the reform has not taken place in those 30 years.
The Earl of Longford: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he aware that that was an initiative of a Labour government?
Lord Selsdon: The noble Earl will know that I said that. I worked for a Labour government and later I became part of the economic team assisting George Brown when he was in the DEA. The noble Earl will know that my uncle was Stafford Cripps, who had a large amount to do with the Labour Party. I am being non-partisan in this matter. As I said in my Second Reading speech, I would willingly speak from those Benches opposite, where Peers are often bankrupt of ideas and of proposals for a constructive future.
I should like to see a reform of this Chamber. However, if I were an intelligent thinker, I would ask why people want to get rid of the remarkable wealth of knowledge, experience and relationships that exist not only nationally but worldwide. I refer again to the little document, Towards a Peerless Future. I thought that I might distribute that document to people. It is interesting to note that, if one is a civil servant or a Member of the Government, one "deposits" something in the Library. However, if one is a private person, one does a private placement. You "place" a document in the Library.
The document contains a matter of some interest. I agree on the matter of the voting rights, although I still believe that the Weatherill amendment has certain things to commend it. However, it is wrong to get rid of the hereditaries unless you know what you are getting rid of. Over the past weekend I considered 501 life Peers and Peers of first creation, as they seem to be lumped together. I went through all their backgrounds.
It is interesting to note that in general life Peers have a wider range of interests than Conservative Peers, but much less experience. I have studied those backgrounds and knowledge to try to work out what we could keep and what we could lose. I shall not go into the great grandeur of the past, but I believe that that has some validity. I do not refer to my family, as I am only the third generation to sit in this Chamber. I have only been here for 5 per cent. of the total Parliament. Peers may have inherited their fathers' seats or those of relatives who died in the war. They have served this nation and they deserve to be treated in a better way than is proposed.
1132
In the note that I shall circulate, noble Lords will find some interesting comments about age. We know full well that, had there been no new life Peers appointed in the past 30 years, there would be only 20 life Peers sitting in this Chamber today and, by my calculation, there would be only 170 hereditary Peers. Death takes its toll and the Chamber would have reformed itself already. I do not think that age is an acceptable criterion for judging the contribution that an upper Chamber can make. The Committee will know that on average 50 per cent. of life Peers are over 70. However, the younger element believe there should be no retirement age. Like me, they appreciate the words of great men from whom I have learnt so much. The average age of those in this Chamber has risen and risen. If stage two of the 1968 reform is deferred to now, 30 years later, let us hope that if there is to be a stage three, it is not deferred for a further 30 years.
As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out earlier, we would all willingly co-operate to ensure that the right kind of reform is carried out. Those of us who are hereditary Peers know our place. We know that we have no right to be here. We may have tried to earn that right and we may say that we have done our duty. Some of us try to do that, but this is a difficult time. I should hate to see a mistake made that cannot be corrected. I do not believe in trying to argue that a life Peer is better than someone else. We all have diverse and extraordinary experiences. The problem is that the other place, the executive, the Government, or whatever we may call it, has denied us the right to reform ourselves and to improve the contribution that we can make to society. I should like to see that contribution improved whether or not I am here.
The purpose of my amendment—it is not a cunning amendment—is simply to say to noble Lords opposite, "You nearly got it right in 1968; now you have got it wrong. Have a look back; 30 years in 700 years of history is nothing. If only you could think again. But you need the will and support of the House and the relationships of the Members of the House that stretch worldwide. You could have it on a plate if you did the right thing". I beg to move.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 29 and 109 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Briefly, the amendments are concerned with the way in which the hereditary Peers should leave the House of Lords, in a manner that does not weaken the House of Lords. Amendment No. 109 is a complementary amendment to introduce a weighted voting system that ensures that there is a fair and balanced voting arrangement between the government party and all the other parties during the period in which the hereditary Peers will be leaving the House of Lords.
So far, the debate on stage one has been very confusing. That is due mainly to the fact that there is not a strategy on how we should approach the issue. In arriving at my proposals, I have attempted to produce a stage one strategy and then to determine what solution best meets that strategy. I believe that that approach leads to a good degree of objectivity.

1133
Perhaps I may start by listing what I think should be some of the key elements of our reform strategy for stage one. First, the hereditary principle is not sustainable and must therefore go. That is now a widely-held view in the House and is also a government manifesto commitment. Secondly, the passage of the Bill must not weaken the House by rapidly depleting the number of Peers at a time when the House of Commons, certainly from my 15 years of experience there, is weak and is failing in many ways to bring the executive to account, which is the key purpose of the parliamentary system. To weaken the House during a period of reform is nothing short of absurd. I cannot see the case for rapidly ridding the House of a large number of Members. I do not know what the case for that is. Certainly, it could undermine the Government's constitutional reform programme, which has been successful so far.
Thirdly, neither the Government nor the rest of your Lordships' House should take an absolutist or rigid approach regarding the speed at which the hereditary Peers leave the House of Lords. We should all recognise that there are conflicts of interest between the executive and the Labour Party and the House of Lords—that is inevitable—but neither side should take a steamroller approach. Instead, we should go for consensus. That means accepting that there are conflicting interests, but there must be compromise on both sides. Fourthly, I do not believe that it is sensible for one party to have a large overall majority in this House. That must be dealt with immediately in this Bill.
Fifthly, we must minimise the risks of reform by avoiding a Big Bang approach. As I said at Second Reading. the House of Lords is about people, not buildings. If we suddenly deplete the number of people in this House very substantially, I defy anyone in this Chamber to tell us exactly what the consequences would be. It is not a question of hereditary Peers. If it were life Peers who had to go, I should treat the matter in exactly the same way. I do not distinguish between hereditary and life Peers.
My sixth point is that the Government, in formulating policy, should not treat our hereditary colleagues as if the Government were a bad Victorian employer. As I also said at Second Reading, I believe that a number of our colleagues who are hereditaries are hurting as a result of the way they have been treated so far. That is not in my view what the Labour Party stands for.
My seventh point is that the solution to reform must be simple. Complexity does not help at all. There are two parts to my proposals. The reason I put them forward in that way is that I believe them to be simple.
My eighth and final point is that we should also, during this stage, improve the democratic legitimacy of the House by having a voting system that reflects the proportion of seats held by the government party to those held by other parties in the House of Commons. That would diminish the large Conservative majority and would help the Government to get its business through. However, there is a win-win solution in this, and I believe that everyone can benefit.
1134
I now turn to the two amendments that are central to my suggestions. My proposal in Amendment No. 29 is that this House would initially remain as it is now in terms of membership, but on death an hereditary Peer would not be succeeded by his heir. The information produced for me last year by the Library indicates that, with that policy, there would be an enormously rapid decline in the number of hereditary Peers. After the first Parliament the reduction would be 20 per cent.; after the second Parliament 35 per cent.; and after the third Parliament 51 per cent. That amounts to a reduction of just under 400 hereditary Peers over the period.
The reason for that rapid decline is that the graph resembles, as mathematicians will be aware, an exponential curve. I understand that it is against the rules of the House for me to attempt to draw pictures in the air. That approach would remove hereditary Peers in a way that I believe meets the strategic needs of the House and the Government. I shall place a copy of the letter, dated 13th March 1998, in the Library, in the event that any noble Lords wish to see the detail to which I have referred.
I now turn to Amendment No. 109. This is the second part of my proposal. It introduces into the House of Lords a weighted vote system to ensure that the total number of votes eligible to be cast by Members of the House belonging to the government party in proportion to the number of votes eligible to be cast by all other Members of the House reflects the number of seats held by the party or parties of government in the House of Commons in proportion to the number of seats held by the parties in that House. I am sorry that that is so complicated, but it has to be said that the concept is simple, it is proportional.
What does all that mean? It means that initially all Peers would have a vote. It is quite possible that on a particular voting occasion the Peers on the Government's side might have, for example, 1.3 votes to reflect the effect of the general election in the House of Commons. The Government would get their business immediately and the House of Lords would be spared removing large numbers of Peers in one go.
It is easy to scoff at such matters. I do not mind it. However, I believe that, as trustees of the House, we ought to think what is in the interests of the House. Although politically it may not be acceptable to some people, I believe that to go about it in a rash way could be damaging. I believe that it is my duty to say what I think is right in terms of ensuring that the interests of the House are preserved.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall. His comments are thoughtful, sensitive and, above all, constructive. His proposals will be worth studying in detail.
It is a pity that such an enormous portmanteau of semi-related constitutional amendments, son-e of considerable complexity, are being taken so late in the evening. It is a pity, too, that the grouping is a trifle eccentric, if I may say so. My Amendment No. 23 and possibly other amendments in the grouping make no sense at all without the paving Amendment No. 16 in

1135
the names of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and myself. But for some reason it stands on its own further down the list where it, too, makes no sense in isolation.
The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to meet all the legitimate grievances of the Labour Party, whether that party be in government or in opposition, concerning the present composition of the House. I stress the word "legitimate" as distinct from the doctrinaire grievances.
Labour has long complained—and I have long sympathised with its complaints—that it is too often defeated by the in-built Conservative majority (with a capital "C") and on other occasions by the rather larger in-built conservative majority (with a lower case "c"). Although the defeats, when Labour is in government, are nearly always reversed speedily enough in the other place, nevertheless they are an irritant to Labour. No one enjoys being irritated time and time again.
This amendment would therefore bar most hereditaries, or all hereditaries, depending on the progress of Amendment No. 31, from voting on government Bills but not from voting on Private Members' Bills, which are not, I submit, a legitimate concern of the Government; nor would it bar them from speaking at any stage of any Bill.
In its effects, the amendment falls, on the one hand, more or less mid-way between Amendment No. 27 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Moran and the closely related Amendment No. 60 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—neither of which would permit hereditaries to vote on anything at all—and, on the other hand, some of the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon, Lord Randall and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which would appear to give hereditaries restrictive but still fairly extensive voting powers at the cost of greater complexity.
I believe that this amendment is both moderate and workable and I invite the Committee to consider it. May I also, en passant, commend the modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, Amendment No. 30, which seems not only extremely reasonable but almost unchallengeable from the point of view of principle.
Lord Crickhowell: The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, was brave and helpful. He complained about the confusing way in which these matters have been handled. He then proceeded to give the most effective response possible to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, had chosen to treat us. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, had decided that the best way of dealing with the Bill was to say that, because they had decided to make it a simple Bill, no one should be allowed to debate anything that might improve it. No alteration could be made; no suggestion could be put forward or, if it was, it would be casually dismissed without argument.
This evening we have two attempts by my noble friend Lord Selsdon and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to try to make sense of a thoroughly bad and negative Bill and to try to build into it the kind of transitional arrangements which are the proper way in which
1136
to move towards substantial constitutional change. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, produced some compelling arguments for not weakening the House. He produced equally compelling arguments for not rushing ahead to an unknown destination, a subject which we discussed earlier. I thought that he was right to express doubts about the consequences which so many of us have addressed in earlier speeches. We will certainly remember the phrase that he introduced about treating colleagues "like a bad Victorian employer". That is all I want to say about those particular speeches on that amendment, except that I think they deserve the most careful consideration.
However, there is another cause of confusion and I should like to take this opportunity to complain about the way in which all these amendments have been grouped. I know the situation has been made somewhat better because a number of noble friends have chosen to withdraw their amendments at this time, as is their right, and to bring them forward and debate them separately. I believe that my noble friend Lord Marlesford proposes to do that and I was glad to have the intervention right at the start from my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. Also, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, intends to move his amendment.
However, it is extraordinarily unhelpful to come to the House and expect us to absorb and bring together our thoughts about a set of wholly unrelated and unconnected amendments. We have been dealing with subjects far removed from one another. My noble friend Lord Selsdon was dealing with Peers' voting rights and with Peers who are without voting rights. We were to have a set of proposals from my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam about members of a wide variety of elected bodies having the right, after a given period, to receive a writ of summons. We have had the—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord will allow me, as has already been said from this Front Bench, it is open to any noble Lord to ungroup any amendment from the grouping which has been suggested. We try to achieve agreement on groupings. If we fail, there should be no problem. There is no reason to take up the time of the Committee to complain about groupings.
Lord Crickhowell: I think there is every reason to take up the time of the Committee at this point, because it may mean that we will have a less disastrously unsatisfactory grouping of amendments presented to us at later stages of this Bill. I think one is entitled to protest about the grouping of a whole series of amendments which have no connection at all with each other and which cannot be intelligently and sensibly debated together. It is not helpful to the Committee. I hope that it will not occur on another occasion, and I say to the noble Lord that if he wants to speed up the proceedings on the Bill this is not the way to do it. That is all I intend to say. I was about to finish and if the noble Lord wants to delay the Committee further, of course I will give way. However, I have made the point

1137
that I wanted to make. I think that this has been unhelpful and I hope that a real effort will be made on future occasions to get a more sensible grouping.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I can assist the House on this occasion. We have a number of groupings under Amendment No. 10. I and other colleagues tried to advise the noble Lord the Chief Whip and others that it would be better if they were ungrouped. That was not accepted and we now have them there. I remind the Committee and my noble friend of the words at the top of the groupings list
"Although every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal and not binding. It is therefore open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
I therefore encourage any of my noble friends to speak on this matter if they so wish.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip. That was all that I tried to say. I hope that his wise words will be taken into account by his colleagues.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. The simple point is that when we come to the House prepared to speak we do not have the slightest idea which amendments will be separated in this way. Therefore, for the remainder of the Committee stage it is an extraordinary inconvenience that should not arise.
Earl Ferrers: I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend. When I saw all of these amendments grouped together, some of which were punctuated by my own, I became lost, but I was a good boy and went along to ask if I could de-couple my amendments. I de-coupled the whole lot so effectively that I de-coupled two that should not have been and they had to be coupled again. It is impossible to decide how one's own amendments relate to all the other complicated amendments that have been tabled. The answer is to take the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard at his word and unhook all of the amendments that we do not want to be grouped in this way. That is a lot simpler and will make the debate a great deal easier.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. He said that hereditary Peers must go. I thought that that remark was fairly rich. Someone who has been in the House for perhaps 12 months decides that everyone else who has been there for years must clear out. I admired him for his fortitude in recognising a good thing. It is funny how a lot of noble Lords on the other side of the House long to come here and as soon as they arrive they seek to kick out everyone else in a most delightful way. My noble friend Lord Selsdon said that hereditary Peers knew their place and when to go. Maybe he knows his place and when to go. All I can say is that I know when to go, and it is not now.
I just hope that your Lordships, particularly the Government Front Bench, who, I know, admire the noble Lord, Lord Randall, will take cognisance of his
1138
advice and do things slowly. It is a great mistake to upheave the constitution and at a stroke, to use a famous phrase adopted by one of the predecessors of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, remove 700 people from Parliament. Whether or not they attend does not matter, but that is what will happen. It is pretty stringent stuff.
I find it hard to agree with Amendment No. 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which provides that the proportion of government seals in the House of Lords must reflect that in the House of Commons. For example, what happens if one has the misfortune to have a monster Labour majority in the House of Commons and a very small Conservative minority, as happens now? One creates a whole lot of extra Labour Peers in this House. Noble Lords shake their heads. Perhaps they will desist because it puts me off. If I have got it wrong they can explain why. At the next election five years later there is a monster Conservative majority and a 'very small Labour minority and one has to create a whole lot of new Conservative Peers. Therefore, it grows like Topsy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is becoming very anxious. Obviously, I have got it wrong. If he wishes to interrupt then, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said to me courteously the other day, I shall be quite happy to give way to him.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. It has the opposite effect. The weighted voting system that I have mentioned does not require any change or flood of new life Peers to create a balance. The system, which is incredibly simple, does it all for you.
Earl Ferrers: It must be a simple system if I cannot understand it. The noble Lord said, I think, that people had 1.3 votes. I find that very complicated. It is a matter that requires a great deal of studying.
While I am not accusing the noble Lord. Lord Williams of Mostyn, of talking to his noble friend, perhaps he would be kind enough to address his mind to this problem. We want to know where we are going in the reform of your Lordships' House. If we knew where we were going, we might be able to say, "We shall go along with it", with perhaps some criticism of the proposal. But the real criticism is that we not know what is happening. That is what everyone wants to know; and that is what the country wants to know too.
You cannot just upheave a second Chamber of Parliament and say, "Here we are. We shall not tell you what will happen because we don't know", It is deeply irresponsible.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, has spoken to a number of amendments. One concerns a voting system which, so far as I can make out, would make this House virtually a carbon copy of another place. I wonder whether it is worth having this House if that is so.
Another of his amendments proposed, I think, voting and speaking Peers, if I have not got him wrong That is the same as some of the proposals for reform of this House in the 1960s. If I am not mistaken, I think that

1139
the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, wanted speaking Peers and voting Peers. It is a nice idea but I am not sure that I should be prepared to come here if I did not have a vote. I think that it would be a waste of time.
I very much appreciate Amendment No. 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, proposing that those of us here now should retain our seats for life. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has suggested that in the past. That is a suggestion that I would go along with, particularly as I have always loved being here and should like to feel that I could stay here until the great Reaper culled me.
The Earl of Longford: I followed with great respect and some puzzlement the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In all the years when he was a Minister and I sought to oppose him he slapped me down with unfailing precision. He was the most formidable opponent I have ever come across. Now the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, former chairman of a borough council, is much tougher, more astute and wily. He is not so easily intimidated, so I suppose he will put up some sort of show.
I was under the impression that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was going to propose an amendment similar to the one I propose; namely, that life Peers should speak but not vote. I did not hear him suggest it. He seemed concerned with wider matters.
Be that as it may, I now propose the scheme referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon: the 1968 scheme. It was the brainchild of the Clerk Assistant at the Table, the late Henry Burrows, my old golf partner. I have mentioned before how he irritated me on occasions, but he was a wonderful friend. Henry Burrows invented the two-writ plan under which hereditary Peers would speak but not vote. The scheme was simple and was approved by the Labour Government. I hope that no one will say that I am a Labour heretic, because for once I am absolutely in line with traditional Labour policy. This is Labour doctrine and for more than two years it has been accepted by the Labour Government with enthusiasm. It was the doctrine of the Labour Cabinet, led by Harold Wilson, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, being perhaps its most distinguished member. It was Labour Party doctrine in the good old days, and it still is.
The scheme was accepted by the Conservatives and by the Liberal Democrats, most of whom were in the Labour Cabinet at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, certainly was. Some of our strongest members then shifted their allegiance and perhaps they will shift it back. They are mobile people. At any rate, the scheme was accepted by everyone, but was ultimately sabotaged by a strange cross-party combination in another place. At that time, I had resigned from the Cabinet on an educational matter. If I had not done so on that issue, I suppose I should have done so on this one. If the scheme were adopted now, it would not interfere with the Bill. The Bill could go forward and the scheme could be tacked on; it would be a supplement.
I agree with what was said so well by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and I, too, pay tribute to the work of the hereditary Peers. I should be a coward, a traitor, if after
1140
50 years I did not do so. I refer not to the distant past but to today, when the hereditary Peers are a most valuable element. Anyone who does not know that does not know much about this place.
What is to be done? With the help of the Chief Whip, I stayed up until three o'clock in the morning. I was provided with a couch and stayed up five hours after my usual bedtime in order to vote for the Second Reading. I showed my obsequious loyalty on that occasion. Nevertheless, something has to happen. We must ensure that the values of the old Chamber—not the old historic Chamber but today's Chamber—is carried on into the new one. My proposal represents a clear way of doing so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish briefly to support the spirit of everything the noble Earl has said. I find it most moving, entirely constructive and wholly right. It is the only occasion in 20 years that I have been able to agree with anything that the noble Earl has said. However, on this occasion I mean everything that I say. He speaks from the heart and there is sense behind his proposal. There is no logical reason why all the problems of three-line whips, Peers from the hedgerows and one thing and another should not dissolve if there is no vote. We need their integrity, experience and independence. I support the noble Earl with all my heart.
Lord Moran: I speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 27, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to which I have put my name. During our debate on 23rd February, I said that I was unhappy about the Weatherill amendment because I believe that those who negotiated that agreement with the Government got a very poor deal. It would have been much better if they had argued and obtained a solution on the lines of the noble Earl's amendment. After all, that was the arrangement agreed between the parties in 1968, when it was supported by your Lordships on a vote of 251 to 58.
I realise that the proposal has been put forward in the other place and rejected, but it seems to me that it is the best solution. I am afraid that I part company with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy on this. I consider that it is much more important to be able to speak in this House and to express one's views than it is to take part in votes.
Perhaps I may consider the matter of conservation, in which I take a great deal of interest. Two noble Earls, Lord Selborne and Lord Cranbrook, both have great authority in the field of conservation, and it is valuable to the House to be able to hear their views—much more valuable than them being Conservative Peers who may occasionally vote in the lobbies. Sadly, we may lose that contribution.
To allow hereditary Peers to speak and to take part in Committee work, which a great many do, would be useful. I believe that to deprive them of the vote would be reasonable and would meet many of the objections of the Labour Party to the enormous Conservative majority. I strongly support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
10.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he really be happy to move an amendment and not to be able to vote for it?
Lord Moran: I think so, yes. As I say, I think that that should apply to the vote in this Chamber across the board.
Lord Sawyer: I too thought that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, was sensibly and carefully argued. However, to a large extent, it was mistaken and misplaced.
I do not intend to take up time with a detailed rebuttal of the nine points made by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. On one or two of his points, I find it hard to understand how Members of the Committee can see this as a complicated Bill. It seems to me to be a simple proposition for a self-contained reform to end the rights of hereditary Peers. I do not think it is a revolutionary concept. I have campaigned for this all my life. It is not something that I have come to the House of Lords to do, although, those who sat on the Labour Benches before me would have liked to vote on this legislation. This measure has been the Labour Party's aim since its birth 100 years ago, so it is not new. Therefore, I believe it is difficult for the Committee to argue that we are acting like a Victorian employer. We have given 100 years' notice of the improvement and change that we intend to make.
Basically, it is about equality and fairness. Perhaps those hereditary Peers who feel injured by this measure should reflect on the outside world. People in the wider society do not expect to advance themselves, to get a job or to make their way in society on the basis of the merits of their father, their grandfather or their great grandfather. They expect to be able to do that on the merits of their own achievements. If that is the case in wider society. is it not right that those who act as legislators or politicians should proceed on the same basis? Fundamentally, I believe that that is extremely simple and I think it is on that simple basis that this Bill should proceed.
On the new voting system, I believe this is probably the wrong place to introduce that. There may be merit in arguing that case with the Royal Commission, which will look at the rules of the reformed House. That will be the proper place to put forward that case.
I do not accept the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Randall that the depletion of hereditary Peers would weaken the ability of your Lordships' Chamber to conduct its business effectively. I cannot accept that almost 500 life Peers, with all their experience and knowledge, do not have the ability to master the intricacies of the legislation in your Lordships' Chamber. That argument does not run.
Finally, the most important argument advanced by my noble friend concerned Amendment No. 29 and involved extending the length of time that hereditary Peers could sit in your Lordships' Chamber. I say this to my noble friend. He, along with myself, were good party men. We fought elections on manifestos.
1142
Manifestos are important. If this Chamber continually denigrates the role of manifestos then we will damage the political process. We will damage the confidence of the electorate in the party system.
We all fight elections on manifestos and we know that none of them are read line by line by the voters. But we also know that the newspapers run our manifestos, as do television programmes. Lines and clauses are explored by commentators, and people understand the general spirit of intent of the manifestos. Therefore, it is important that, if the next election and elections thereafter are to be fought on the basis of manifestos, we do not do them any more damage in this debate.
My noble friend Lord Randall fought election after election in Hull on the basis of manifestos. He made promises to the voters and said he would deliver to the voters on the basis of manifestos. That was quite right. This manifesto makes it clear that the Labour Party, if elected, would move quickly and speedily to remove hereditary Peers from the House of Lords. Therefore the proposal put forward by my noble friend is against the spirit of intent of that manifesto.
"I do not know how long it would take", says my noble friend—three Parliaments, and 51 per cent. of hereditary Peers would still remain. That would not be acceptable. It would not be within the spirit of the Government's intentions or the Labour Party's manifesto. It is quite clear that we were elected on the basis of taking this step now, and take it now we must.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to point out that when I stated in my speech what I felt were the strategic points on which any proposal should be based, I said that I supported the manifesto; and that part of the reason for putting forward the weighted voting system with the skew proposed was to meet some of the wording of that manifesto.
I make it absolutely clear that I regard the manifesto as inviolate.
Lord Sawyer: If that is the case then it is important that my noble friend supports the Government. The Government's proposals are based directly on the party's manifesto and his proposals would negate that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wonder whether I could intervene at this stage and try to be helpful with respect to the current position. If I am right in my reckoning, three other Members of the Committee still have amendments to be spoken to in this long group—a group which my noble friend Lord Henley and myself felt ought to be disentangled. Unfortunately (I do not blame anybody) they were not disentangled, and that is a great pity.
We are now getting into a confused situation where a number of topics on the same general subject—it can hardly be otherwise given the scope and the nature of the Bill—are addressed from different points of view. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Selsdon is the principal amendment in this group. He made his usual excellent speech. Then we have the interesting but

1143
different amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I suspect that I am put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde whenever the mathematics become complicated because, as some Members of the Committee will remember, it makes the d'Hondt formula seem remarkably simple. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke to his amendment. In the same group we still have the amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I should like him to know that, following representations from the Front Bench, I shall be disentangling my own amendment from this group.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is the point I am coming to. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has an amendment in this group, too, which is quite different in degree. That may well be untangled as well. I am supposed to be replying to the debate, but I do not know whose amendments are still in and whose amendments are out.
What I intend to do is as follows, and if it does not suit the Committee I reserve the right to come back later. I shall reply to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Selsdon. It will then be up to the Committee to decide how it wants to proceed, and up to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who is to reply, to decide how many of these amendments are still in play and how many he replies to.
As I recall, having had occasions like this when I sat on the Government Front Bench, immediately after Amendment No. 10, if my noble friend decides to withdraw his amendment, we shall, unless the Committee adjourns for the evening, go on to Amendment No. 11. We shall then come back to Amendment No. 14 in its order and can resume the debate on that amendment, and so on. That is the principle on which I shall proceed. Therefore, I shall discuss only the amendment of my noble friend Lord Selsdon.
My noble friend made his usual excellent speech, impressively without notes. Perhaps we should consider another amendment providing that any hereditary noble Lord who speaks eloquently and without notes ought to be given a free right of passage into the new House, because it is an excellent example, which I tried to emulate when I was on the Back Benches. When I became a Minister I was told that as every word became gospel I had to read it all carefully and not ad lib; the Box became very nervy if I ad-libbed too often. It is a serious point that my noble friend is an example to us all in his ability to make a speech without notes.
My noble friend has returned to the 1968 Bill which, as a number of Members of the Committee who were here at the time have continued to remind us, was accepted by the House of Lords but rejected by the House of Commons because of the issue of a competing power source, a point I mentioned earlier in the day. My noble friend has suggested that following that Bill is the correct way to proceed. In other words, all the existing
1144
hereditary Peers remain but when they pass on, their heirs do not succeed them to the seat in the House of Lords. There is a great deal of wisdom in that.
My noble friend adds that at the stage of this Bill's being passed any hereditary Peer who wishes to do so can resign his seat. He may wish to make it clear that he does not wish to take part any more or that he has not taken part in the past and wants, so to speak, to clear the numbers. He may also wish to compete for a seat in the House of Commons, although that is a rather risky route.
The Earl of Longford: The noble Lord is aware, is he not, that under those proposals hereditary Peers, though they could come and speak, would not be able to vote?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was about to come on to the fourth subsection in my noble friend's new clause, because that tries to address the problem, which I understand and have never pretended that I do not understand, of the Labour Party's irritation about what it sees as the Conservatives' in-built majority.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde mentioned the Pensions Bill and some issues which were brought in which were never there to begin with and were never intended to be there. If I had tried to complain on the same basis as the Government are now complaining with regard to this Bill I would have been laughed out of court as well as thumped quite conclusively in the Division Lobbies, as indeed I was. I make no complaint. It is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, that she succeeded in these matters. I had better not go too far in case any Members of the Committee think I enjoyed being thumped by the noble Baroness, as I was on a number of occasions, figuratively, of course.
My noble friend's amendment deals with that problem by saying that 100 hereditary Peers nominated by the others should be allowed to have full voting rights. That is not terribly dissimilar to the Weatherill amendment, which we shall come to later. It is a very interesting and ingenious amendment. It is a pity in many ways that in 1968 the other place did not accept it.
It may well be that its time has passed. Occasionally I catch the mid-morning plane to Glasgow. When I arrive there, it is a beautiful morning. I arrive by lunch time but I realise that if I had only got up earlier, I could have had the whole morning there. But, of course, one cannot put back the clock on a Bill any more than one can do so in relation to the plane that one catches.
Therefore, I accept that the time may have passed in relation to this matter, which is a pity. But if the Government were ever to have second thoughts on how to proceed on this issue, my noble friend's amendment offers a very good way forward, for which there is considerable precedent. Although I cannot speak for all Members of the Committee, I believe that his proposal would merit the same warm endorsement today as it received in 1968.
I speak only to my noble friend's amendment. I hope that what I have suggested may be the best way forward in dealing with this over-large group of amendments.
11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): Left in this group are Amendments Nos. 10, 14, 23, 27, 29, 52 and 109, all of which have been spoken to. I intend to reply to those amendments.
Lord Rowallan: I have not yet spoken to my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments which have been degrouped, which have not been spoken to and to which I do not intend to reply are Amendments Nos. 18, 26, 30, 61, 64 and 153. We have received indications that some amendments should be degrouped and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, was kind enough to indicate at the beginning of the debate that he did not wish to speak to his amendment. It is wrong that I should deal with those amendments. It is right that I should reply to the amendments which have been spoken to. I shall not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has done, merely treat the matter as an? la carte menu from which he selects those to which he wishes to reply.
It has been an interesting debate marked by two factors. First, the speech of my noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux was extremely good and he is entitled to a full and detailed reply. Underlying his speech were all the issues raised in the debate, including the extent to which the hereditary peerage should be protected in some way in relation to the successor House to this House.
The second striking aspect of the debate was the ability of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to prevent the Committee from hurtling into an unpleasant debate about procedure. He restored a good mood to the Committee merely by the quality of his speech, on which I congratulate him.
Perhaps I may deal first with the speech of my noble friend Lord Randall. It set out the principles. He identified seven principles to underlie the basis of his speech. First, he said that the hereditary principle is not sustainable and he said that that is the widely-held view of this House. With respect to him, I agree.
Secondly, he said that the Bill and the effect of its changes should not weaken the House. With respect, I agree with that. The effects of the Bill as we propose it will leave 500 life Peers. It will take away the in-built Conservative majority. It will have the effect of providing a more legitimate House, which I believe will be stronger rather than weaker than the one which currently exists.
Thirdly, he said that we should not take up an absolutist position in relation to speed. His proposal means that after three Parliaments, 50 per cent. of hereditary Peers will no longer be entitled to sit or vote in this Chamber. On our calculations, it would take 60 years to get rid of or to remove the hereditary Peers from this House. I appreciate that it is a distressing topic for hereditary Peers. I agree that normally, an absolutist position should not be adopted.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. But he is missing the point that any amendments which have been spoken to today are time limited for the period of the interim House.
1146
Most of us who have spoken accept that it is an entirely new ball-game when the second stage is reached. It is not relevant to discuss what may happen when the last hereditary Peer dies in 60 years' time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is not the way in which my noble friend expressed the matter. He pointed out that three parliaments would have to go by before we got rid of 50 per cent. of hereditary Peers. I apologise for using the expression "get rid of". There is a rather crude aspect to this. Perhaps I should use the word "vaporised", which was the word used by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It does not seem to me sensible to approach the matter in that way.
Fourthly, he said that there should be no large overall majority for one party in this House. We agree and our proposals affect that. Fifthly, he said that to minimise the risk of reform we should resist the big bang. With respect, the effect of our proposals leaves 500 of the existing Members of this House in place. That does not sound like a big bang to me.
He said that, sixthly, hereditary Peers should not be treated badly. I agree, but there is an underlying principle in relation to this Bill, which is that the age of the hereditary legislator has gone. That necessarily involves depriving them of the right to legislate on the basis of who their parents were. That does not involve treating the hereditaries badly. That should be done with respect and sensitivity. However, if that is the underlying principle and what we are going to give effect to, then the consequence is that they should be removed in the most sensible way possible.
The noble Lord's seventh proposition was that the solution must be simple. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, described his most impressive opponent as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but he could not understand the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, was putting forward. I understand that its effect is that there will be weighted voting rights as regards hereditary Peers. I understand that Members of the government party would have, under the present arrangements and on the basis of the present majority, something in the region of 4.49 votes per Peer. That does not sound simple or sensible. It does not sound as though it would appeal to the public at large.
Going through the seven points that underlie the noble Lord's speech, I believe that each one can be demonstrated either to be wrong or flawed or reflected in the Bill which we propose.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord does not see any good sense in 4.49 votes. I would have thought that a member of the Labour Party would have been quite at home with a block vote.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We prefer the idea of one man one vote rather than one man and 4.49 votes.
Having dealt with the principle, I shall now deal with the particular amendments which have been advanced. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, touches on many of the most important issues that have

1147
been raised in the earlier debates. He attempts to compress an entire alternative Bill into one single clause. I do not believe that it is clear what, if anything, of the Government's Bill would be left if his amendment were to be accepted.
What must be clear to the whole House as a result of this debate is that this amendment undermines the very foundation of the Government's Bill and therefore it is not acceptable to them. We prefer our own Bill which, as the noble Lord will understand, has as its fundamental proposition that the age of the hereditary legislator has gone. There are many different elements to the amendment, all of which have been debated in quite some detail. I do not intend to address each individual point in the same level of detail, but I want firmly to rebut the underlying principle that governs all the provisions of the amendment that the hereditary peerage should continue to be a basis for membership of the House of Lords.
I recognise that the noble Lord's new clause imposes significant restrictions on the rights of the majority of hereditary Peers and that it prevents membership from being passed down from father to son. Nonetheless, at the heart of it is the conferment of continuing membership for all existing hereditary Peers.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I do not know whether he is going to refer to me before he sits down. But can he explain why the Labour Party in the 1960s was ready to accept the principle that I have suggested to the Committee tonight, supported by other speakers, that hereditary Peers should speak and not vote? Why does the noble and learned Lord not feel that it is even worth mentioning now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry, but I was going to come to that. The House is well aware that the Government have said, in a spirit of compromise and consensus, that they are prepared to row back from the basic policy in relation to hereditary Peers to the limited extent proposed under the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and others. That will be debated later in this Committee.
If the Weatherill amendment were accepted, it would mean that nearly 90 per cent of hereditary Peers would go now and 10 per cent in stage 2. It was explained at some length on Second Reading why the Government were minded to accept that proposal, thereby splitting the delivery of our manifesto pledge into two distinct stages. I do not believe that there would be much point in repeating what was said in relation to the Second Reading debate.
It is true that the Weatherill amendment envisages the selection of a limited number of representative hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, suggests electing 100 among their number to retain full voting rights. The noble Lord's proposal would also allow the remaining 650 hereditary Peers the option of staying on for life and retaining their sitting rights. I
1148
repeat: that is simply not compatible with the Government's fundamental purpose in relation to the Bill.
I do not propose to deal at any length with the detailed provisions of the noble Lord's amendment beyond making the two following points. First, I am sure that Members of the Committee are aware that a similar amendment was proposed by the Government in 1968. Indeed, that is the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Under those proposals, there were two qualifications for holding a voting writ; namely, being a created Peer and having attended at least one-third of the sittings of the previous Session. Therefore, there was already the difference that only created Peers could even begin to qualify for a voting writ. That is not the case with the noble Lord's amendment.
Secondly, there are other flaws in the amendment. Under the 1968 proposals, a voting writ, once lost, could not be recovered in the same Parliament. The proposed new clause does not contain any such safeguards to ensure that those who qualify under it continue to give proper service to the House; nor does it contain any allowance for legitimate absence during the qualifying Session. The other problem with the clause is that it would make continued membership of the House dependent upon something which happened in the past but which, at the time, carried no such implication.
It is worth making the following point in addition to those points. There was a genuine case in 1968 for retaining the services of the hereditary peerage, both for the sake of continuity and to preserve sufficient numbers to carry out the business of the House. Now there are no longer those grounds, or any others, for maintaining the hereditary presence in that way. So there are very considerable differences between 1968 and the present position.
As for the proposal to introduce a system of voluntary retirement set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that may well be a consideration for the Royal Commission when drawing up proposals for the longer term. However, we are not proposing any changes of that kind in the transitional phase. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I can understand the Government's intention and determination to achieve a balance by means of this Bill, but can we take it that the House of Lords will not be unbalanced by the creation of new life Peers in the interval between this legislation and the implementation of the Royal Commission?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It has been made absolutely clear that the creation of life Peers after the passage of the Bill will not be used to lead to an unbalanced House. Indeed, we have made it absolutely clear that we take the view that no single party should have a majority in this House. That is unlike the present position, where, unquestionably, it is unbalanced. We have said throughout that that will not be the position after the passage of the Bill.

1149
I hope that I have dealt adequately with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I believe that I have also dealt with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, in some detail in my response. So far as concerns the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I should say that his amendment, like most others in the group, has failed to grasp the reality of the Government's position. We object to the fact that the hereditary peerage means that the Conservative Party has a built-in majority over our party in this House, regardless of which party is in government. However, that is not the sole ground of our objection. We object, on principle, to the idea that heredity alone is a sufficient basis for membership in any form of a legislature. So, again, the noble Lord's proposal would fall foul of the basic proposition that underlies this legislation.
We do not say that all hereditary Peers are bad or incompetent legislators; indeed, we have made that absolutely clear. We have always said that we expected some of them to be invited to remain in the House on the basis of their own achievements. We have now said that we are content to see those Peers identified by the mechanism proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, but that does not undermine the basic principle of our stance.
Our manifesto commitment—I am sorry to have to draw attention to it again—was to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. If we had meant that we intended to end only the dual right, and that allowing either one of them to remain would be a fulfilment of the manifesto, we should have said so. If we had thought that allowing hereditary Peers to sit but not vote was adequate, that is what our manifesto would have committed us to. Once again, I am afraid that I must urge the Committee not to accept this amendment, which is incompatible with the principle of the Bill.
I believe I have dealt with the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. As I have indicated, I know it is the same as the one proposed in 1968. However, time has moved on. In 1968 the life peerages had existed only for 10 years. Even taking into account the presence of a much larger number of hereditary Peers of first creation. there was then a real question of whether the Chamber could cope if all the expertise of the existing hereditary Peers was removed in one go. The then government were prepared to phase them out by allowing the existing Members to sit and speak but not to vote. In 1999, however, things are very different. We have had life Peers for over 40 years. There is an enormous number of experienced life Peers in this Chamber. They are more than capable of sustaining the work of this Chamber and they bring sufficient accumulated wisdom of the world, both inside and outside the Chamber, to ensure that our debates continue to be as well informed and effective as they have always been.
As I have already said to my noble friend Lord Randall and to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, these proposals do not fulfil our manifesto commitment. They do not even come sufficiently close to it to be acceptable. Again therefore I must urge the Committee not to support them.
1150
I think that that deals with all the amendments that have been spoken to in this debate. I urge Members of the Committee either not to move or to withdraw their amendments.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble and learned Lord has talked in global terms about the number of life Peers. However, does he not agree with me that the number of those life Peers does not give a true reflection of the number of life Peers who attend and work in the Chamber? The number of life Peers who attend on a regular basis—that is over 50 per cent. of the time—is under 300. If you take away the hereditaries—we cannot now consider the Weatherill amendment; we are considering the Bill as it is—there will be a 100 per cent. increase in the workload of life Peers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know the precise figures with regard to the number of people who attend and work regularly as life Peers, but, even if it is 300, that would still make us one of the biggest second Chambers in the world. A figure of 500 would make us the biggest second Chamber in the world. I am completely confident that there are enough people who devote themselves to this Chamber as life Peers to make it work effectively.
Viscount Mountgarret: At this late hour I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but it concerns rue greatly that every time we come to the argument about this Bill the Labour Party spends its time referring to the manifesto and what it has undertaken to do in the manifesto. If someone is prepared to use the same argument time and time again to try to justify his cause, one has to call into question whether the cause is justified. I say that because the Labour Party is indeed carrying out its manifesto commitment. I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. I do not think that we should disagree with that. It is not a case of what one is doing, but of how one is doing it. That is what causes many people in this Committee grave concern.
Earlier today the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he felt like a metronome going this way and that way. There are 13 amendments grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and I too feel like a metronome going tick, tock. I do not know what we are actually discussing. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, you do not just because you do not have time to debate the matter properly tear up and kick out 700 people and try to lump them together.
One amendment refers to actions taken by a Minister of the Crown. I believe that is Amendment No 23. Amendment No. 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, refers to almost the same thing with regard to a Minister of the Crown.. However, that has not been grouped. So I do not know whether or not we are grouping these amendments. It would surely be better to deal with each point as it comes up so that it can be given careful and due consideration, which is the very thing that the Royal Commission was set up to do. We are here trying to do the very thing that the Royal Commission has been set up to do. We just cannot do it in the space of a few days' debate. It is wrong.

1151
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I am much taken with it. It has much merit and much thought behind it. I am only surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, did not put his name to the amendment. It reminds me of the position of the Irish Peers. Being an Irish Peer myself, I want to make this point. Twenty-four Peers of Ireland were allowed to represent the Peerage of Ireland in your Lordships' House until 1922. When the arrangement with Ireland came to an end, the need for having representative Peers of Ireland was extinguished. Yet those Peers who had been elected were permitted to remain on for the rest of their lives. It was only a few years ago—I cannot remember how many—that the last representative Peer of Ireland died. He was not replaced and so none is left. There are some hybrids like me who are fortunate enough to have an English Peerage.
I believe that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is perfectly fair and right. The writ of summons received by hereditary Peers—the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, had something to say on this point—ought not to be superseded—I am not saying it cannot be—by whim, feeling, emotion, envy or jealousy. That should not be done. It is wrong. We should extinguish ourselves gradually over a period of time.
I do not believe the noble and learned Lord when he says that this will take 60 years. With the greatest respect to many noble Lords present, I find it difficult to believe that many of us will be sitting here in 60 years' time. Therefore, the time taken to extinguish antiquities such as myself and perhaps other noble Lords—I do not wish to be rude to them—will be very much less. I hope that in our debates we will remember that we are going to help the Labour Party—I am going to help the Labour Party—get through its manifesto commitment to reform and perhaps even abolish the hereditary Peers, but not in the hurried, unacceptable and offensive way in which it seems to be doing it. That is the nub of the problem.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make one point. I had a certain rebuke from the noble Earl, Lord Longford. However, that does not worry me because I always received rebukes from the noble Earl when I was in the Home Office. He said that, although the present incumbent is more astute than I am—I quite agree—he
1152
is more wily, too. I agree with that. The noble Earl said that he was surprised that I did not refer to noble Lords being able to speak but not vote. I did not do so for the very good reason that, being what one might in general terms call a wise virgin, I uncoupled my amendments which refer to that in order to bring them forward later. I just hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to think of different arguments when he comes to my amendments, which I am sure he will find very acceptable.
Lord Selsdon: Noble Lords will have noticed that I have come down to earth. I have come down to the same level as my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who had the nerve to suggest that, while I knew my place, I knew when to go. I have no intention of going, and I do not wish to go. But I am confused. It was not my intention that my simple amendment based on a Labour Party treatise should be linked together with a whole range of other matters that I did not fully understand.
The noble and learned Lord opposite in his "Epistle to the Trojans", which he read so magnificently, led me to believe that he was not sure where he stood; that he was skating on some form of thin ice. I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who spoke after me at Second Reading, would have the Floor to himself. He is a good and honourable man whose thoughts are sound and sincere.
From this place nearer to earth, I must say that I am still confused, but at a lower level. Therefore, with that sense of confusion, I suggest that I might be allowed to return to this issue at a suitable later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Imperial College Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.