HL Deb 20 April 1999 vol 599 cc1103-13

(" .—(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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

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

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 moved Amendment No. 9: Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—