Lords Sitting of 27 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 Blackburn.
Lord Dinevor—Took the Oath.

Shadow Arts Council
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the establishment of a shadow arts council.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we welcome any contribution to mature debate on the arts in Britain, but we cannot agree with Sir Peter Hall's analysis. This Government are passionate about the arts and have translated that commitment into the largest increase in funding for the arts in a generation.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. However, perhaps I may offer him my deepest sympathy for the quandary in which the Labour Government find themselves with regard to the arts. After all, it is only six or nine months since the Prime Minister, at a Downing Street seminar on the arts, said that he intended to write the arts into Labour's core script. What does the Minister think has gone wrong? Why have people as famous and diverse as John Tusa, Howard Hodgkin, Harold Pinter and Peter Hall decided that the arts are in danger? Could it be that the Arts Council, for example, is now seen only as the corporate finance management division of an increasingly interventionist Minister of Culture?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathy, but it is totally misplaced. There is no change whatever in this Government's commitment to the arts, as was made clear in the announcement of funding made by the Secretary of State on 1st April. The noble Lord mentioned Sir Howard Hodgkin as being a supporter of a shadow arts council. I need only mention those who have been reported as dissociating themselves from the shadow arts council; that is, Simon Rattle, Richard Eyre, Tom Stoppard, Jeremy Isaacs, Alan Ayckbourn, Harrison Birtwistle and Howard Hodgkin. They are the knights; we have not yet come to the commoners. The crocodile tears expressed by the noble Lord are totally misplaced.
Lord Gibson: My Lords—
Lord Bragg: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Lord Gibson: My Lords, what future do the Government envisage for the Arts Council, given that it
142
is now devolving most of its grant-making functions to the regions, which is perfectly sensible so far as is practical? On the other hand, when a national company gets into trouble, as Covent Garden did recently, the Minister assumes the role which previously was thought appropriate for the Arts Council. What is left for the Arts Council to do? Is it just to speak up for the arts? If so, is it perhaps that role which the shadow arts council, with which I am not associated, thinks it would perform more effectively?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right up to a point. The Arts Council has decided to devolve a fair amount of its responsibilities to the regional arts boards, where local funding of the arts can be closer to the point of sale, so to speak. However, we must not exaggerate the extent of that change. Thirty-six organisations with a total funding of £15 million have been devolved to the regional arts boards. The Arts Council will still have a very important role in relation to national bodies and it will, of course, make economies in its staffing. However, together with the regional arts boards, the Government are convinced that we shall have adequate coverage of arm's length funding of the arts in this country.
Lord Bragg: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords. there is about as much sense in having a shadow arts council as there would be in having a shadow Bank of England, for example.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am interested in my noble friend's suggestion, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be as interested in that as I am.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their generosity in allowing me to speak. Is the Minister aware that the arts are in better shape in this country than they have been since 1979? Could he, for our information and delight, expand on that a little?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was prepared to go back to the term of office of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, as Minister for the Arts in 1990–92, when it is certainly true that he commanded a larger arts budget than any of his successors in the Conservative Government. However, I think the noble Lord will recognise that funding over the next few years is greater in real terms than it was when he was Minister for the Arts, and certainly very much greater than it was under the regime of his successors.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that kind reference. Indeed, I was able to obtain £28 million extra for arts funding in the year when I was Minister for the Arts. However, surely he must recognise the basic fact that there is now approximately double the amount of money available for funding the arts that there used to be because of the

143
National Lottery, which was introduced by the Government of which I was a member. That is a fundamental fact. Surely the Minister would agree that it is against that background that the present dissatisfaction in the arts is so surprising.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that case it is even more remarkable that the Government, apart from the National Lottery, have found an extra £125 million for the arts over the next three years. I would have thought the former Minister would congratulate us on that. The dissatisfaction is very limited. We are happy to talk to those who are dissatisfied, and we always have been, but we still do not need any sympathy from the noble Lord.

Kosovo: Humanitarian Assistance
2.42 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to assist refugees from Kosovo.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have played a major role in international efforts to bring humanitarian assistance to the refugees from Kosovo. We are focusing our help on the countries where they first sought safety, primarily Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. We are providing airlifts of emergency personnel and relief supplies, a truck convoy, logistics personnel and equipment, and support for the refugee camps which NATO forces have established. The offices which we have established in Skopje and Tirana are helping us to identify priorities for further assistance.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full reply. Will she confirm that the basic purpose of the NATO bombardment of Serbian targets is to seek to protect the Kosovar Albanians from widespread and murderous ethnic cleansing by the Serbian militia? Will my noble friend also agree that if NATO's policy is to succeed, then at some stage NATO forces will have to occupy Kosovo? That may take some considerable time. In those circumstances, will she agree that on humanitarian grounds there is a considerable case to be made for removing all women and children from the dreadful refugee camps on the Kosovan borders and relocating them in NATO countries until such time as they can return in safety to Kosovo and their menfolk?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I confirm that our priority is to ensure that in the main Kosovar refugees receive care in the region so that they can return easily to their homes when it is safe for them to do so. I share the anxieties identified by my noble friend as regards what is happening to women and children. Noble Lords who heard the Statement made
144
yesterday by the Prime Minister in relation to the NATO summit will be aware that several atrocities are being carried out against women and children. We are extremely concerned in that regard.
As to the position regarding ground troops, it has always been envisaged that at some stage ground troops will go in as part of the end game. However, there is no intention to mount a forced invasion of Kosovo. The NATO Secretary-General asked the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe to reassess ground troop options. That is part of the process of assessing all possible options for bringing about the peaceful return of the Kosovar Albanians.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me with a question which her noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean failed to answer yesterday; namely, before the bombing started, how many Kosovar Albanians were estimated to be in Kosovo? Also, how many are now estimated to have been driven over the border? How many are left in Kosovo? And, if possible, is there an estimate of how many have actually been killed by this murderous regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am unable to give the kind of detail the noble Lord requests. However, since 24th March just under 625,000 people have left Kosovo and are refugees in a variety of countries across the region. I am unable to give reliable figures in relation to the number of people left in Kosovo or in relation to the number of people who have been killed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness convey to her ministerial friends how much I appreciate their determination not to split up Kosovar families? Will she also convey to her colleagues that it is important, when it comes to temporary admission, that this country should be seen to be no less generous than our friends and partners in the rest of western Europe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are concerned to try to keep Kosovar families together. In fact, we funded the Red Cross which has put in place a family-tracing service. With respect to refugees entering the United Kingdom, the noble Lord will be aware that over the weekend a number of people entered the United Kingdom. We have set up a clear process with UNHCR. We have set up a range of criteria against which UNHCR assess the basis on which it recommends that people should come to the UK. But we are firm in our resolve that refugees should be kept to the region as much as possible to expedite their return to Kosovo.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, with reference to the tail-end of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, does not the noble Baroness agree that we must not appear to be less generous than the other countries of Europe in providing the temporary accommodation required? Surely all the refugees cannot be accommodated near Kosovo. There must be a case

145
for temporary accommodation in the rest of Europe. We heard that Germany is providing accommodation for 20,000. What are this Government going to do about it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, your Lordships may be aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has stated very clearly that we are prepared to take some thousands of refugees here in the UK. However, a specific number has not been identified. We have agreed with UNHCR, which is co-ordinating refugees in the region, criteria against which it will assess whether or not refugees want to come to this country; but we will not do that against the will of the refugees themselves. We think that it is extremely important that refugees have some choice in the matter. Therefore, evacuation from the region to the UK must be voluntary.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the Minister made an extremely important statement this afternoon when she stated in response to an earlier question that the use of ground troops in Kosovo has always been envisaged. That is a radical and remarkable change in policy. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister categorically rule out the use of ground troops at the beginning of the military action in Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am surprised by what the noble Lord has said. There has been absolutely no change in this Government's policy. In the Rambouillet accord it was agreed, as part of a peace-keeping process and to ensure and secure peace in the region, that ground troops would be considered. There has been no change in policy.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree with me that the arrangements made at Leeds Bradford Airport over the weekend were excellent? I have in mind the services provided by the Immigration Service, social services, the Refugee Council and the police. Indeed, all the authorities performed excellently. Will my noble friend also join me in thanking the people of Leeds and Bradford who came to receive the refugees and agree with me that the services provided for the refugees were the very best?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for those questions. He has given me the opportunity to join with him in thanking not only the people of Leeds and Bradford but also all the authorities who so very positively responded to the refugees who arrived over the weekend. We have put the arrangements for the receiving of refugees in the UK into the hands of the Refugee Council, which has been tasked by the Home Secretary with putting in place a special reception service for refugees who are arriving here under the UNHCR humanitarian evacuation programme.

Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consulted the Government of the Republic of Finland and the three Baltic states before they agreed to adapt the 1996 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty between NATO and the Russian Federation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was signed in 1990 by the states of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The treaty's Flank provisions were revised in 1996. The previous government discussed the issues with the Baltic states and Finland beforehand. Treaty adaptation continues, and our aim remains that CFE should enhance the security of all, including those states not party to it. We have, therefore, continued to consult regularly with the Baltic states, Finland and other non-parties to the treaty.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Although I welcome the recent statement made in Washington that NATO remains open to all new members who wish to join after negotiations, does the Minister agree that the Baltic states are in no man's land at present? Therefore, will the Minister ensure that we continue to inform and consult the Baltic states long in advance of our agreeing to various matters with the Russian Federation? Further, will. Her Majesty's Government also insist on the most vigorous and thorough site inspections when the treaty comes into effect on the 31st of next month, especially in the Oblasts of Pskov, Leningrad and Kaliningrad, to ensure that the Russian Federation complies with the treaty? That will demonstrate its goodwill and enhance security in the Baltic region.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that there was informal discussion in the margins in Vienna between the Baltic states and officials representing Her Majesty's Government. There were also discussions between the Baltic states and Norway, Denmark and Poland, which also have a great interest in the matter. I can give the noble Earl the assurance that he seeks that such discussions will continue.
The noble Earl may also be interested to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to the Presidents of Latvia and Estonia regarding the agreement reached on 30th March, setting out some of the improvements in the arrangements to he made. He said:
"There will also be greater opportunities to verify that Russia complies with this"—
that is to say, the improvements—
"as the Treaty provisions for military transparency have also been enhanced".

147
It means that we will be able to send in arms controls inspectors to verify that the terms of the arrangements reached on 30th March are complied with.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say what assurances the Government have received from Russia to substantiate her statement yesterday that the Kosovo crisis does not negate any of the principles underpinning the NATO/Russian Founding Act 1997? I ask that question in the light of the recall last month of Russia's chief military representative at NATO.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Russia has not renounced the NATO/Russia Founding Act, which created the framework for co-operation. Indeed, co-operation is still continuing on important practical issues, as I believe the conclusion of the framework agreement for the adaptation of the CFE treaty on 30th March shows. I hope that the noble Lord will also be pleased to know that co-operation is continuing on a number of other related issues, including those surrounding the millennium bug. Therefore, the discussions on these important issues are continuing.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her most reassuring reply to my Question. However, can she give the House any more detail of the new membership action plan for countries such as the three Baltic states—namely, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—which aspire to join the alliance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the NATO summit decided that NATO would maintain an active relationship with those countries which have applied for membership. One way of doing so was to put into place the membership action plan to which the noble Earl refers. The measures include: first, the submission by aspiring members of individual annual national programmes; secondly, a feedback mechanism from NATO on progress on those individual programmes; thirdly, a clearing house to help to co-ordinate military assistance; and, fourthly, a defence planning approach which will include elaboration and review of planning targets. Therefore, those four areas are contained within the action plan mentioned by the noble Earl.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for including Finland in his well-known concerns on the Baltic states. I also fully support the principle that the Finns and the other Nordic countries are fully entitled to be concerned about the stability and health of the Baltic nations. However, as far the Question on the Order Paper relates to border controls, especially as regards the Finnish/Russian border, will the Minister confirm that the Finns are entitled and correct to be perfectly happy with the existing system of consultations which they have with Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, Her Majesty's Government are
148
continuing to consult not only with the Baltic states but also with Finland. Indeed, we take the Finnish concerns most seriously and hold regular consultations with Finland. The noble Viscount may be interested to know that the most recent formal discussion of CFE with Finland took place between officials on 12th and 13th April this year and that informal discussions have taken place since. We believe that the CFE adaptation process will indeed benefit Finnish security. We shall, of course, remain in close touch with the Finns over the matter.

Rail Privatisation: Advice
2.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the brochure Releasing the Power of Rail, compiled by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and offering British expertise on privatisation of railways to prospective customers abroad, represents their most recent conclusions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise and value the experience and expertise of British companies in the rail sector, which long predate privatisation, and are keen to promote this overseas. Many of our companies are world class. However, that does not conflict with our desire to see improved performance in many key areas, such as punctuality and passenger service, by the private rail operators and Railtrack in the UK. That is why the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister called the industry to the national rail summit in February and it is why the Government are committed to creating a new strategic rail authority.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. However, are the Government presenting a picture for use abroad which is very different from the derogatory statements that have been made by Ministers here at home? While selling British expertise is to be encouraged in every way, do Ministers endorse the proposition in the brochure that this country's railways are now performing with energy and enthusiasm and that they are providing a market where the customer is king?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for our overseas trade activities. The brochure Releasing the Power of Rail was produced by the Railway Sector Group, an industry group of private companies which was assisted in the drafting by a media and publishing consultant. The brochure is an industry promotional tool for use on overseas trade missions and does not represent government policy.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is invaluable to be able to impart to our customers abroad information about all the mistakes

149
that we have committed that need to be avoided by them in pursuing a sensible railway policy, which the previous government failed dismally to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as we have always said, not everything is wrong. If one increases the taxpayer subsidy to the railways by over 50 per cent., as has been the case since privatisation, clearly there will be a substantial amount of new investment in the railways. We have some fine engineering and consultancy companies and others in the rail sector which have a good reputation which ought to be exploited in the rest of the world. That is exactly what the leaflet, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred, is doing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, bearing in mind that this brochure, excellent as it sounds, must have the endorsement of both the Foreign Office and the DTI, will the noble Lord arrange for its wider dissemination in this country, in particular in the Library of your Lordships' House and perhaps even in the Government's weekly Whip because we on this side of the House accept what is in the brochure, but it appears to us that certain noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, including Ministers, seem to be "off message" with regard to the brochure? That should be put right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to amuse himself, but he was not listening. I said that the brochure does not represent government policy. When I read it, I was astonished by a number of the statements in it, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The UK Railway Sector Group is entitled to its opinion. As it is doing a good job we are entitled—I think we are obliged—to help it to sell its products overseas. As regards placing the report in the Library, we shall of course gladly do so if it is of interest to noble Lords.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be better to warn overseas countries to avoid the mistakes made by the previous government, such as the privatisation of rail?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the efforts of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are restricted to supporting the overseas promotional activities of those companies which have taken part in the compilation of this brochure. That does not imply any approval by them or by us of the performance since privatisation of the operating companies or Railtrack in this country. Everyone who travels on the rail network in this country is well aware of its defects.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as the former chairman of the only railway company in Latin America quoted on the London stock market, I assure the noble Lord that there is no reason why private enterprise in overseas territories should not have a great role to play in helping to facilitate the development of rail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate the noble Viscount on
150
declaring the most interesting interest that has been declared today. He may well be right about the operation of private railway companies in other countries. However, this is not a matter on which the Government feel it necessary to comment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will allow me, through him, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that he can obtain a copy of the pamphlet, as I did, in the Printed Paper Office. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will the official members—that is to say, the DTI members and trade Secretaries serving overseas—be encouraged to inform and support the efforts of other countries' nationalised railways to avoid the mistakes that we have made; for example, in regard to selling off rail land unnecessarily and not setting up national services immediately upon denationalisation? We need to get that quite clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that it would be better if our overseas trade posts targeted their activities on the recommendations of the brochure, which seeks to promote the services of the companies which are members of the Railway Sector Group. If we start to give general advice about privatisation, we shall find it difficult to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. That would not be of particular benefit to our commerce.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great disparity between railway companies, some of which are extremely good? Why are some not so good?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—

House of Lords Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the House takes a view on the resolution before it, I raise a procedural point and seek the guidance of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. There appears on the revised second Marshalled List today an amendment which is now numbered 10A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others. Inevitably as it is first on the list it will take proper precedence in our debate.
However, a recent first report of the Procedure Committee set down a method of looking at amendments which I believe met with the acceptance of the House as a whole. Indeed I believe the noble Lord was party, as a member of the Procedure Committee, to

151
that recommendation. It referred to Marshalled Lists of amendments published on the working day before a debate. It stated,
"Lords should be encouraged to facilitate this by tabling amendments no later than 5 pm two days before the debate, whenever possible".
This amendment was clearly not tabled two days before the debate and therefore we have to consider whether the words "whenever possible" might apply. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would agree that there were no extenuating circumstances. The amendment standing in his name and those of other noble Lords is only part of our general debate. It does not even arise with regard to matters which will be discussed at the Committee stage next week.
We need a degree of latitude in matters of this kind. I believe this is in clear breach of the spirit of the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—and perhaps, through her, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—whether we are to regard this as a precedent for the way in which we are to proceed on the Bill, because it will not help the orderly conduct of affairs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He asked whether it was in order to put down the amendment that I have tabled. I believe it is and I would very much appreciate the confirmation of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on that point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree that the matter is formally within the letter of the law as regards the procedure of the House. However, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct in saying that it is not within the spirit of the understanding that we have of the report of the Procedure Committee which was accepted by your Lordships earlier this year.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will take some time later this afternoon to re-examine what she has said. I am not at all aware that it is against the spirit of the report of the Procedure Committee. I am under the impression that it is perfectly in order to table the amendment as we have done. Indeed, in the report of the Procedure Committee there is a system whereby amendments tabled late would be printed on a separate piece of paper. If the noble Baroness would confirm that that is her understanding, perhaps we can carry on with the Committee stage.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has got it slightly wrong. He does not have the Procedure Committee report in front of him. I thought that he would be pleased that the amendment was published in the Marshalled List. As the noble Baroness said, the resolution which has been agreed by the House states that it should be published in a revised Marshalled List or in a supplementary list. There is no argument about that. It is to the advantage of the noble Lord and to the advantage of the whole House. The real
152
question is whether the recommendation of the Procedure Committee means what it says. There can be no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has acted outside the spirit of the matter. I do not intend to pursue it further; I do not want to delay the debate on the main issue. I only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does not do it again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is an amendment of overriding consequence, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has said to the contrary. It is concerned with what could conceivably be a fundamental defect in the drafting of Clause 1 of the Bill. In these exceptional circumstances, as I see it at all events, it is right that it should take place before Clause 1 because it is a wholly exceptional circumstance. If it has arrived late, that is nothing to do with me; it has arrived late.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure the substance of the question of whether the amendment is relevant to the underlying purpose of the Bill will be the subject of the debate, which I hope we can proceed to. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that if the amendment was so obvious and so fundamental it is surprising that it was tabled so late. As to the spirit of the understandings which were agreed with the Procedure Committee, I think—I do not have the advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, of having the report in front of me—the words were that the practice is to be discouraged. I am in the hands of the House about whether to discourage this practice, but I think it was agreed that discouraging the late setting of amendments was precisely to facilitate the arrangements for every Member of the House on all sides.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot accept this. I was present in the Procedure Committee which discussed this. It was quite clear that it was intended that on occasions amendments would be tabled late according to what I might term the old rules. If that had not been the case I would not have agreed to the report of the Procedure Committee. If the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is saying that there should be a further examination by the Procedure Committee, there is a perfectly good system to allow that discussion to take place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No.10A:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS
(". No-one shall receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage. ")
The noble Lord said: Before I turn to the amendment, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, that he should thank his lucky stars
Noble Lords: Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry. I meant Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Such a distinguished colleague as my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry would not have asked such a question. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, should be grateful that I did not produce a manuscript amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said, the object of the amendment is to probe a very important part of the Bill and to seek the Government's view as a result of an opinion given by Mr. John Lofthouse. As your Lordships know, I am the only member of the "Triplets Mackay" who is not a lawyer, and therefore the amendment is very much a lay amendment. The clause is very much a lay clause because it does not address the peerage in a technically precise way. As it stands in the Bill, the clause hangs on the three words "by virtue of', which my noble friend Lord Ferrers will raise and probe later.
How is it that we—all of us, life Peers and hereditary Peers—come to be sitting in your Lordships' House? I suggest and submit that it is in response to a Writ of Summons. Once we come here, all of us, apart from the right reverend Prelates, have the right to stay here for life. Whether hereditary Peers or life Peers, we are here because of a Writ of Summons. An hereditary Peer does not sit in your Lordships' House by virtue of being an hereditary Peer. There are some 70 holders of hereditary Peerages who cannot be here today because they have no Writ of Summons. A number of my noble friends—my noble friend Lord Caithness is one—inherited their Peerages before they were 21 years old. They could not come here; they did not receive a Writ of Summons. That is one example. A Peer who is bankrupt cannot receive a Writ of Summons to come here. A Peer whose father dies cannot walk in here and demand to take his seat if he does not have a Writ of Summons. Every time someone comes to take the Oath, whether at the beginning of a Session or as happened earlier today, a piece of paper is handed to the Clerk; and that piece of paper is the Writ of Summons. It is not the hereditary Peerage but the Writ of Summons that is important.
The terminology in legislation is vitally important. Perhaps I may illustrate it in this way. English, Scottish and Welsh people are all entitled to be Members of the House of Commons. But let us say—it does not look very likely from the opinion polls in Scotland at the moment—that Scotland were to become independent and one wished to exclude Scots from this Parliament—present company, the Lord Chancellor and myself excluded, I need hardly say. How would one go about it? One might put forward a late piece of legislation that said "No one shall be a Member of the House of Commons by virtue of being a Scot". Would that exclude Scots from the House of Commons? Clearly it would not. It would not be enough for the Government to say "Ah, but that is what we intended". If that is what is intended then that is what should be on the face of the Bill.
154
The amendment is a simple, layman's proposition but it is based on the opinion of one of the leading practitioners of peerage law in our country, Mr John Lofthouse, whose opinion on such matters has been sought by the Government in the past. His opinion is perfectly clear. He says:
"nobody is a 'member of the House of Lords' by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Membership of the House is conferred by obedience to a writ of summons"'.
He goes on to say that that is no mere technicality. He reminds us of the leading case on this matter—it may have been some time ago, but it is still the leading case—the case of the Earl of Bristol. He was a hereditary Peer but Charles I refused him a Writ—I suspect that Charles I did not want him to sit in your Lordships' House—and because he had been refused a Writ he could not sit in your Lordships' House. It was only after he had contested the issue and had received a Writ of Summons that he was able to sit in your Lordships' House.
Clause 1 does not seem to be the whole, or even part, of the answer when it comes to excluding hereditary Peers from this place. It may seem strange, but I am trying to help the Government in this regard. It is part of your Lordships' role to revise legislation and to ensure that it means what it says. Whether one agrees with what it says is another matter, but it should certainly mean what it says.
The Government may ask: does not subsection (4) of Clause 2 override the writ, even if the argument about Clause 1 is correct? I do not know the answer. As I said, I am not a lawyer. But it is a question worth asking. We all look forward to hearing the answers to these points from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
There are those who say that the writ is merely a summons; that, once the writ has been answered and a Peer has come to this House, it cannot be used as a means to eject a Peer. It is argued that a Peer who has taken the Oath sits in this House as of right, and that Clause 4(2) does not remove that right.
This legislation will set aside centuries of constitutional practice and precedent. It purports to set aside the rights, duties and privileges of Peers of Parliament summoned here by Royal Command. Those are rights to which human rights legislation, notwithstanding the declaration made by the Government in the Bill, may well apply, because there are legal rights and duties. Also, as noble Lords on all sides of the House have freely admitted, sacrifices have been made by many Peers to come to this place and do their duty in the expectation that they would sit here for the rest of their life. Can those rights and duties be readily and loosely overridden? I do not dispute that Parliament can do that. But in this age of human rights and natural justice, we must be careful about how Parliament does it.
The Government may say that the purpose of the legislation is clear. They may say: "It does not matter whether we have got all the small print right; it is what we wanted to do that must guide the courts"—as it were, a Pepper v. Hart view of legislation. That may well be right. But it seems slightly akin to someone deciding to

155
ban a ball game: let us say, cricket. We Scots sometimes think that cricket probably should be banned. If we set out to ban cricket, and did so on the definition of a ball that did not in fact "catch" a cricket ball, although it may have caught other balls, where would that leave us? We may be able to argue: "Yes, of course we are against cricket. We did not specify that it had to be a hard leather ball that we wanted to ban; we just specified balls"—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not mean that!
If one is going to do something specific, one really ought to draft the legislation to do that, and not to leave anyone in any doubt. Leaving people in doubt may have been good enough at one time, but it is not good enough now. I certainly think that one of the roles of this House is to ensure that people are not left in any doubt, that there is not a potential legal challenge. There can always be potential legal challenges, but we have a duty to try to ensure that we have covered all eventualities so that a legal challenge does not arise that was foreseen during the course of the Bill's passage. So we must examine this matter carefully.
Over time, this House has made clear its view that the law ought to be clearly made, so that political matters and judgment matters of a political nature are not left to the courts if that can possibly be avoided. Mr. Lofthouse's opinion, as will some of the views that we shall probably hear later in this debate, casts doubts on the drafting of the Bill. It suggests that the Bill may not actually achieve the Government's objective. I humbly submit that my amendment might better achieve that objective, without making any judgment as to whether or not I like it. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—
Lord Richard: Before the noble Lord sits down, in view of the distinguished names that appear on this amendment—the quartet that we see is a very official one on behalf of the Opposition—can we take it that it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition that no one shall receive a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage, or is this merely a drafting nonsense?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I had made that clear, even to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. As I have said, this House often tidies up, tries to improve and probes legislation of which it does not approve. When we were in government the Opposition, led by the noble Lord, did that on a number of occasions on propositions of which they heartily disapproved. It stopped them tabling probing amendments, clarifying amendments, to ensure that the legislation meant exactly what it said. That is exactly what I am doing. I am trying to ensure that we take the view of a proper revising Chamber and ensure that the legislation means what it says. We shall discuss whether we like what it says later.
Lord Peston: It looks as though we are playing a peculiar game here. My noble friend Lord Richard
156
deserved a straight answer. Let us assume, hypothetically, that by some miracle your Lordships, even without my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor rising to reply, agreed the amendment. The Bill would then include an amendment proposed by official Opposition spokesmen stating categorically that hereditary Peers would no longer receive Writs of Summons. Can we then assume—since I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would play games with us—that through the rest of the Bill's passage, having got their own way in amending the Bill, seriously as they think, the Opposition would then nod through the whole of the rest of the Bill having improved it beyond all measure? Or shall we continue day after day playing these ludicrous games?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I never thought to ask the noble Lord the same kind of question when he tabled amendments to Bills that I was proposing when I knew that he did not approve of the Bill in total. It still did not prevent the noble Lord and his friends from tabling amendments, not wrecking amendments but probing amendments. I have tabled this amendment because I believe it is our duty to explore how the Bill operates, whether it is correctly drafted and how it works. I thought that I made our views perfectly clear at Second Reading.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, will he confirm that it would be entirely wrong of this Front Bench or this House to allow a Bill to go forward knowing that it could not have the intended effect, and it therefore has a duty to probe this question; and that that is not a commitment to any policy except that of seeing that legislation works?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend, who has had long experience. He has played a distinguished role, both in and out of government, in ensuring that legislation is questioned and properly drafted. He is absolutely right. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may trouble the Committee briefly in support of the purpose for which my noble friend declares he has proposed the new clause. I wonder whether it would not be prudent for the Government to take seriously the anxieties expressed by my noble friend, and to consider whether there may not be another means by which their declared objective can be achieved.
We are not talking about the merits of the Government's policy or what we feel about it. It can be easily described. It is to turn the hereditary Peers out of Parliament, and to do so at the end of this Session. What we are talking about is whether or not the language chosen to effect that policy actually does the job.
Like my noble friend, I feel a certain sense of paradox in seeming to attempt to help the Government to do their job. But I have always understood it to be central to the functions of this House that it pays careful attention to the quality of the legislation that is brought before it. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor

157
whether he is satisfied with the language that has been adopted in the Bill, or whether he thinks that it may be the case that different language would yield a more sure result.
As I have said, there is no difficulty in stating the Government's policy clearly. The trouble arises in their determination to use the concept of a Member of the House of Lords being a Member by virtue of a hereditary peerage; and by declaring in Clause 4(2) that the Writ of Summons of such a person shall not have effect after this Session. That is the problem that confronts us. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that any Bill which purports to remove a component of Parliament—to eject part of Parliament—has to be expressed in crystal-clear language? I say that because it will be examined very closely and construed very tightly by any tribunal—it will probably be the Committee for Privileges—that is called upon to resolve the challenge.
Is there not a real argument that it is not until a Peer has received and obeyed a Writ of Summons and taken the Oath or affirmed that he or she becomes a Peer who is a Member of your Lordships' House? Is there not a real argument to that effect? Can it realistically be said that a Peer is a Member of the House of Lords when he or she cannot perform the function and duty of sitting and voting here because there has been no Writ of Summons? Is such a person's position not this: that he holds a peerage certainly, whether hereditary or life, but he is not a Member of the House of Lords?
This would not matter if the Bill did not proceed on the basis that it is using the nomenclature or title of,
"a member of the House of Lords".
I ask in passing whether that has ever been construed judicially and whether it has ever been defined. It is not defined in the Bill. What definition do the Government give? If my suggestion is right, in plain language surely it is by virtue of the Writ and obedience to the Writ that a hereditary Peer becomes a Member of the House of Lords and not by virtue of his hereditary Peerage. I do not know whether that argument is right; I do not know whether that argument is wrong; but I believe that it has substance and that it needs both a convinced and a convincing answer.
Much more important than my own views on the subject are the views of Mr. Lofthouse, a Treasury Counsel in peerage matters and someone of great experience and standing, who was referred to by my noble friend Lord Mackay. Is it not the case that Mr. Lofthouse, in his opinion, which I know the Lord Chancellor has seen, cites much House of Lords authority? Given these rather unsatisfactory and certainly unusual circumstances, would it not be wise for the Government to reflect that there are more ways available to them of skinning this cat? I suggest that the new clause is one of them—or at least it is part of one of them—because it reflects the primacy of the Writ of Summons by stopping any hereditary Peer from sitting and voting here because he will not have received a Writ of Summons. No doubt other forms of words could be found to achieve the same result.
158
The Government believe that their purpose of turning out hereditaries at the end of this Session is achieved, however curiously in point of form, when one reaches the commencement clause, Clause 4(2), which reads as follows:
"Accordingly. any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session".
But again I ask the Lord Chancellor: does that language itself not have problems for the Government? Can it not be argued with some substance that a Writ of Summons is spent once we attend in obedience to it, hand it over and take the Oath? I understand, although I have not checked up on this, that to mark the fact that it is spent, a line is struck through it by the Clerk. It has no continuing effect once we have obeyed the command which it embodies to attend in your Lordships' House. So it rather looks as if the current language in the Bill, although it will not be wholly ineffective, will catch only those hereditary Peers who have failed by the end of this Session to turn up, to obey a Writ of Summons. It will catch, if I may say so, the backwoodsmen, but only the backwoodsmen.
It could be said that that is perhaps not a bad thing; if you happen to take that view, although it is immaterial whether you do or you do not. But whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is not the Government's thing. I suggest that this language will lead to many a challenge in the Committee for Privileges with which the Lord Chancellor, among others, would have to deal. Apart from anything else, there is an interest in making sure that the Bill is as clear as it can be.
I have had the advantage of seeing the letter which the Lord Chancellor kindly sent to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Rather interestingly, the Lord Chancellor said in his letter that parliamentary counsel considered alternative approaches, including operating directly on the Writ of Summons in Clause 1, which this new clause precisely does. However, he said that the main reason for not doing so was the wish to get at the heart of the matter. That is all well and good, but where does the heart of the matter lie? It seems seriously possible, I suggest with great respect, that it lies not in the holding of a hereditary Peerage but in the receipt of and obedience to a Writ of Summons.
There are certainly other ways in which the declared intention of Clause 1 and Clause 4(2) could be more reliably achieved. The language might not be so sonorous; it might not be so welcome or agreeable to certain partisan eyes and ears; but it would very probably be better law. I trust that the Government will think again.
Lord Hooson: Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor considered accepting this amendment? If the Conservative Opposition and the learned counsel whom they quoted are correct, all that is needed to achieve the ends the Government have in mind is an acceptance of the amendment. If the amendment is accepted—it may well have the effect which the Conservative opposition claimed for it—it seems to me that none of the rest of the Bill is necessary. I cannot

159
see that Clause 4(2) would be necessary if the amendment were accepted. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has considered that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to make a truly short intervention. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know that it is settled peerage law and not merely arguable that it is attendance to the Writ that gives the right to sit and the right of membership. It is nothing to do with heredity.
I have had the honour of serving for quite some time—about 15 years—on your Lordships' Committee for Privileges. If one wants to get to the heart of the matter—I totally accept the sincerity of the noble and learned Lord as to that—the heart of the matter according to peerage law is the Writ of Summons and attendance pursuant to that Writ, which not only confers the right to sit but the right of precedence over previous or other Peers who have received a Writ of Summons but have not attended. It is attendance before the House which confers precedence among the Peers of equal rank and the right to sit in your Lordships' House.
Lord Waddington: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. The noble Lord suggested that if the Bill were amended in the way which is suggested in Amendment No.10A, the effect would be the same as that which the Lord Chancellor thinks that he has achieved by the present wording. I wonder whether that is strictly correct. A good deal must turn on the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. A good deal must turn on the effect of the tendering of the Writ by the Peer when he comes to the Box to take the Oath. I recall that when I was elected a Member of the House of Commons I had to turn up at the beginning of a Parliament and hand in my Writ. The handing in of my Writ was, as it were, my ticket for entry into the House of Commons for that Parliament. I did not have to carry it in my breast pocket and produce it every time I wanted to speak thereafter. The Writ was, in effect, spent when I tendered it at the beginning of a Parliament. I am fairly sure that that is its effect in the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may intervene. As a former Member of the House of Commons, I cannot recall ever having received a personal Writ of Summons or handing it in. The Writ of Summons goes to the returning officer who then returns it. That is why he is called a returning officer.
Lord Waddington: Perhaps I am mindful of the time when I was a candidate in a by-election. I can assure the noble Lord that I had to carry the Writ into the Chamber. At the beginning of a new Parliament, the procedure is simplified and all the various returning officers send in the Writs, but it has exactly the same effect. I carried with me into the Chamber my own Writ, which was my ticket that entitled me to sit in the House of Commons for the remainder of that Parliament. I suspect that the same happens to the Writ tendered by
160
a Peer when he comes to take the Oath in this Chamber. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give his view on that. I believe that the Peer hands in his Writ which is his ticket to sit and speak in the House of Lords. The Writ is then spent and has no further effect.
If that is the way matters work in law, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is not quite correct in saying that the amendment would have the same effect as that intended by the Lord Chancellor. The effect of the amendment may well be that from this time onwards those who come to the Box with a Writ and ask for permission to sit in this House will be refused, but those who have already tendered their Writ and been accepted as Members of this House will retain that right for the rest of the Parliament. These are very important matters to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must address his mind. When he comes to sum up the debate, I should like the Lord Chancellor to give his understanding of the effect of the Writ. Does he agree that once the Writ is submitted its effect is spent?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of Lord Cranworth, the Lord Chancellor in the Wensleydale peerage case in the last century:
"That which gives every noble Lord his right to sit here is not his Patent of Nobility, but the Writ of Summons which he is entitled to, in consequence of that Patent".
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that at the very least there is doubt as to whether Clause 4(2) is effective in as much as the Writ may or may not still be alive after it has been presented and the holder of it has sat in Parliament.
Lord Mishcon: I apologise in advance for being quite wicked. I believe that I and my colleagues now know why this amendment was tabled at the last minute. Perhaps I may be forgiven for my suspicion that there was a strong minority in the party opposite who said that they must not make fools of themselves by tabling an amendment of this kind because of the result pointed out by my noble friend Lord Richard and others; namely, that they would go on record as being in favour of the amendment so tabled. Having said that, I congratulate the minority opposite who said that and deprecate for their sake the decision to table the amendment, which was reached at the last moment.
I turn to the amendment and the present wording of the Bill. In this debate we are speaking at the very time when, after centuries, writs of summons have ceased to be issued in the Royal Courts of Justice. I say very proudly that the first of the new substitutes for writs of summons was issued by my firm. My firm has now gone on historic record not for the number of negligence cases brought against it, but because it issued the first notice of claim to be handed to the senior master.
Having given that puff, in the same manner in which those writs of summons have been abolished, Writs of Summons to your Lordships' House may be abolished. What nonsense this amendment would bring about in not carrying out its purpose. No Writ of Summons,

161
notice of hearing or whatever it may be would be required for attendance in this House. We have limited ourselves by this amendment to the issue of a Writ of Summons. If there is any change in that procedure we have had it, to use a colloquialism. The wording of the Bill before us makes it transparently clear that whatever procedure may be adopted, hereditary Peers will not by virtue of that fact become Members of your Lordships' House and be entitled to speak and vote.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that he is "wicked". That is his word; I would not have used that word. Sometimes he is mischievous, and I believe that he has been so this afternoon in explaining why the amendment was tabled. I believe that my noble friend has done a great service to the House and the Government. It is our purpose to look at what the Government are doing and, possibly, disagree with them, but also to help them.
The Bill at the moment does not carry water. It refers to a Peer being here by virtue of a hereditary peerage. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, we are not here by virtue of an hereditary peerage but by virtue of a Writ of Summons. If this Bill passes into law unamended, it may well be that a Peer will contest the matter in a court of law. If the court found that he had a right to ask for and receive a Writ of Summons, the Government would look pretty stupid. We are trying to help the Government and to prevent them looking stupid, which is not an easy task. The fact is that we are here by virtue of a Writ of Summons, not a hereditary peerage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does the noble Earl agree that such a person would not receive a Writ of Summons unless he was a hereditary Peer?
Earl Ferrers: The Bill states that no one shall attend the House of Lords by virtue of the fact that he is a hereditary Peer. Although I have not seen the letter written by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew referred, it appears that parliamentary counsel had thought of using the Writ of Summons approach, but wanted to get to the heart of the matter.
What is the heart of the matter? To use the unfortunate phrase which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could not get his tongue round the other day, it is in order to get rid of the hereditary Peers. I can only say that it is a funny thing that, while the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is conducting a great fight against the Serbs in relation to ethnic cleansing, here at home he is carrying out a great fight in the House of Lords in relation to hereditary cleansing. In other words, "Get rid of hereditary Peers, whatever they are: good, bad or indifferent. Let us get rid of them all. "
That is pretty pungent stuff. If that is the reason why the Bill is written as it is, it would be interesting to know. I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston—and I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, joined in too—tried to make a monkey out of what is a
162
perfectly genuine amendment which tries to help the Government avoid getting themselves into a position they would regret.
Lord Richard: I seem to remember a proverb from my schooldays about Greeks bearing gifts. There are not many Greeks in this Chamber but, if my Latin were good enough, I would try to re-translate it to, "Beware the Earls bearing gifts".
With great respect to the Opposition, it is a most extraordinary and rather fatuous position they are arguing. What is it? They have put down an amendment which on the face of it does exactly what the Government wish to do. They have done that not by way of an amendment to Clause 1, but by inserting a new clause which is clear and specific and which they say is unarguable; namely, that hereditary Peers should not receive a Writ of Summons to come and serve in your Lordships' House. The amendment is not tabled by one of their lawyers in an attempt to tidy up the drafting; not a bit of it. It stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, two Mackays and the legal spokesman for the Opposition, Lord Kingsland. Yet, in reply to my perfectly simple question, "does it represent the view of the Opposition, I am told, "Of course it does not. It is merely an attempt to assist the Government to make sure they get it absolutely right."
If the Opposition are opposed to the Bill, I would have thought that the result they might have wished was one in which the Bill was not totally clear; one in which there could be a recourse to the courts. Indeed, if the Opposition mean what they say about opposing the Bill—root and branch, I think someone said at one stage—a situation in which it was capable of being overturned by the courts is one I would have thought the Opposition would grasp with both hands.
With great respect to those sitting opposite, I do not think that they mean what they say. I do not believe that they are in business to assist the Government. If, therefore, the amendment does not reflect the official position of the Conservative Party and if the Opposition do not mean that which is contained within it they should not have proposed it.
Viscount Cranborne: I find myself in rather a distressed state after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I thought that we had established an agreeable double act in your Lordships' House in recent weeks in which we would be able to fly over both Front Benches and agree, in a sort of moueing fashion with each other, on virtually everything to do with reform of your Lordships' House. However, having listened to the noble Lord's as usual eloquently expressed strictures, I find myself profoundly in disagreement with what he had to say. It is important that those among your Lordships who, like me, are not lawyers should intervene in lawyers' disputes. It is in the best traditions of Parliament that non-lawyers should contribute.
Listening to the Government and their supporters, I must confess to a degree of astonishment at the line they taken. It sounds increasingly an Alice-in-Wonderland sort of proposition. It does not matter what the legislation actually says, "it means what

163
I says it means". Humpty Dumpty. I thought that we still preserved, in this Parliament at least a respect for the details of legislation.
I recall, on the first day of the Committee stage, a number of us were reproved by the Government Front Bench for making what were considered to be Second Reading speeches. The implication of that criticism is that in Committee your Lordships concentrate on what your Lordships do so well, which is to consider the detail of the legislation. If we are to consider the detail of the legislation, which is something that the Government are encouraging us to do, I suspect that the way we do so is by concentrating on the meaning of the language.
For the Government Benches therefore—led by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard—suddenly to say to your Lordships that it does not particularly matter what is said in the detail of the Bill and so long as the Government's ultimate intentions are made clear we can rely on the courts to put it right is an abnegation of the true purpose of Parliament and of legislation in the first place. I am sure that one moment's thought on the part of both noble Lords, who in their own respective ways are not only experienced parliamentarians but also very distinguished lawyers, would convince them—without any help from me—that, with the greatest respect, they really are talking nonsense.
I am not a lawyer, but I am very well aware of the reason why I sit in your Lordships' House. I sit here not because I am a hereditary Peer. I am not. I sit here by virtue of an extraordinarily arcane device which has occasioned a good deal of ribaldry, not least among a number of your Lordships opposite but also, dare I say it, among the denizens of Grub Street. That arcane device, your Lordships will remember, is a Writ of Acceleration. The fact that I am allowed to sit and speak in your Lordships' House, as I understand it, is purely as a result of my being in receipt of that Writ.
Lord Barnett: There is something here which I find very hard to understand. The noble Lord receives a Writ of Summons. Can he tell us why he receives it?
Viscount Cranborne: If the noble Lord cares to look once again at the amendment proposed by my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench, I think he will see that the implied point he makes has been taken aboard in the drafting. It is always a pleasure to be barracked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Indeed, I am barracked very frequently by the noble Lord not only in your Lordships' Chamber but also in the corridors. If I may say so, it is one of the things that draws me back like a magnet to your Lordships' House. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make my point in my own way.
In the drafting of their amendment my noble friends have said, as no doubt the noble Lord has noticed, that no one shall receive a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. It is implied by the noble Lord that my connection with the hereditary peerage is what enables me to receive
164
the Writ of Summons. That is indeed so. But it is no more, I submit to your Lordships and to the noble Lord in particular, than what my noble friends are saying. What they suggest in the amendment is that Writs of Summons are at the moment issued to members of the hereditary peerage by virtue of their having a hereditary peerage.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, I understand, is the only begetter of this particular piece of legislation, and no doubt because of the hurry in which it was drafted, he perhaps swallowed a word or two when he came to consulting parliamentary counsel on the drafting of stage one. If we are here by virtue of a hereditary peerage, I submit that Clause 1 as drafted is no more than a statement of the existing position. It does not change it one whit. If, on the other hand, we believe that legislation should say what it actually means rather than what the government of the day suggest it should mean—it would be an extremely dangerous road to do down despite Pepper v. Hart, and so on—it would be more sensible to incorporate the reality in Clause 1.
The other argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, not only in his remarks today but in previous interventions, seems to me remarkable. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is saying that however one drafts it the effect is the same: hereditary Peers will no longer be allowed to sit. That is the Government's intention: we all accept that. Equally, the noble Lord has asked: is it not somewhat odd for the Opposition effectively to make a suggestion which makes legislation, with which we assume they disagree, work better? In putting forward that argument, the noble Lord is making an uncharacteristically partisan point. He has been a most distinguished leader of your Lordships' House, and indeed leader of the Opposition. During the course of my extremely agreeable association with the noble Lord in both those incarnations, I felt it was clear that the noble Lord understood that there was a difference between party politics and the constitutional role of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that a clarity of view of that distinction has distinguished your Lordships' House and its Members rather more than it has Members of another place. Your Lordships are well able to distinguish between a view about the desirability of a policy, whether or not a party policy, and whether the legislation is drafted in such a way as to deliver a government policy, desirable or not, in the most effective way.
For the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to say, that by implication the measure as drafted may not be satisfactory but at least it can be sorted out in the courts seems to be accepting a surrender of the proper role of Committee stage in a parliamentary process which is breathtaking—and certainly breathtaking coming from someone of his distinction.
I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could help us a great deal if he were able to say that he agrees that a number of us sit here because we are connected with, or are, hereditary Peers; but we have the right to sit here because we have received a Writ. If the Government wish to abolish the right of

165
hereditary Peers to sit here, perhaps the legislation which brings that desire into effect should reflect the mechanism which brings that about rather than the general practice, with the Government saying, "It may not be accurate, but you know what I mean, and that is good enough".
4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I read earlier today Mr. Lofthouse's opinion. It is an incredibly learned opinion and I am persuaded that he is correct in saying that membership of your Lordships' House results not from a peerage alone but from that coupled with a Writ of Summons. Mr. Lofthouse concludes from that that the Bill probably fails to achieve what we all know is its purpose.
In the best tradition of the Bar, the opinion leads by a process of impeccable logic from a correct premise to a wholly fantastic conclusion: that the Bill applies only to hereditary Peers who have not yet: taken their seat during this present Parliament. Mr. Lofthouse's opinion wholly fails to see the wood for the trees. The fact is that we all know what the Bill means. The Conservatives know it as well as anyone else in your Lordships' House. It is of course true that one can never be quite sure that judges will know what is common knowledge to everyone else, but I believe that even the most remote and learned judge—there are not so many of them around as there used to be—would have no difficulty in deciding that this Bill, if passed as it stands, removes the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, refers to the phrase, "beware Greeks bearing gifts". He should have taken into account the fact that in legal debates classical allusions have been forbidden by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. However, I suggest that this debate is not worthy of any further time of the Committee.
Lord Davies of Coity: Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I am not a lawyer either. But if the amendment were carried it would shift the emphasis away from hereditary peerages to the Writ of Summons. The amendment states:
"No-one shall receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage".
If the amendment were passed, does it not mean that those who have already received Writs would remain here?
Lord Peston: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I wish to make two points. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that many of us here are laymen. He is, and I am. We have to be careful about involvement in these issues. Despite my earlier acerbic remarks, I always accept the bona fides of the party opposite. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that I stand second to no one in wishing Bills to be properly drafted.
There is an easy solution to these matters. There is at least one other expert person on whom we can rely here; namely, my noble and learned friend the Lord
166
Chancellor. I, for one, would like to hear his definitive response. I am tempted to think that it will be conclusive.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may assist a little by reference to my own experience. My late father died in 1960 when I was only 19 years of age. I succeeded to the title. I became Lord Trefgarne the very moment my father passed away. But I was not allowed at that point to sit in your Lordships' House. I had, first, to prove that I was indeed my father's son. That, happily, presented no difficulty. I received a letter from the then noble and learned Lord Chancellor saying that he was satisfied that I was who I was and that he would have authorised a Writ to have been issued had I been 21. So clearly I was a hereditary Peer at that point but not allowed to sit in your Lordships' House because I had not received a Writ of Summons and was not entitled to receive one at that age.
I think that that underlines the point which Mr. Lofthouse has made: that it is the Writ of Summons which gets us into the House, not just being a hereditary Peer. I therefore support the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has confirmed that this amendment arises out of the opinion of a member of the Bar, Mr. John Lofthouse, dated 14th April 1999. I do not in any way desire to detract from Mr. Lofthouse's standing at the Bar. His learning in peerage law—and some peerage law is very ancient; it is a very arcane area of the law—is well acknowledged. But, just for the record, he is not a Queen's Counsel.
His opinion has been widely circulated. His basic contention is that the Bill in its present form will not be effective in excluding hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. If that were right it would cause great concern to the Government. We should then be welcoming Mr. Lofthouse's opinion as a gift from the gods and setting parliamentary draftsmen to work to make the Bill effective.
No one is more grateful than me for all the assistance: that I receive from every and any quarter. Life is so difficult that I could not say otherwise. But 11 have considered Mr. Lofthouse's opinion with very great care and I am satisfied that the Bill is effective as it stands without the need for any amendment.
The issue is whether the courts would construe the Bill (when it passes) to give effect to its well known purpose. The judges, in common with everyone in the country, know what the Government's purpose and objective is. It is to remove the totality of the rights and duties which members of the hereditary peerage have in their capacity as Members of the House of Lords; and the courts would unquestionably construe the Act to give effect to its manifest and well known objective, which is that the totality of these rights and duties will be removed, without any exception at all, once the Act comes into force, in terms of the Bill as now expressed.

167
The Bill has great merit in that it is expressed in the plainest of plain English so that anyone can understand. Just as Clause 1 is admirably clear, so also are Clauses 4(1) and 4(2). Clause 4(1) provides, subject to the stated exceptions, that the Act,
"shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it is passed".
Clause 4(2) provides that,
"any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament … shall not have effect after that Session".
Thus, Clause 4(2) provides that the consequence of Clause 1 and Clause 4(1) will be that, at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the Bill is passed, any Writ of Summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage, shall thereupon become null and void in law. That, for the avoidance of any doubt at all—although I am confident that there is none—is the meaning the Government intend for the words in Clause 4(2),
"shall not have effect after that Session".
The Government's objective in choosing the words in Clause 1,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
is, by the intended breadth of the words, to make it plain beyond any doubt that the Bill when it passes ends the membership of this House by any Member whose membership is in any way connected with, or related to, a hereditary peerage. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will make the same point when he comes to reply for the Government to Amendments Nos.19, 68 and 155, which are in the names of noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Mr. Lofthouse's argument is that Clause 1 is ineffective as membership of the House of Lords is not "by virtue of a hereditary peerage", but "by obedience to a Writ of Summons". Obedience to a Writ of Summons, however, is the mechanism by which a seat is assumed, but it is not membership of the House of Lords itself. Clause 1 is intended without any qualification to preclude membership of the House of Lords by any person whose membership, if not so precluded, would be in any way connected with, or related to, any hereditary peerage.
I confidently advise your Lordships that that is what the Bill intends and means and that that is how the courts would construe it in order to give effect to its manifest and well known objective. For myself, I am clear that the purpose and objective of Clause 1 of the Bill is in no way ambiguous or obscure. But, lest the contrary view be subsequently argued in any court, or any court be minded to conclude that Clause 1 is in any respect whatever ambiguous or obscure, or lest that be argued pursuant to any Petition for Admission or Writ of Summons, let me say on behalf of the Government that for their part they regard the purpose and objective of Clause 1 to be precisely as I have just stated it to be.
I regard this amendment as having given me, on behalf of the Government, a useful opportunity to put to rest any misunderstanding about the straightforward
168
purpose and objective which Clause 1 is intended to secure. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend replies, will the noble and learned Lord explain the issue a little further? Clause 4(2) states that,
"any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session".
However, the noble and learned Lord did not reply properly to the fact that a Writ of Summons invites a person to come here. Once he comes here, that Writ is expended and therefore it is not possible to halt the application of the Writ half-way through. If the noble and learned Lord wanted to travel from London to Edinburgh, bought a ticket and boarded the train, he would not think much of it if he were thrown out at Peterborough.
The noble and learned Lord did not address that issue. However, he did say—I found it alarming—that the courts will consider the Bill in the way that the Government want. He said that the Government "intend" this that and the other. Parliament intends and the courts will decide what Parliament itself has decided on.
The Lord Chancellor: With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I believe that his final observation is not worthy of his general observations to this House; nor is it representative of him. I made it absolutely clear—I chose my language with deliberate care—when I said that the Government, for their part, regard the purpose and objective of Clause 1 to be precisely as I have just stated it to be. I repeat, "for their part". It is for the courts, of course, to construe this Act when it comes before them as the courts think right. Nothing that I said was intended to, or could, derogate from that.
Clause 4(2) will primarily bite upon a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons for the present Parliament, but has not taken his seat. In accordance with Clause 4(2), if the Bill passes in this Session, it will come into force at the end of the Session. Then the Writ of Summons not responded to will become null and void as a matter of law.
Lord Rees: Could the noble and learned Lord explain a particular point arising out of Clause 4(2)? To what degree and in what way is a Writ of Summons effective during the course of a Parliament in relation to a Peer who has accepted the Writ and taken his seat?
The Lord Chancellor: The effect of Clause 1 is that a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons and taken his seat ceases upon the Bill's coming into force to be entitled to be a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
The Earl of Dudley: I have some trepidation in taking on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I do not believe that I am here by duty,

169
inheritance or privilege, as he suggested; I believe that I am here by custom. I had been waiting for an eminent historian to make the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that for several centuries after Henry III called the first Parliament only a handful of Peers were summoned by Writ of the monarch to Parliament. They were generally those who were the monarch's choice. That prevailed until Tudor times. Indeed, it was not until Tudor times—when I think it was the responsibility of Thomas Cromwell, who wanted to pack Parliament in order to get through his statutes—that more hereditary Peers began to be called, and finally all hereditary Peers began to be summoned to Parliament by the monarch. So it is not a question of right or duty as a hereditary Peer; it is a question of custom.
There is a very strong point about this question of Writ of Summons; that if the Bill is directed towards the hereditary aspect of the peerage it may well, whatever the Lord Chancellor says, have a weakness, whereas if it is directed towards the Writ of Summons, it may be stronger and more cogent than at present.
The Lord Chancellor: In my opinion, the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, is in his seat by virtue of a hereditary peerage which inheres in him. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is here by virtue of a hereditary peerage which inheres in someone else—I believe his father. He was entitled to a Writ of Acceleration because of the good fortune that his distinguished father is entitled to many peerages. They were available to the noble Viscount when it was desired that he assume a seat in the House, and a Writ of Acceleration was available to him. The words,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
in Clause 1 embrace the position of both the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
Earl Ferrers: May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: I think I am entitled to do so. After all, my noble friend Lord Dudley said that he was frightened of asking the noble and learned Lord a question. I am not frightened of asking him a question, even if I am intellectually decapitated in the process.
The fact is that we are all hereditary Peers and life Peers—here by virtue of having received a Writ of Summons. If the Bill says, as the noble and learned Lord says it does, that as from a certain date hereditary Peers will have their Writ of Summons, as it were, removed from them—although for the reasons that have already been stated, that is impossible—how do the Government equate the fact that some Peers will have their Writs of Summons continued with the fact that some will have them truncated? Once that is done, do we not enter into the realms of hybridity?
Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord back to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill—the nationalisation Bill. He will not remember that, because he was too involved in what he described as the "fat-cat
170
circuit", but I happened to be involved with the Bill when it was before the House. There was a row over it because it did not distinguish between those involved in ship-repairing and those involved in that business. So, some people were caught by the Bill and some were not. It was therefore hybrid. If the noble and learned Lord's premise is fulfilled and the Writ of Summons can be removed from some Peers but not from others, I respectfully suggest that that might put it into the realms of hybridity.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, causes me to look back with gratitude and respect for the many years during which I was a member of the circuit which he chose to name in the way that he did. I readily acknowledge that the noble Earl is in no way afraid to ask me questions. I welcome them, and I am in no way afraid to answer them.
The point about Clause 4(2) is that it causes to be null and void Writs of Summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage after the end of the session in which this Bill passes. Her Majesty has put her prerogative at the disposal of Parliament, and there is no question but that Clause 4(2) has the effect described.
Clause 1 precludes from membership of the House of Lords anyone who is a member by virtue of a hereditary peerage, who will by definition be here pursuant to the mechanism of a Writ of Summons.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble and learned. Lord the Lord Chancellor failed to answer it, I wonder whether he would pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, who referred to a judgment made some time in the last century which specifically seemed to imply, if I understood him correctly, that the Writ of Summons is paramount in this case, arid not the Letters Patent or anything else. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not answered that point at all.
The Lord Chancellor: I have no intention of getting; involved in arcane questions of peerage law. What the Bill does is to address the substance of the matter, which is membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage, a concept which the ordinary man in the street and the judges will have no difficulty in construing.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes that perfectly plain, but is it not a matter of fact that if this is looked at in more depth it is seen to be a matter more for the courts to interpret than he has said? He cannot ride roughshod over history in all this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, put a legitimate point which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has manifestly failed to answer.
The Lord Chancellor: I have just answered it. The Bill will take effect, and will be construed by the courts, in accordance with its manifest intention and effect. We do not dictate to the courts. On the contrary, we hold them in the highest regard for their independence. But

171
it is my duty from this Dispatch Box to state clearly and unequivocally what the Government's intention, purpose and objective is by reason of Clause 1.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Put in a sentence, it repeals settled peerage law on this point. It annuls the previous peerage law as it exists.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not accept that. The background may be previous peerage law, but I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that in this matter Parliament is sovereign and our manifesto commitment is as clear and unequivocal as I believe the Bill to be.
Lord Trefgarne: It seems to me that the cat is now out of the bag. Whatever may be the view and, indeed, the wish of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it seems to me now inevitable that one or other of the 700 or so hereditary Peers who will be excluded from the House of Lords by the Bill, if it is passed in its present form, will go to a court to get his position reinstated. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say whether that will be subject to legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: I would hesitate to say that it would not be in the public interest for any such point to be tested in the courts, but I doubt whether anyone who might embark on such an exercise, which I confidently predict would be doomed to failure, would qualify for legal aid.
The Earl of Northesk: I too am not a lawyer, but I should like to put one point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As a non-lawyer, I must of course respect his conviction of the purpose of the Bill, but in respect of the Lofthouse opinion, if there is any credibility in it whatsoever, would it not be the case that recourse would not necessarily operate under the court system, but would, according to Standing Orders and the precedent of the Earl of Bristol case, involve a direct petition to the Crown?
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I could embark on a learned disquisition on the many ways in which this issue may become justiciable but that would trespass upon the patience of the Committee. But wherever this matter falls for judicial determination, since Her Majesty has put her prerogative at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill, my confident expectation would be, on any petition for admission or Writ of Summons, that the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, would follow the law.
The Earl of Caithness: Like my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I was a hereditary Peer before I received a Writ of Summons. If my memory serves me right—and this is the point I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify—unless I applied for a Writ of Summons within a set time frame I was prevented from applying
172
for it in the future. Therefore, I could have remained a hereditary Peer but not had the Writ of Summons. Am I right about that or did I have to apply to become a hereditary Peer and apply within a certain timescale?
The Lord Chancellor: I cannot answer that point off the top of my head. But I should be very surprised if there were a time limit.
Lord Hughes: I may be asking an unnecessary question but I notice that a subsequent amendment, Amendment No.121, seeks to delete Clause 4(2). If Amendments Nos.10A and 121 went into the Bill, would that mean that all those hereditary Peers who presently have a Writ of Summons would remain until the end of this Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps we should address that matter when Amendment No.121 is arrived at.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. At the risk of crossing swords with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not believe that these are arcane points. They are important. Equally, I do not believe that government Ministers, certainly in the past, took the attitude, "Even if we are wrong, it does not matter. We will make the issue clear from a Pepper v. Hart point of view and the courts will know what we mean the legislation to do and not what it says it does. "
I make no apology for the amendment being brought before the Committee. The Government do not believe that it is necessary. That is fine. That is their view. It is your Lordships' right to question the detail of legislation and ask whether it does what the Government want it to do. I do not take the criticisms made earlier by some Government Back-Benchers that somehow or other that is an odd position for the Opposition to adopt. It has been the position not only of oppositions but also of Members on all sides to probe the Government and ask whether they have a clause or part of a Bill absolutely correct. We may not agree about the principles or objectives, but what is said on the face of the Bill should be totally consistent with what the Government want.
We all know what the Government want. At one stage, I wondered whether the Government should introduce a Bill which says, "The law will be whatever it says in the manifesto. " I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for not introducing the manifesto.
Noble Lords: He did; he did.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Oh, did he? I am sorry. I must have been too busy trying to write a note about something he said previously. I do not know whether the manifesto is a document which will hold up in court. I think possibly not.
First, I should apologise for calling Mr. John Lofthouse a QC. I understand that in legal circles such matters are extremely important. I do not know about that; it is what I am told.

173
I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, brought to the party, so to speak, apart from—I hope I recorded it accurately—the tradition of the Bar writing a note which leads from a correct premise to a wholly fantastic conclusion. I am not in a position to argue about that. The noble Lord will know all about it. I wonder whether his clients know that that is in the tradition of the Bar.
Lord Goodhart: I have written many such opinions myself.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Far be it from me to make any further comment. Our proposed new clause and Clause 4(2) work together. I find it odd that in Clause I the Government do not mention a Writ of Summons and yet in Clause 4(2) they home in on the Writ of Summons. From a layman's point of view, which I realise will fall far below the standards of the parliamentary draftsman, it seems to me that instead of bringing in the Writ of Summons Clause 4(2) could simply provide that anyone who claims membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage shall not be a Member after that Session. Why is the Writ of Summons brought in in Clause 4(2) and yet it is not felt necessary to bring it in at the beginning? It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not answer that question.
As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out, the noble and learned Lord did not answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, about the view of Lord Cranworth that what gives every noble Lord his right to sit here is not his Patent of Nobility but the Writ of Summons which he is entitled to in consequence of that Patent.
I do not wish to deal further with the argument. We have established from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an extremely clear view which he has stated definitively, perhaps with a view to Pepper v. Hart, as regards the Government's intentions, almost regardless of what appears on the face of the Bill. We shall obviously study that with care.
I remember listening to an explanation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the distinctions in court parlance between "with respect", "with the utmost respect" and "with the greatest respect". The more superlatives you used, the more rubbishy you thought the arguments were. I merely say, with, I think, great respect, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Exclusion of hereditary peers]:
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No.11:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Peers of Scotland)")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.11 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.50 and Amendment No.65 is consequential—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Because of the movement and noise, it is impossible for us to hear, on all sides of the
174
Committee, what the noble Lord is saying. 'That is not fair to the noble Lord and it is not helpful to the Committee.
Lord Gray: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I shall recommence. Amendment No.11 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.50 and Amendment No.65 is consequential. I hope that we are entering quieter and calmer waters than we have enjoyed in the last debate. This debate certainly promises to be less erudite.
The issue on which I now ask the Committee to focus is that of Scottish representation in the interim House. We have been much concerned with the generality of the Bill and its constitutional consequences. Here, in these amendments, we encounter an aspect which has a specific impact on the constitutional settlement, an impact on the Treaty of the Union.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Reay reminded the House that from the Union of the Parliaments until 1963 Scotland was represented in your Lordships' House by 16 elected Peers. For noble Lords who may be unfamiliar with that representative peer scheme, I shall explain it in outline only because it is the source from which my amendments stem.
While various enactments over the years dealt with detail, the principle of elected representation was enshrined in the Treaty of Union. Article XXII of the Acts of Union established the basis for representation of Scotland in the Westminster Parliament. That article laid down that that representation should include 16 of the Peers of Scotland, with the words:
"16 shall be the number to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
Further, it expressly stated that they were to represent Scotland, with the words:
"by whom Scotland is to be represented".
They were elected to represent Scotland, not themselves, as other hereditary Peers did and do.
Those who stood for election by their fellows were Peers of Scotland only, while the electorate included, additionally, those Peers of Scotland who also held dignities in the peerage of England, and later on, in the peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Election was for the duration of a single parliament and, when necessary, by-elections were held. Election was by open ballot and after each election this House was notified of the result. The list of those chosen was read out here, after which the representative Peers could take their seats.
The system ended with the passing of the Peerages Act 1963. By virtue of Section 4 of that Act, all Peers of Scotland became entitled to a Writ of Summons. With Clause 3 of this Bill, the Government propose to repeal that 1963 enfranchisement. I have doubts as to the effectiveness of the proposed repeal which I shall raise later when we come to Amendment No.28.
In seeking to repeal the 1963 provision, the Government are effectively proposing to abrogate a fundamental provision of the Treaty of Union. They offer nothing in lieu, although they will be well aware,

175
I am sure, of the effect of their proposed repeal. Amendment No.50 suggests a way of avoiding such an undesirable consequence.
It is important to recognise that when, in 1963, Parliament voted to increase Scottish representation in your Lordships' House, that decision enhanced the Union Treaty provision and detracted nothing from the significance of the representative scheme. That there were repeals of some wording in Article XXII and of some later enactments was neither here nor there. They were merely consequential and necessary to enable the enlargement of Scottish representation in this House. Expanding the franchise was in line with the increase in Scottish Members of another place since it was set at 45 by Article XXII, 293 years ago.
The salient point, central to my argument, is that the decision taken by Parliament in 1963 was one which preserved and strengthened the Union in terms of its significance for your Lordships' House—and Scotland.
The Government should not attempt to undermine or destroy that now. They need to think again and we should make them do so. As on account of past repeals we cannot simply turn back the legislative clock, I suggest that Amendment No.50 is a simple and straightforward way of entrenching an important element of Scottish representation here during the lifetime of the interim House. It cannot completely re-enact the 1963 provision, but it goes as close as I think can be achieved in this Bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have included the word "only" in my draft. It might otherwise have been interpreted as enfranchising every hereditary Peer with a Scottish title rather than those who are Peers of Scotland alone.
At a time when devolution is shortly to become fact, it is surely not the moment to draw back from a link between this House and Scotland forged at the making of the Treaty of Union. The Government have repeatedly stressed their support for the United Kingdom's continuance. It seems singularly contradictory and rash to seek to legislate in a way which sends out such a very different signal. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will not press the amendment. I am as anxious as he is to ensure that Scotland is adequately and, frankly, even over-represented in this House, but I do not think that this is the way to do it.
This amendment would preserve the automatic link between birth and the right to be a Member of this House of Parliament. That, therefore, goes against the whole thrust of the Government's Bill. There are other ways of ensuring that Scotland is adequately represented in this House. I find my Scottish compatriots who are hereditary Peers even more agreeable than the other hereditary Peers in this House. I am quite sure that their ability is such, if the Weatherill amendment is passed, that they will stand more than an even chance of being chosen as the survivors. Quite apart from that, I hope that subsequent governments will always pay attention
176
to the undoubted talents that lie within the ranks of the hereditary peerage in selecting life Peers. However, the important point is that they will be in this House on their merits, not on the merits of ancestors and sometimes, frankly, on the demerits of ancestors.
Harking back to the Act of Union ignores the fact that much has happened since then. I refer, for example, to the Reform Act 1832 and the growing power of the House of Commons. Scotland is represented in Parliament primarily through the House of Commons. The noble Lord referred to the growth in the number of Scottish seats. It is equally possible that in future the number of Scottish seats may decrease. I, for one, would not regard that as contrary to the Act of Union.
It is important to ask oneself why we should make a special example of the Scots. Are we really envisaging a situation where we have 16 Scottish hereditary Peers here and absolutely no English hereditary Peers? That, surely, would be equally contrary to the Act of Union.
I believe that any government (or any other nominating body which may be empowered to nominate) will be anxious in future to ensure not only a geographical spread of Peers nominated to sit in this Chamber, but a spread of interest groups as well so that this House can continue to serve the nation well by being able to draw on a reservoir of experience in all fields. I respectfully suggest that the Scottish life Peers will still be Members of this House and that their number can be added to. I therefore hope that the noble Lord's concerns about adequate representation for Scotland can be easily taken care of without recourse to this amendment.
Lord Forbes: I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray. They are very important as they concern the proper representation of Scotland in your Lordships' House. The Act of Union was very important. It made provision for 16 Scottish Peers who had received their titles prior to the Act to be elected and to take their seats to represent Scotland in your Lordships' House.
The important point is that the 16 were elected by their fellow Scottish Peers each time there was a new Parliament. I can vouch for the election. It was both simple and dignified. I was first elected to come to your Lordship's House and take my seat in 1955. Therefore I happen to be one of the few still left to have been elected as a Scottish representative Peer to sit in your Lordships' House. I was democratically elected. I did not take my seat by virtue of being a hereditary Peer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Would the noble Lord say that the electorate on that occasion were democratic?
Lord Forbes: The point is that I was democratically elected, apart from the electorate. The Act of Union ensured that Scotland was properly represented in your Lordships' Chamber, and that is even more important today as a result of devolution and the fact that the Union itself is under threat.
Two questions must be answered by the Government. First, do the Government intend ensuring that Scotland is properly represented if any change is made to the

177
composition of this Chamber? Secondly, are Articles 12 and 13 of the Act of Union, dealing with Scottish representation, still on the statute book?
The Government have stated time and again that they stand by the Union. On that matter I wholeheartedly agree. The Union is vital. However, we would be deluding ourselves if we failed to recognise that the Union will be under considerable stress, both from devolution and the lack of Scottish representation in your Lordships' House as envisaged by this Bill. Our strength lies in unity. Make no mistake, if Scotland were to separate, that would not only be the greatest disaster for Scotland, but also for England. If Her Majesty's Government seriously wish to preserve the Union, they should accept these amendments dealing with the election of Peers to represent Scotland in your Lordships' House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Will the noble Lord tell the Committee when he was last elected under the system he described, and how many times he was elected under that system?
Lord Forbes: I was last elected in 1959.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: In spite of the fact that Scotland is shortly to have its own Parliament for domestic purposes, there will remain quite a number of reserved matters—too many some of us think—and a number of them will have to be legislated for, discussed and agreed to by both another place and this Chamber.
I have just ceased to be secretary of the Scottish Peers' Association. But before doing so I went through the membership of the association and discovered that out of 147 members, 87 were hereditary and 60 were life Peers. I then went through the life Peers with precisely the question of the adequate representation of Scotland in the future in mind. I discovered that a considerable number rarely, if ever, attended or were so deeply involved in other business in Scotland that it would probably not be possible for them to represent adequately the interests of Scotland in this Chamber. That needs to be carefully looked at by the Government before they kick out all the hereditary Scots Peers, many of whom have been regular in attendance and assiduous in debate.
Beyond that, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, raises serious questions—as did the previous amendment—in relation to the drafting of the Bill before us.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: It has been said on a number of occasions that those of us in Scotland are well known for keeping the sabbath and anything else we can lay our hands on. That is a commendable principle, but it can be stretched too far. To try and hang on to the hereditary principle in this House when the English are losing theirs, within 10 days of us securing the restoration of our Parliament, is an untenable proposition. For that reason we on these Benches cannot support these amendments.
178
In moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was absolutely right in his description of the reasons why the 16 elected Peers were part of the Act of Union. But in the real sense in the legislation of the Scotland Act we have been redefining the Act of Union. Therefore the 16 hereditary Peers have no place in that new scheme of things.
Furthermore, I believe I am right in saying that the White Paper and the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, looking at the longer-term of this House, are obliged to consider the whole question of the relationship between this House and the devolved Parliament. In the longer run therefore that issue is already being considered. In relation to the short-run—the transitional House—it is the case that at the last count there were six or seven Members of your Lordships' Chamber standing for election to the Scottish Parliament. Of those I would hazard that at least three have a reasonable prospect of being elected, as it happens one from each party. Therefore the idea that we will lose any link between this House and the Scottish Parliament is simply not true.
The right course to take to enter proper democracy is not to try to revive something that was dispensed with a couple of decades ago. This is not the moment to try to revive a well justified but now archaic principle from the early years of the 18th century.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The last three speakers pointed up a problem which the Government will have to face. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said that, whether or not this amendment is accepted, there will be Scots Peers here to represent Scotland in the interim House. That is true. But the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, gave us the figures—I was not sure of the number of life Peers as compared with the number of hereditary Peers from Scotland—and, as she said, there will be a considerable shortage of Peers to represent the interests of Scotland in discussions in this Chamber as an interim House if the amendment is not accepted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, several of our number are standing for election to the Scots Parliament and some will doubtless get in. They will not have much time to come here. So there will indeed be a shortage. Therefore, if the amendment is not accepted by the Government, can the Minister give us some assurance that there will be an attempt to increase the number of Peers from Scotland in the interim House to ensure that the interests of Scotland are not neglected in that Chamber, the duration of which we still do not know?
5 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The Peers' election to which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred, and in which he is still one of the very few Members of this House to have taken part, worked extremely well because everyone knew everybody and everyone knew everything about everybody. As a result, we never had a dud elected; indeed, the "odds and sods" simply did not get elected. We had sensible people who were prepared to do the job. They undertook to do it by offering their names for election. In those days it was a considerable personal sacrifice because there were no

179
expenses and certainly no allowances at that time. Indeed, I do not believe that there were even travelling expenses. People did it as voluntary work and they did it very well.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Most of my predecessors came to this place as representative Peers, with one exception upon whom I shall not waste too much time. In fact, in the end, he did not present himself for election. I speak in support of the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Gray. Whatever happens now—that is to say, however well the Scottish Parliament performs and however intelligently Whitehall responds to it (something that I always doubt) there is bound to be a degree of tension between Edinburgh and Whitehall. That is something I deplore, although I am happy to see from press reports that the likelihood at present is that the Nationalists will not do very well in the coming elections in Scotland. Thank God!
There is bound to be some tension willy-nilly between Edinburgh and Whitehall. It is greatly in Scotland's and in Britain's interests that the Scottish peerage should contain representatives within earshot of Whitehall. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Monro of Langholm: We are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for tabling the amendment because it has given us the chance to express a view upon the points so nobly put by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. After the new Parliament comes into being, I know that there will be much less legislation going through this place than has been the case in the past as regards Scotland. Indeed, it will only be legislation on foreign affairs, defence and one or two other matters that are for this Chamber rather than the Scottish Parliament.
However, the question which comes to my mind is whether or not there will be sufficient Scottish based life Peers to carry out the work in this Chamber. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, indicated the number involved. In fact, one could boil it down to the fact that about 5 per cent of the Chamber would be life Peers coming from Scotland, which is not a large number.
I was not impressed by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I say that because it is to be hoped that there will be one or two life Peers returning here who will also be members of the new Scottish Parliament. But if the polls are right and the overall majorities one way or another are going to be so tight, I do not suppose that any member of the new Scottish Parliament will be able to leave Edinburgh with a safe conscience—certainly not if the whipping system has to be as severe there as it has been in the other place in the past.
Therefore, when the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he will indicate how we can be certain that there will be a sufficient number of Scottish life Peers to look after the interests of Scotland, in conjunction with the new Scottish Parliament. After all, they will be complementary and will not be opposing each other. It is no use saying, "Oh, yes, there are bound to be enough
180
distinguished Scots who will be made life Peers"—although that may very well prove to be true—because we do not have such a provision on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we will be left with the question of whether it is up to the Prime Minister of the day, an appointments committee or, indeed, something suggested by the Royal Commission.
How can we be certain that there will be a sufficient number of Peers from Scotland; and, indeed, from Wales and Northern Ireland? How can we be sure that other aspects of the life of this United Kingdom will be expressed here by Peers from those countries? It is up to the Government Front Bench to indicate what the position will be. Then, if the Minister's explanations are unsatisfactory, we can decide whether to take the matter further. My noble friend Lord Gray has certainly given us an opportunity to discuss the old election system of the Scottish Peers which worked exceptionally well. But, in the first instance, we want to know how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are to be represented sufficiently in this Chamber so as to satisfy those countries that they are being well looked after in the House of Lords or in its successor.
Lord Waddington: It is with some diffidence that I enter this debate; indeed, I shall not detain Members of the Committee for very long. However, there are some general points affecting all of us which must be made. I do not know how many noble Lords have given evidence to the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords, but I imagine that many of them who have been thinking about the possible shape of a reformed second Chamber will have wondered what part such a Chamber might play in strengthening the Union. In other words: how, in a reformed second Chamber, could we have proper representation of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? How, by having proper representation of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, could we meet to some extent the demands of people living in more remote parts of the UK for as strong a voice as possible at the centre?
Of course, we have returned to our old difficulty. I must be forgiven for beating the same drum, but I have mentioned these points on many occasions and rarely received even the beginnings of a reply. As a result of the way in which the Government have decided to proceed, we all now know that a Chamber will be created which will either be composed of wholly nominated Peers or of largely nominated Peers with some representation from the hereditary Peers as a result of the Government's acceptance of the Weatherill amendment.
However, whether or not the Weatherill amendment is accepted, one thing is absolutely plain: no one in this place can, with his hand on his heart, say that the Chamber created by this House of Lords Bill will only be with us for a short time. Indeed, it may or it may not. As I mentioned the other day, there is certainly not the beginnings of a consensus yet as to what shape the new Chamber should take. We really must face up to what happened back in 1968 and recognise that the Chamber which will be created by this Bill may be with us for three, five, 10, 15 or even 20 years.

181
Therefore, with that background, I think it is a great pity that the Government have not already addressed their minds to a very real problem. How can this second Chamber be so constructed to ensure that there will be proper representation of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? It is not too late for the Government to consider amendments which would graft on to the Bill specific provisions to allow for directly or indirectly elected people from the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It is not too late for that to happen; indeed, the matter is entirely in the hands of the Government. It will be a great pity if they decide not to do so.
However, if they will not accept such amendments, I hope that they will take the opportunity of debates of this kind to lift the veil a little and tell us which way their minds are working. For example, do they envisage that, as soon as possible, the second Chamber will perhaps to a large extent be a Chamber designed to keep the kingdom united—a second Chamber which really will make sure that each constituent part of the United Kingdom is properly represented? I hope that on this occasion the Minister who is to reply to the debate will not brush all this aside. I want to know what the Government's thinking is with regard to the possibility of this so-called transitional House being with us for 10, 15 or 20 years. If it is to be with us for such a long time, the Government ought to think of amendments along the lines that I have suggested. If they are absolutely confident that the provisional House will not be with us for long, I want to know the reasons for that confidence. I do not have it myself. I have listened to the debates in the House of Commons. I cannot see for one moment the Labour Members in the House of Commons agreeing with what appears to be the majority view on the Conservative Benches; namely, that there ought to be a wholly elected second Chamber. Where is the beginnings of a consensus? If there is not the beginnings of a consensus, how on earth do the Government think that either immediately before or immediately after the next general election they will get a second Bill through Parliament? I believe they will have an uphill struggle.
If I am right in my thinking, the Government should explain to us why they think the framework for a second Chamber which is contained in this Bill is anything like adequate. I believe it is plain to most of us that it is far from adequate. It does not contain any of the constitutional safeguards which I have urged upon the House on previous occasions ought to be in a Bill of this nature. It is inadequate because it does not provide specific representation from the various constituent parts of the. United Kingdom.
I do not say that I am in favour of this particular amendment as I do not really understand all this business of representative Peers. That is not my object. However, it has given us an opportunity to ask the Government to explain their thinking as to how the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can be properly and clearly represented in a transitional House and finally in a reformed House.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for bringing this amendment forward. I refer to one straightforward issue; namely,
182
that this Bill seems, probably by accident, to bring to an end Scotland's statutorily guaranteed representation in this House that was first laid out in Articles 22 and 23 of the treaty, and then modified by the 1963 Peerage Act, which of course allowed all the peerage of Scotland to attend. The Bill seems to bring that to an end—1707 to 1999. I wonder whether that is really the Government's intention. I shall try not to preview Amendment No.53, which I believe may supply an answer. However, it is not in the group of amendments that we are discussing. I ask the simple question: how can I explain what the Government want to do in this respect in a positive way in Scotland?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: As I understand it, the Act of Union was the placing into legislative form of a bargain which took the form of the Treaty of Union. The bargain has not been reneged on. It has not been unstitched so completely as I believe the noble Lord. Lord Steel, suggested in his brief intervention because it was a bargain between two sovereign parliaments. The Parliament being created in Scotland is not in all matters sovereign. In any case that can be regarded from the point of view of governance as being an advance on the position achieved by the Act of Union as far as concerns the Scots.
The Act of 1963 was an advance on the Act of Union because it increased from 16 to a much larger number the number of Peers attending from the Scottish peerage. Had the Bill proposed merely to reduce the representation of the Scottish peerage to the level at which it had originally been instituted in this House, that would not have affected the treaty rights of the Scots. However, the Bill proposes to wipe out a particular benefit in a bargain contractually arrived at between sovereign parties and embodied in a treaty. Presumably either that was provided for in advance and there is a mechanism in the treaty and the Act for dealing with such differences—in that case I hope that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me as to what it is—or else there was none, this was not foreseen and this measure is a breach of that treaty. It seems to me that this is an unfortunate point in history to embark on such a breach when in a year or two's time we will get the new Parliament in Scotland up and running, the Royal Commission will have reported and both Houses will have debated what the proper relationships between Westminster and Edinburgh should be. But at the moment it is, I think, a not unimportant symbolic reneging on a bargain entered into many years ago with no indication of what restitution is available.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for introducing this amendment as it has given us the opportunity to have a short but interesting debate upon the representative elements of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot support this amendment because patently it is unfair that Scottish Peers should be allowed to elect from themselves a certain number to sit in this House when English, Welsh and Northern Irish hereditary Peers do not have that right.

183
I should preface those remarks by saying that I was a member of the committee of Alec Douglas-Home that reported back in the mid-1970s and recommended a membership of this House which was half elected, a quarter appointed and a quarter of all hereditary Peers elected from among themselves. I thought that was quite an attractive composition, but it is no longer on the table. Clearly that cannot be done selectively for one part of the United Kingdom although I recognise entirely the tremendous contribution that Scottish Peers have made both under the old elected system and under the non-elected system. I remember an amusing story told by Alec Douglas-Home of the process of election. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be able to confirm that this is how it happened. Alec Douglas-Home said that the hereditary Peers of Scotland were summoned to Edinburgh—I believe they were summoned to the Assembly House—and the senior Peer of the day did a roll call (I believe it was Lord Stair) and voices were raised in favour "yea" or "nay" as the names were called. Occasionally Lord Stair would come across a name—it may have been Macpherson of Dundee—and would say, "We cannot have him. This chap did a spell at Eton", and struck the name out. I do not know whether that happened to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, but certainly it produced a system which served this House well, but which is no longer on the table.
I believe it would be useful to know the following. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just said in this regard. I hope that at some stage during the Committee stage Ministers will reveal some inclination as to how the different parts of the United Kingdom are to be represented not only in the interim Chamber but also in the eventual Chamber. If Ministers cannot do that on behalf of the Government, I hope that they will reveal their own personal feelings on the matter.
My own views are fairly clear. I want the eventual Chamber to be part appointed and part directly elected. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, comes from Wales. It would be interesting to hear him say how he would like to see the Principality of Wales represented in the interim House or in the eventual reformed House so that the interests of the Welsh people can be properly represented in this House. After all, they will soon have an Assembly—virtually a Parliament of their own—which is unicameral. After all, within a month Scotland will have a Parliament of its own which to all intents and purposes will be virtually independent. It will have a Prime Minister of its own and a Cabinet of its own and they will meet in Edinburgh within a month. In terms of the United Kingdom constitution, that represents a huge imbalance. There has to be some balancing feature which has not been expressed at all by the Government.
I express the hope that several others of my noble friends have expressed; namely, that at some stage during the proceedings of this Bill some Members of the Government Front Bench might indicate just a little of their feelings. As I say, if they cannot do that on behalf
184
of the Government, I hope that they will reveal their own personal feelings. I hope that is not too much to expect.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: This is a valuable amendment. I endorse the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The effect of the Bill as drafted will be that, for the first time since 1707, there will be no statutory right of representation for Scotland in this House.
It is true that, with the advent of the Scottish Parliament and the appropriation of many matters to it, the amount of work will be reduced. However, reserved matters affecting Scotland will remain, and will fall to be dealt with by this House. At a time when the major parties are anxious to preserve the Union, it seems unfortunate that the Bill should remove the right of statutory representation for Scotland in this place. It is a matter that the Government should think worthy of consideration, even if not in the form of this amendment.
Lord Gray: I merely wish to take up one point that was made by my noble friend Lord Elton. He said that the coming into force of the 1963 Act added a number of Scottish Peers to this House. If my memory is correct, I believe that the Act added four or five—the reason being that it referred only to those Peers who had their titles before the Act of Union.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I can hardly believe some of the remarks made in this debate. It is true, as a number of speakers have said, that we need representation for Scotland which will cover reserved matters. At present, there is no logical way to achieve that. It is impossible that it should be through the hereditary Peers, given the whole aim of the Bill. While the Government are telling us about Scotland, they might touch on the point as to why on earth, in a Bill to abolish hereditary Peers, they want to preserve them while deciding how to reform this House.
The Earl of Northesk: I wish to take up points made by many noble Lords, and by my noble friend Lord Elton in particular. Put simply, my interpretation of the "audit trail" of the Bill runs along these lines. The Bill removes hereditary Peers. The repeal of Section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963 removes the statutory right of members of the Scottish peerage to sit; and the repeal of the relevant passages of the English and Scottish Act of Union of 1707, on the face of the 1963 Act, sorts out the issue of Scottish representation. On the surface, it is all very simple.
But I am less certain that the matter is so clear-cut. The audit trail that I have defined gives rise to a particularly thorny problem. One needs to return to the terms of the 1707 Act to begin to understand what could be made permissible by the enactment of this Bill. We should pay particular attention to the following passages of the 1707 Act; first:
"And it is hereby statuted and ordained, That this Act of Parliament, with the Establishment therein contained, shall be held and observed in all Time coming, as a fundamental and essential

185
Condition of any Treaty or Union to be concluded betwixt the two Kingdoms, without any Alteration thereof or Derogation thereto in any Sort for ever";
and, secondly:
"And lastly. Her Majesty enacts and declares, That all Laws and Statutes in this Kingdom, so far as they arc contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, as above-mentioned, shall from and after the Union cease and become void".
It is of course the case that the institution of the representative Peer system is qualified on the face of the 1'707 Act with the phrasing,
"until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further provision therein".
Equally, it is the case that "the Parliament of Great Britain" has indeed made subsequent "further provision therein"—not least in the 1963 Act. But the key words that flow from the two passages that I have cited are, in turn. "derogation" and "contrary and inconsistent".
Given the text, the presumption must be that, to be consistent with the terms of the treaty, all subsequent amendments to it must be on the side of enhancement, not diminution—that surely is the correct interpretation of the usage of "derogation" in its context. In fact, there is evidence of the validity of that view in some of the proceedings of this House. For example, it was observed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, in a debate in 1977 that:
"Under Article 18 of the Treaty of Union it is provided that the laws of Scotland which concern private right are only to he altered by the United Kingdom Parliament for the 'Evident utility of the subjects within Scotland—. —[Official Report, 27/6/77; col.902.1
Following that logic a little further, I do not seek to suggest that the Bill before the House today should "cease and become void" by virtue of being "contrary and inconsistent" with this. What I do say is that it will be freely available to anyone with a mind so to do—and we can be certain that such persons exist and may even now be actively preparing their case—to pursue an argument that the Bill, once enacted, has breached the terms of the Treaty of Union and that, therefore, the Union should cease. Referring back to the texts that I have quoted, the argument runs thus: it is a "fundamental and essential Condition" of the Union that there be no "Derogation thereto"; in the event—as with this Bill—that proposed statutory provisions give rise to such a derogation, they must be "contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms" of the treaty and Union; in turn, enactment of the inconsistency—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Does he agree that if, selectively, members of the hereditary peerage in Scotland alone were to lose the right to sit in the House of Lords, that would be a breach of the Act of Union; but if the rights of hereditary Peers throughout the United Kingdom are removed, there cannot be any derogation from the Act of Union? Indeed, it would be unfair if, selectively, Scottish hereditary Peers preserved the right to sit and English hereditary Peers lost that right.
The Earl of Northesk: I take the noble Lord's point. However, there is the problem that the Act of Union says what the Act of Union says. The Act established as
186
a fundamental and essential condition that the representative peerage system shall exist. So if there is a derogation from that, we are in slight difficulty.
To resume my argument, enactment of the inconsistency of such provisions gives effect to the statutory force, "That all Laws and Statutes in this Kingdom" shall "cease and become void". Of necessity—this is the fundamental point—that must apply to the Act of Union itself. In effect, the B ill could exist as a mechanism to deliver Scottish independence via the back door. Such is the nature of the law of unintended consequences.
Lord Norton of Louth: I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl. I merely wish to make two general points following remarks by my noble friends Lord Monro and Lord Waddington in support of the principle underlying the amendments, which is to ensure that different voices of the United Kingdom are heard in this House.
There is the positive argument that has been touched upon, that ensuring that those voices continue to be heard adds to the richness of debate in this House and contributes to the experience and expertise that is a feature of this House and makes it what it is, adding to the quality it brings to the political system. The other reason why I believe it to be important—a negative reason but one that is specific to the present—is this: because, as a result of devolution, there is to be an elected Parliament in Scotland and an elected Assembly in Wales, that strengthens the case for retaining some voice for different parts of the United Kingdom in this House. Otherwise, the tendency, once the elected assemblies are in place, will be for Scotland arid Wales to become marginalised within the Westminster context. There is something of a precedent for that in Stormont. It is important that that is recognised. In order to prevent Scotland and Wales being marginalised as a result of those developments, it is important to look for some way to ensure that different parts of the United Kingdom are heard in this House.
I recognise that this amendment, because it is specific to Scotland, would not achieve that. Later amendments will address the point. As presently drafted, the Bill does not address the point. If the Government are minded to accept that some hereditary Peers are to remain in the House—I am wary about an over-formalistic approach—is there not a case for providing some mechanism that would at least ensure that the different parts of the United Kingdom have a voice in this House?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had a most interesting debate. There have been two strands in the debate. One strand was the whole question of Scotland's position in the House after the hereditary Peerage has been removed—especially against the background of a Scottish Parliament. The same question arose in respect of Wales and Northern Ireland, although perhaps not to the same extent because the Scottish Parliament certainly will have much greater powers and will look much more like one would think a parliament would look like than either the Assembly in Wales or

187
the Assembly in Northern Ireland. It is important to raise the point of the position of Scottish Peers—not necessarily hereditary Peers—in your Lordships' House.
Some noble Lords may sometimes think that there are too many Scottish Peers in your Lordships' House. I read in the papers that the Prime Minister thinks that he has too many Scots in the Cabinet and that after the Scottish Parliament is set up there is to be some type of ethnic cleansing of the Scots in the Cabinet and in the Government. Some of us are taking little wagers as to who will go and who will stay. Any noble Lords who wish to see me about that later are welcome to do so—especially if they are in the Government and have some inside information! The keeper of the book always likes inside information. But there is a serious point about the different component parts of the United Kingdom being properly represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
If one looks at the composition of the current House, while some of the Scots may be on their feet quite often, in purely numerical terms the Scots are not very well represented, especially by people with backgrounds in academia, medicine and the law, with the exception of the "professionals", if I may call them that, who get here by being Law Lords and politicians, and the lawyers who get here by being former Lord Advocates. The universities of Scotland, for example, are very badly represented in your Lordships' House. The medical Royal Colleges in Scotland are certainly of equal prominence to those in the south, but they are very badly represented here. Some of my noble friends have made the good point that after devolution there is a danger that Scotland will be marginalised at Westminster. That danger is underlined by the press reports that even the Prime Minister feels that he may have to remove some of the Scots from his Cabinet, not because they have done a bad job—although one or two, I suspect, have not done very well—but because they are Scots.
Lord Acton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If, as the noble Lady. Lady Saltoun, has said, there are 60 Scottish-based life Peers, including three Mackays, does the noble Lord really think that Scotland will be marginalised?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Henley says, "Not with three Mackays". But that would not be an argument for reducing the number to just the three Mackays. I am not sure how the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, arrives at her 60. While a number of Scottish Peers appear often, as I said earlier, a fair number of my colleagues from Scotland play little part in the proceedings of the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I arrived at my 60 by counting the number of life Peers in the membership of the Scottish Peers Association. I think that is fairly comprehensive.
188
I have already pointed out that not all of them attend regularly. At least half, if not more, do not attend regularly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lady. Indeed, one can go a little further: I think she will agree that there are a few members of the Scottish Peers Association whose links with Scotland are a little tenuous and that it has been quite a long time since the predecessors of some hereditary Peers have lived in Scotland. I will not take the point that has just been made to me.
The position of Scottish Peers is a real point. My noble friends have addressed it and no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will give us some advice on the matter—together with free tickets to the dome!
I wish now to address another and more important issue raised by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gray. It is especially important at a time when there are to be elections to the Scottish Parliament and when there is a party in Scotland which seriously advances the cause of the breaking up of the Treaty of Union. We take this matter seriously in Scotland. Indeed, the governing party takes it so seriously that, along with its friends in the media, it has given the matter a huge amount of attention. It has rubbished the Scottish National Party quite successfully to date—sometimes with weapons which, when used by us, when we were in Government, caused us to be howled at by the very same Scottish press that is now using exactly the same ammunition. Politics is a funny old game; I should not complain. The result is that the Scottish National Party is not doing very well. But that does not mean to say that there will not come a day when it might do very well. Therefore it is important that we ensure that any legislation passed in the House is compatible with the Treaty of Union.
The Treaty of Union and the two Acts of Parliament—the Act of the English Parliament of 1706 and the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1707—are arguably the three most important pieces of paper in the United Kingdom. They created Great Britain; they created the country in which we live. They are therefore hugely important. As my noble friend Lord Gray explained, Article XII of the Treaty of Union provides that 16 of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union should sit and vote in the House of Lords. That article provided that the Privy Council of Scotland should cause 16 of the Scottish Peers to be chosen in accordance with the provisions of another Act passed by the Scottish Parliament in the same year. I know it is harking back to the last debate, but it is interesting to see that Article XXII says,
"a writ shall be immediately issued under the Great Seal of Great Britain, directed to the Privy Council of Scotland, for the summoning [of] the sixteen Peers".
I will not go back over that argument; there were to be 16 Peers of Scotland. There were also to be 45 Members of the House of Commons. The Peers were to number 16 out of 179 and the Members of the Commons were to number 45 out of 513. Article XXIII of the Treaty provided that the 16 Peers selected to sit in the House

189
of Lords should have all the privileges of Parliament which Peers of England then had and which Peers of Great Britain would have after the Union. The article also provided that all the Peers of Scotland and all their successors to the honours and dignities should be Peers of Great Britain, enjoying all the rights of such Peers except the right of sitting in the House.
That remained the position until the Peerages Act 1963, Section 4, which amended the two Acts of the Scottish Parliament but not the treaty itself. In doing so, it took nothing away from the rights and privileges of the Peers of Scotland; on the contrary, it added to their rights. In no sense could it be suggested that the 1963 Act watered down the effect of the provisions of the Treaty of Union.
That is not the position with the present Bill which actually takes away from all Scottish hereditary Peers the right to be one of the 16 Scots Peers who should sit in the House of Lords. In other words, it changes the Treaty of Union; it is a serious amendment to the treaty. Of course other legislation has amended the treaty. Last year we amended the treaty, I suppose, by the passage of the Scotland Act. But the Government thought it was so important to take account of the fact that they were amending the treaty and the two important Acts that in Section 37 of the Scotland Act they inserted these two lines:
"The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 have effect subject to this Act".
It may be that Ministers should discuss with their friends in the Scottish Office, and the draftsmen should discuss with the draftsmen of the Scotland Act, why they thought it was necessary to put that small section in that Act whereas the Government do not think it necessary to put something similar in this Bill.
My final point is a rather complex one. It is to address whether any limits are placed on what this Parliament can do to alter the provisions of the Act of Union. If there are any limits, are they breached by the provisions of this Bill? That is the point I want to address and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will address it. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that it is a good deal more important than he seemed to imply. The Government have to be satisfied that they have the power to amend this part of the treaty.
My justification for raising these questions is to be found in a famous case in 1953 of John MacDonald MacCormick and Ian Robertson Hamilton v. The Lord Advocate on the question of whether or not Her Majesty could be styled Queen Elizabeth the Second or whether she ought not to be styled Queen Elizabeth the First. Ian Robertson Hamilton is still alive and kicking. He is a QC at the Scottish Bar and is standing for the Scottish National Party, without much chance of success, I suspect. John MacDonald MacCormick is long dead but his sons are certainly known to some of us and indeed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. One son, Neil MacCormick, is the Regius Professor of Public Law at the University of Edinburgh; and very prominent he is too. He is on the Scottish
190
National Party list to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. Another son, Mr. Iain MacCormick, was a Member of another place until I dispossessed him.
The point raised in the case concerned whether or not the Act of Union was being breached. In his judgment, Lord President Cooper said this:
"The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law … Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions".
The Lord President went on to say:
"The Lord Advocate"—
at that time the Lord Advocate was Lord Clyde—
"conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain 'could not' repeal or alter such 'fundamental and essential' conditions. He was doubtless influenced in making this concession by the modified views expressed by Dicey in his later work entitled Thoughts on the Scottish Union, from which I take this passage … After instancing the provisions as to Presbyterian Church government in Scotland with their emphatic prohibition against any alteration, the author proceeds: 'It represents the conviction of the Parliament which passed the Act of Union that the Net for the security of the Church of Scotland ought to be morally or constitutionally unchangeable, even by the British Parliament … A sovereign Parliament, in short, though it cannot he logically bound to abstain from changing any given law, may, by the fact that an Act when it was passed had been declared to be unchangeable. receive a warning that it cannot be changed without grave danger to the Constitution of the country'".
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite his very interesting essay on Scottish jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Act of Union, I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty the Queen is still styled Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and to that extent the case must have been lost.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but I do not think it was lost on that point. Lord President Cooper introduced that part by saying:
"Upon this view a part of the Lord Ordinary's judgment and of the argument before us disappears".
Then he said—I did not say this but the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, has prompted me—
"But lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion".
He then expressed his opinion as I read it out. But that was not the ground on which he held that the case of John MacCormick and Ian Hamilton fell. So I am afraid that the noble Lord's valiant efforts on behalf of the Government are not too successful.

191
I wonder what the Government think. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, thinks of this and of the view of Lord President Cooper. I want to know under which category the noble and learned Lord thinks Articles XXII and XXIII fall. Are they part of the treaty, where the power to amend is there and the British Parliament can make amendments; or are they part of the treaty which the British Parliament has no power to amend?
Those questions should be answered. They are important. As I said, I do not think the Treaty of Union should be amended without a great deal of thought and without making sure that it is legitimate to amend it especially, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, when there are people in Scotland who would very happily tear up the treaty. The noble and learned Lord and his colleagues on the government side and those of us on these Benches are absolutely opposed to that. I therefore think that it is beholden on us to ensure that nothing we do disturbs the fundamental principles of the treaty.
5.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I shall restrict myself to the amendment. Two points underlie the amendment. First, it is said that without the amendment there would inadequate representation of the Scots in this House. Secondly, it is said that the Bill transgresses both the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Union and/or the Act of Union. I shall deal with the first point first.
In my view, it is almost unarguable, having heard the brilliance of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay or Ardbrecknish, that the Scots will not be adequately represented in the transitional House. One has simply to name a few names to indicate that they will be adequately represented. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, will be able to come down. He is nodding enthusiastically; he will manage that without any difficulty. I think of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg; the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston; the noble Lord, Lord Sewel; the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, to name but a few. Those names are names of honour—people who have incredibly effectively represented Scotland throughout the time that their representation has been required.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has handed me a list that he would regard as being of equal lustre in relation to the people of Wales. I would love to read it out but I do not have the time. It is, as one would expect from my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, very, very long indeed.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, gave us the statistic that there are 60 members of the Association of Scottish Peers who are life Peers. I do not know whether there are life Peers from Scotland who do not join that association. If the noble Lady is the secretary it is hard
192
to imagine that they would not join. But let us assume that 60 is the minimum. That means that in the transitional House 60 out of the 500 life Peers will be Scottish. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, it is absurd to suggest that Scotland will not be adequately represented in the transitional House.
I take the amendment one stage further. The idea that the way one provides adequate representation is to take a random bunch of hereditary Peers and make them the people who represent Scotland seems absurd. What little history I know tells me that the sovereigns of this country did not appoint hereditary Peers on the basis of regional equality; where they came from was entirely random. With the greatest respect, I believe that the first basis on which this proposition is advanced does not stand any examination.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. I also pointed out that of those 60 life Peers a goodly number—well over half—never attended because they were otherwise occupied.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I remembered that. The 500 I have taken represents every single life Peer. I have reason to believe from what I have been told that there are some English, Welsh and Northern Irish life Peers who do not attend either. Therefore, one is comparing like with like.
I turn to the second basis of the argument; namely, the immutable nature of the Act of Union. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, treated us to a disquisition on Scottish law. He pointed out that the quote from Lord Cooper indicated that the Treaty of Union was made between the sovereign Parliaments of Scotland and England. He said that therefore Lord Cooper was suggesting that bits of it could never be changed. He spoke about the part dealing with the representation of Scottish hereditary Peers. That would mean that one could not increase or decrease the number. If one increased the number it would, as I understood the argument of the noble Lord, offend against the deal done on behalf of the English Parliament. That is the necessary effect of the argument advanced by Lord Cooper.
The case to which reference was made predated 1963. By 1963 it was constitutional convention accepted by all that the UK Parliament was sovereign and that there were no entrenched provisions. That was reflected in the 1963 amendment to the Act of Union which changed the basis on which Scottish hereditary Peers sat in this House. It was changed effectively from an elected system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred, to one in which every Scottish hereditary Peer had the right to sit. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it has been accepted by constitutional lawyers that that point has gone. It is on that basis that the Bill has been drafted.
I make one final point on the spirit and letter of the Act of Union. Noble Lords have rightly been referred by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to the provisions of the Treaty of Union which provide that Scottish hereditary Peers shall be treated just the same as English, Northern Irish and Welsh hereditary Peers.

193
As everybody knows, English, Northern Irish and Welsh hereditary Peers will lose their right to sit and take part in these proceedings; in accordance with the Treaty of Union, so should Scottish hereditary Peers.
The Earl of Caithness: Can the noble and learned Lord provide any other examples of breaches of the articles of the Treaty of Union, and when?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not a question of the provisions being breached. The particular example that I have given is precisely that which has been relied on in this matter; namely, the provision relating to the election of hereditary Peers. It is not a question of providing examples but demonstrating that this one is changeable.
The Earl of Caithness: With respect, the noble and learned Lord has not answered my question. I heard exactly what he said. He referred to the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Does the noble and learned Lord know of any other cases where there has been a breach of the Treaty of Union, and when?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not believe that the noble Earl understands my point. I do not accept that there is any breach. What is the relevance of other examples when we can see that the very provision relied on has already been amended and was repealed by the Statute Law Reform Act 1993?
Lord Elton: If the noble and learned Lord rests his case on parity of treatment between the hereditary Peers, how does that fit with the Weatherill amendment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Scottish hereditary Peers, like all other Peers, will be entitled to stand for election.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can clarify one matter. Notwithstanding anything else, does the appearance of the word "derogation" on the face of the Act of Union have any substance left to it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that I have set out the constitutional position, which is that this Parliament is sovereign in relation to all previous Acts of Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble and learned Lord certainly made a nice point, as his colleagues would describe it, about the 16. But does he agree with me that there is a difference between increasing the number, which was what happened—it was not a significant increase because by that time there were not many left—and decreasing it? I would have thought that his argument would have held a lot more water had the 1963 Act led to less than 16. The fact that it kept the 16 and added to them indicates that that did not breach the Act. If I accept for the moment the argument of the noble and learned Lord, why have
194
the Government not put something like Section 37 of the Scotland Act into this Bill to put the issue beyond. peradventure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, Lord Cooper in the particular case was concerned with the sovereign. Parliaments of Scotland and England. The sovereign. Parliament of England would have an interest in keeping the Scottish representation down, just as the sovereign Parliament of Scotland would have an interest in keeping it up. On the basis of the argument advanced, because it is an agreement it makes no difference whether one increases or reduces the number of Scottish Peers. As to the second point, the matter is clear beyond peradventure and there is no need to put it in the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may pick up the approach of the noble and learned Lord to the issue itself. When the question of Scottish Peers in this House was raised, the noble and learned Lord had to rely on looking round the Chamber, a note from his noble friend and figures provided by another noble Lord. Surely, knowing that this amendment was to he dealt with, I would have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have come armed with the relevant figures to respond. That may appear a small point in relation to this amendment, but it has wider significance because it has happened before. There is a general reliance on numbers and who will be there when the Bill is passed. I am concerned that the consequences are thought through rather than that there should be simple reliance on the manifesto as being sufficient. One must think through the position in the interim—not just the numbers but who they are—and the effect on business. Rather than make assumptions, I believe that there is a case for giving further thought in advance to what is involved and coming to the debate better armed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I deal with the noble Lord's ticking-off. I believe that, rather than put forward my own argument, to take the Opposition's case in order to demonstrate the truth of my proposition is a more effective way of dealing with it. If one can demonstrate that the arguments advanced by the other side support one's own position that is often more effective.
Lord Gray: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly those who have supported me. With a little push from my noble friend Lord Waddington, perhaps the debate strayed rather wider than I anticipated. I am glad that we did not have to go so far as fully to involve the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
To try to sum up a debate of this kind is beyond me. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that when he gave his reasons for opposing the amendment he placed some emphasis on representation. My emphasis was on the position of the Act of Union. I do not deny that there are very many worthy Scottish life Peers in this House. I know them well and admire the work that they do, but that is not the point.

195
6 p.m.
I was very grateful to have some endorsement for my views on the Act of Union from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. I was also grateful for the points made by my noble friend Lord Northesk.
There is a point about the Scots Peers which has not been mentioned in this debate. Many Scots hereditary Peers sit on the Cross Benches, whereas I suspect that the majority of Scots life Peers have come here if not through legal eminence, then by the political route. There are some who are even more independent Cross-Benchers, like myself.
This is a debate which I shall need to read with some care. There are obviously serious points concerning the impact upon the Act of Union, which is why I tabled the amendment in the first place, and its complexity is more than I can possibly digest this evening.
With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No.12:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Peers of Scotland (No.2))")
The noble Lord said: I may be accused of being rather a nuisance because I rise again—for the same reasons. Amendment No.12 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.51 which contains the substantive provision; Amendment No.67 is consequential.
After the long debate we have had, it would be very unfair to weary the Committee by going over the ground which I covered when I introduced the last set of amendments and I certainly shall not do so. For the benefit of any noble Lords who did not hear my remarks then, I say only that the basis for my putting forward these amendments is preservation of the original Treaty of Union provision that Scotland should be represented in this House by 16 Peers of Scotland elected from their fellows each parliament. I have already reminded noble Lords that the provision was widened in 1963 when the 16 were replaced with all Peers of Scotland.
Whereas my Amendment No.50 was simpler in format, the scheme of which Amendment No.51 is the core would return us to the Article XXII position, with 16 Peers elected to sit and vote here. The use of an electoral system lines up with the scheme behind the amendment which we know as the Weatherill amendment. As we do not know how long the interim House will last, it would be reasonable to establish electoral machinery. For the avoidance of doubt, the word "only" is included in my draft to restrict the right to stand for election to those Peers who are Peers of Scotland only.
I feel very strongly that something should be done to avoid the consequences of the Government's proposal to repeal Section 4 of the 1963 Act, which had its roots in the Act of Union.
We are constantly reminded of the manifesto commitment which justifies this Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to point out that the paragraphs dealing with
196
devolution in that manifesto are headed, "Devolution—Strengthening the Union". I hope that the Government will recognise that these amendments would contribute to that strengthening. The Government's position appears to be contradictory. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend's amendment would simply take us back to the 1963 position—that is, there would still be 16 elected Peers.
I doubt that there is very much to add to the previous arguments. I would take the opportunity to say, however, that I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, probably did not read out his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn's list of the Welsh Peers for exactly the same reason as, when I took part in the Welsh devolution Bill, I said that I would do everything, bar anything that asked me to get my tongue round some of the names. I suspect that is really the problem for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde and I noticed that, in the distinguished list of Scotsmen which the noble and learned Lord read out, we were both missed out. As my noble friend is so young, I keep thinking that he is a life Peer—or perhaps I am assuming that the Weatherill amendment is already passed!
I listened with some interest to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I shall be consulting various legal luminaries who delve into these matters to see whether he is correct that events have overtaken Lord President Cooper's judgment. It is possible that we may come back to that, but I shall leave it in other hands, and even to other voices, if there are points still to be argued.
With that, I simply say that, as with the previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Gray has done us a service in drawing to our attention the important way in which the Act of Union interfaces with this Bill as far as the peerage is concerned.
Lord Elton: As my noble friend has helpfully introduced the matter of electoral procedures, may I use this opportunity to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give us some assurance that when we reach the main debate on electoral procedures, which I presume will hinge on the Weatherill amendment, we shall by then have had an opportunity to see, discuss and digest the Standing Orders of the House under which it is proposed that those procedures shall operate, otherwise we shall be discussing this in somewhat of a vacuum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I think that the principles which underlie this amendment are the same as those which underlay the previous amendment. The only difference is that it is an electoral college rather than all Scottish hereditary Peers being entitled to sit.
I shall not repeat the remarks I have made, but I do make this point in relation to the amendment: the effect of the amendment is to allow holders of Scottish and other UK peerages to vote in this electoral college as long as they have a Scottish peerage among their

197
peerages; yet it allows Scottish Peers only to be elected, which in effect was the position before 1963 and which, with the greatest respect, is completely odd, because it means that people who have absolutely no right to sit here can vote in that strange election.
That is the only differential point. Again, I ask noble Lords to reject the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.
The reason I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in the list was because my first remark was that once one had heard a speech of the brilliance of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, there was no need to worry about Scottish representation. I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, because—this may be news to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—I understand him to be a hereditary Peer, although his talents would suggest that he had got here on his own merits.
Lord Elton: Is there any source from which we can be told about the availability of the Standing Orders? I know that it is wide of the amendment, but I can think of no other occasion on which we can ask for the assurance. When we come to that debate, we should then be briefed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not in a position to give an answer one way or the other.
Lord Gray: I am grateful for the contributions we have had on the amendment. I shall not detain the Committee long. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may offer the following information. At present, so far as I can work out, some 41 Peers could vote but not stand in the election that I propose, and about 40 could stand for election. My mathematics are not necessarily very good, but I have done some research. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No.13:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 4(I) and (1A)")
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment. I shall speak to Amendment No.112. The effect of the amendment is to put off the date at which the Bill comes into effect until each House of Parliament has passed a resolution that it will do so; and that it will not do so until the report of the Royal Commission has been considered by this House.
I believe that the amendment is attractive to the Government for many reasons. I think that it is somewhat difficult for the Government to oppose. It makes no attempt to change the underlying theme of the Government's alteration of this House. It does not attempt to argue against their manifesto commitment. It merely proposes delaying the Bill coming into effect until the Royal Commission has reported. I believe that all Members of this House, the public and the press think that that is right: that there should be no stage one
198
without stage two. The amendment proposes that the Act takes effect only after the Royal Commission has reported and each House of Parliament has voted on the matter.
The only concession required by the Government is that the amendment allows hereditary Peers to stay in office slightly longer than they would otherwise have done. As there have been Peers in office for many hundreds of years, I do not think that that is a severe penalty to bear. The prize is that the Government will receive the wise advice and views of the Royal Commission in making this major constitutional change. If the Government do not accept the amendment, or an amendment along this line, the penalties are that they will create a vacuum for this House which will be stripped of all hereditary Peers and with a flood of new life Peers to balance the Labour ranks with those Peers who are left.
Is it right that this House should agree to pull down so rapidly a structure which is dependent upon centuries of history, and one which has worked reasonably well, with no plans for its reconstruction? We accept that the Government have a mandate to make these changes. We accept that changes are desirable in many respects. But they wish to do so at a speed which destroys the present structure with no idea of what they will put in its place. It is left to a Royal Commission. It is hoped that the Royal Commission will report at the end of this year. We are talking about a break of a few months in order that a wise body can bring forward suggestions for this House and another place to consider before finally sacking hereditary Peers.
One of the hallmarks created, rightly or wrongly, by the Government since they have been in office is the starting of schemes without seeing them through to the end. One can think of a variety of matters which they have started. The Government have then scratched their heads and have been unsure what to do. I ask that they agree to wait until the Royal Commission has reported before the Act comes into effect.
Baroness Blatch: My amendment, Amendment No.113, is grouped with my noble friend's amendment. It will not have gone unnoticed that they are similar. However, my amendment has a slightly tougher ending. Having spoken with my noble friend, I think that there may be a preference for Amendment No.113.
At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor threatened the whole House that if the Government were displeased by amendments that we may pass, or any delay that may be incurred, or some other as yet unnamed displeasure that we may cause, we may or may not have—depending on the whim of the Government or the Lord Chancellor of the day—a Bill with the Weatherill amendment. So I wish to make clear at the outset that my amendment is predicated with or without the Weatherill amendment.
I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Earlier he slightly chided the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for not coming armed with some basic statistics for previous amendments on the number of people who would be available to the interim House.

199
I find it extraordinary that the Government not only do not know what stage two will be, but are not in a position to make an intelligent guess as to the size of the interim Chamber.
There is nothing in the Bill or the White Paper or from any of the discussions we have had which suggests to the House or the outside world that Members of the interim or stage two Chamber will be remunerated for their efforts here. So I do not know what pressures the Government believe that they can bring to bear on those Members who habitually do not attend this place, sometimes for very good reason. There may be reasons of health. It may be because work outside the House precludes them from attending here, or the logistics of getting to and from this House on a daily basis make attendance difficult. We have a number of Members of this House who attend infrequently, but when they attend they bring to bear a specialism, a specialty, a point of interest which is extremely valuable to the work of this House.
I do not write off the importance of the number of attendances. But as an interim Chamber, with or without the Weatherill amendment, we have an obligation to do our work properly. We have a scrutiny obligation. We have an obligation to man (as I prefer to call it, in the universal sense) the committees of this House. The work of those committees is extremely important to the work of Parliament. At the very least, the Government should be able to say with some confidence that the size of the interim Chamber, and the likely daily attendance of Members during the interregnum, will meet all those obligations regarding the quality expected of a second Chamber without too onerous a duty on individual Members.
Some of us are sceptical about stage two. Will it come at all? How long will it take? How difficult will it be to reconcile the different viewpoints about its shape, nature, role and functions? It is likely that the interregnum could continue for some time. However, if one takes the Government at their word, they are saying that they do not expect a delay between stages one and two. I suggest that they cannot have it both ways. If the second stage will follow quickly after the first, what is the point of an interregnum? If the second stage is not to follow without undue delay, it is important that we have a strengthened interregnum, against which the Government have set their face, or that we do not commence stage one until both Houses have seen the report of the Royal Commission and discussed it. It is then that with some confidence we shall have a better understanding of how long the interregnum will be and can move on to that stage and the definitive second stage.
I do not argue the finer detail and that the Bill should have gone through both Houses in order to implement stage two. However, I believe that at least we should see the report of the Royal Commission. There should be a discussion in both Houses, and a resolution should be determined by both Houses that it is timely to commence stage two. For that reason, I believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman and my amendment should be given serious
200
consideration, even at the risk of offending the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues in government.
I really am delighted that we are not cowered by those threats. This is important business; it is a serious constitutional change. However threatened we all may be—and we now know that we are all threatened, not just our hereditary colleagues—we have a duty to scrutinise this legislation. We have a duty to make it better, if that is possible and I believe that it is, and we have a duty to strengthen the interregnum arrangements or to delay their implementation until both Houses are satisfied that stage two lives up to the criteria laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It should be consistent with an independent, strong second Chamber that is able to keep the executive in check and balance.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me on the following point? Not for the first time, reference has been made to the deprivation the Chamber will suffer with the absence of hereditary Peers. Many of my colleagues are unable to serve on committees because of the political complexion of the House. By agreement, the number of members of a committee is based on the proportion which the parties enjoy in the House. Can the noble Baroness tell us from where she gets the idea that in a House deprived of hereditary Peers there will be a shortage of Members who are willing to serve and to carry out its work?
Baroness Blatch: I can answer that directly. In an interregnum House without the Weatherill amendment, 750 Members will immediately leave. After examining the daily attendance over the past four or five years, and seeing who attends from the beginning to the end of business enabling the House to fulfil all its duties, including committee work. I believe that there will be difficulty in expecting the 300 or 400 who are left to do so. Even with the Weatherill amendment, the number will not be much higher. I believe that the number of Members who will be expected to attend daily in order to meet the obligations of the business of the House will present a difficulty. It is incumbent on Ministers to give us their intelligent guesses as to the likely attendance in the House with or without the Weatherill amendment.
Baroness Crawley: I listened carefully to the commencement argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and to the attendance argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which have been ably answered by my noble friend Lord Graham. However, I am irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that these amendments are quite deliberately delaying tactics. They are an attempt to put the Bill as it stands on the back burner, on the long arm, as far away from becoming legislation in this parliamentary Session as it is possible to get away with.
What is so admiringly blatant about the amendments, which are designed to delay the removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House, is that they are proposed in the teeth of a manifesto pledge

201
which could not be clearer if it were written in letters 20 feet high and hung across the roof of the Palace of Westminster. The manifesto states—
Lord Strathclyde: Does the noble Baroness consider that just because the proposals are in the manifesto they cannot be debated?
Baroness Crawley: Of course not. I was referring to the admiringly blatant quality of the amendments which form part of the debate.
I know that noble Lords opposite will be extremely keen to hear again the quotation from the manifesto. It states:
"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".
That could not be mistaken for anything other than an intent at exceptional clarity in a manifesto which, as my noble friend the Leader of the House reminded us last week, was so popular it was on The Times' best-seller list for 1997. Another publication on the same list was The Little Book of Calm, which should be recommended reading for all those taking part in this Committee stage.
The delay in the Bill, which the amendments would create. most definitely goes against the spirit of the Salisbury convention. I imagine that it would be considered by the Government as an extremely wrecking route for noble Lords to take. The Government are totally committed to further reform. As we know, the Royal Commission is the first stage of that further reform. But the Bill stands alone in its intent for the very good reason, as noble Lords opposite are well aware, that linking the two stages of reform have historically led to stalemate and failure. Despite the best efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, many of us will resist the delaying blandishments of these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: Will the noble Baroness tell us precisely what wording in the manifesto Amendment No.112 does violence to? The amendment does not affect the stand-alone element, because the Act would have been passed. It does not affect removing the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote; that would have gone by the Act; and it does not make it dependent on further reform, because it is merely awaiting proposals. So the amendment is neutral about what follows, and does not do violence to the words of the manifesto commitment.
Baroness Crawley: I believe very firmly that the spirit of the three amendments does do violence to the spirit of the Salisbury Convention, by inevitably delaying the Bill which, as a stand-alone Bill—a very clear, very short, 25-line, stand-alone Bill—should be able to go through in one Session.
Lord Norton of Louth: I was not aware that the Salisbury Convention was in the manifesto. With which part of the manifesto does the amendment conflict? As it stands, I cannot see that it does. I was going to
202
intervene later to be helpful to the Minister who is to reply by pointing out that it does not do violence to it and therefore may actually be attractive to the Government.
Baroness Crawley: I am holding the section from the manifesto to which I referred. It states that the Bill is a stand-alone Bill which does not depend on any further reform, as the noble Lord has just stated. Therefore, amendments that call for delaying the Bill until further reform is decided, by whatever mechanisms are available in the future, are very much delaying tactics.
The Earl of Onslow: I am infinitely impressed by noble Baronesses who say "I have listened with great care" to the arguments advanced by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch and then produce a wodge of paper, several pages thick, so obviously written in about 0.5 of a nanosecond, as opposed to being prepared from the outset. So, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I strongly suspect that her speech had been written before she listened to the argument. We have all done it—there is nothing to be ashamed of—but do not try to con us.
Baroness Crawley: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has many qualities, but I did not realise that he was, as it were, an angel or a ghost on my shoulder, watching me in the many hours between my looking at the amendments and speaking to them, and knowing whether certain parts of my speech were prepared before or after. I am amazed at his qualities.
The Earl of Onslow: I shall certainly rest on the noble Baroness's broad shoulders whenever she thinks it is necessary.
There is another point to make about the amendment, an amendment with which I am not in agreement. I would have been completely in agreement with it, had it not been for the Weatherill amendment. The noble Baroness says that we must not pass wrecking amendments, and that the matter was in the manifesto. The manifesto says quite categorically that the Government will get rid of the hereditary peerage. Lo and behold, they have agreed to an amendment, with which I too am in complete agreement, which drives more than a coach and horses through the original Bill. As wrecking amendments go, it is the whole Royal Mews—state landaus, the Irish state coach, the lot.
Therefore, we have a Bill that is genuinely capable of a little bit of improvement. I have been on record as wanting proper reform. Those of us who want reform look for a little more of the spirit that the Government have shown over the Weatherill amendment. I do not mind the fact that it needed the ability of a Byzantine theologist to make the Weatherill amendment work in line with the Labour Party manifesto. I do not hold manifestos up as holy writ. But we should give the Government credit for what they have done. Yes. let us try to make sure that their appointment system is more satisfactory afterwards; but if we accept this amendment, we shall be asking a bit much of them. Had it not been for the Weatherill amendment, I would have

203
gone down this line time and time again, and I would have been as nasty as I possibly could be. But when somebody has made a concession, we should approach it in the spirit in which it is made.
The point about the whole Royal Commission and the Bill is surely this: if the Royal Commission reports quickly and its recommendations are passed quickly, that is all right but, if not, we must make sure that the Bill itself is a stand-alone measure.
I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that to pass an Act of Parliament which results in one House of Lords having lasted 700 years and another lasting 15 months is a fairly silly way of doing things. But we have agreed that. We must also ensure that, if the interim House lasts for more than 15 months or further change is postponed (because of what Harold Macmillan described as "Events, dear boy"), the Bill is as good as it can be. With the greatest respect to my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch, I do not think that it matters whether or not that is done after the report of the Royal Commission. Therefore, I would not support them in this. The noble Baroness who has just spoken has completely missed the point of what has been discussed and what her own side has agreed to do. Let us give the Government credit. I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Boardman.
Lord Monson: I cannot agree with the noble Earl. When the Bill was first conceived a couple of years ago nobody, whether in or out of government, knew that a Royal Commission was to be set up, still less that it would be required to produce its recommendations by 31st December this year, a mere eight months hence. On the contrary, it was assumed that any recommendations for major reform would take years rather than months to produce. On that assumption, it was not unreasonable to frame the Bill so that the hereditary Peers could be got rid of before the end of October this year—that is, if one accepts the Government's general arguments against the hereditary Peers, which I do not. However, the fact that the Royal Commission has been charged with making its recommendations in eight months' time changes things utterly. It enables, in theory at any rate, a much smoother, less abrupt and more logical transition to take place. However, the Bill as it stands unfortunately fetters the Royal Commission and may pre-empt its recommendations.
After all, the commission could very well conclude that the good governance of this country, the optimum handling of legislation and the restraint of the currently excessive powers of the executive all require the continued presence in Parliament, either permanently or for a limited period, of some or all of the hereditary Peers currently sitting in the House of Lords. But unless these amendments are agreed to, however strongly the commission might consider this to be the best option, it would not be entitled to make such a recommendation. This is a crazy state of affairs. Accordingly, I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We were all privileged to hear a heroic speech from the noble Baroness, Lady
204
Blatch. "We will not be cowed", she said. Cowed by whom? Cowed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? What did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say? He said that there was a bargain—a bargain to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the Government were parties. It does not seem to me that the noble and learned Lord said anything other than that there was a bargain and that the Conservative Party would have to pay a price for that bargain, a point to which I shall come in a few moments.
Certainly, the Committee has demonstrated a remarkable, if not altogether surprising, appetite for discussing these issues. In the October and February debates we had over 200 speeches, and last Tuesday, the first day of the Committee stage, we had a large number of additional Second Reading speeches. Some of those who participated claimed that they were speaking to probing amendments, as they were described, but there was and is nothing to probe. The only issue before us in reality is whether the Committee is prepared to accept the proposition that hereditary Peers should no longer be permitted to speak and vote in the House of Lords. That is the issue. It is the only issue before us. The Committee should recognise that.
The Earl of Onslow: Has not the noble Lord just made another Second Reading speech—the complaint he has made about others?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am responding to a speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who gave us a full account of her views on the subject. I make no complaint about that. I propose to return to one or two points of general application made in the debate because we should recognise the issue that we are discussing when dealing with this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred to the Labour Party manifesto. Indeed, she was quite right to do so. It has been mentioned once or twice before. Nevertheless, given the character of some of the speeches to which we have listened since the beginning of this Committee stage, it is right to remind the Conservative Party of what was in that manifesto. The same applies also to my own party. That is why those of us sitting on these Benches are firmly in support of the Bill.
It is right to remind the Committee yet again that both manifestos made it clear that this would be a two-stage reform, a point which is of fundamental significance in relation to this amendment.
Although there have been many fierce attacks on the Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, clarified the position when he spoke on the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble Viscount said:
"Tempted as 1 am by the prospect of supporting my noble friend's amendment. it is in direct contravention of what has come to he known as the Salisbury Convention".
A few moments later, he added:
"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-. —[Official Report 20/4/99: col.1042.]

205
That was clear, was it not? The problem is that the majority of the amendments now on the Marshalled List have, as their central purpose, the desire to undermine the main proposition within this very short Bill.
The question of the Weatherill amendment has been raised. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and I have indicated our concern about it. But the amendments before us now are far more substantial than the Committee recognises and certainly far more substantial than the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, suggested. First, they seek to ensure that when the Bill receives Royal Assent it should not come into effect until the Royal Commission has reported and both Houses would then be obliged—in some respects this is the most important part of the amendment—to pass resolutions before the Bill came into effect. I wonder what is the meaning of that.
The political consequences are clear. The Conservative majority in this Chamber could then vote against that resolution and the Bill would be dead. That is the reality. That is what we are discussing. There should be no misunderstanding. This is one of the most fundamental amendments tabled for Committee stage. For the reasons that I have indicated, what is being suggested is entirely unacceptable to us.
The problem is that a number of Members of the House—the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred to it—are determined that they will organise a prolonged series of debates challenging the decision made by the British electorate two years ago.
Earlier this Session, we were promised by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches—and this was before the negotiations of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, with the Government—some kind of political—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord referred to a deal, a bargain, brokered between the Opposition and the Government as regards the Weatherill amendment. I do not know what that was. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As we were not parties to it, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. But as the deal has been reported rather widely in the newspapers, there is not much mystery about it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has prayed in aid the deal without knowing the details of it. Will he tell the Committee whether the deal precluded the tabling of any other amendment to the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is a matter on which the leadership of the Conservative Party will be in a position to judge better than I because, as I understand it, at the time the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was fired as Leader of the Opposition by Mr.. Hague, he indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had been party to some of those
206
discussions. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, without any difficulty.
Before the sad passing of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as Leader of the Opposition, we were promised some form of political Gettysburg. We were told that there would be the fiercest battle that the House of Lords had ever seen. Last week, we certainly heard the thunder of the guns; but, of course, there were no casualties because the guns were firing blanks. There was no Pickett charge for the army had disappeared. As soon as the moment of decision arose, nob1e Lords concerned withdrew their amendments.
The reason is clear. As a result of the talks, on which, no doubt, in a few moments the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, will be able to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Conservative Party is aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde is aware, that it is on probation. If it attempts to wreck the Bill, its members know that the Government may drop their support for the Weatherill amendment which guarantees places for a minimum of 42 hereditary Conservative Peers in this House.
Therefore, until now we have merely witnessed a phoney war. Certainly, there has been a desire to wound the Government but there have also been grave doubts on the Conservative Benches about striking too fierce a blow against the Government, which could lead to painful reprisals.
The question for the Opposition is clear. If they support the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Boardman, which is the paving amendment for the two others to which he referred, designed to delay the implementation of the Government's manifesto commitment, they are clearly in breach of the Salisbury convention. As we all recognise, they have an overwhelming majority in this House and if they go into the Lobby, they will win. None of us has any doubts about that.
As I indicated, for us, as I am sure for many others, this is a major issue of principle. The Committee deserves to be allowed to make a clear decision one way or the other. If yet another request is made for leave to be given to withdraw the amendment, we shall insist on a Division. The time has come to end the period of this phoney war. If the members of the Conservative Party then choose to use their majority to carry the amendment, so be it. The responsibility will be theirs.
Lord Strathclyde: I am intrigued by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who makes much of the constitutional convention. There are two important conventions in this House. One is the Salisbury convention. Another is the convention that we do not vote against secondary legislation. I have yet to see the Liberal Democrats stick to that second convention. They are picking and choosing on the conventions that they decide to support and it is not good enough.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that it is a quite

207
extraordinary point of view that just because a Bill is heralded in a manifesto, no amendments should be tabled to it in Parliament. That is the most extraordinary view to have expressed in this House.
Baroness Crawley: That is not what I said.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am sorry, but my hearing is pretty good and that is precisely what was said. The noble Baroness said that because it was in the manifesto, that was a clear expression that the Bill was going to come through. I believe she said that it would be a one-stage Bill or a one-storey Bill; that it was obnoxious, appalling and against all sorts of conventions that anyone should put down amendments to it. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that there are many people in this House who share with me a long period of time in another place. If it had ever been the rule that we were never to put down amendments or argue a Bill that was in a party manifesto, I think it would have been a surprising development for all of us and we would not have accepted it.
Lord Richard: I was sitting next to my noble friend Lady Crawley, when she was on her feet. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, interrupted her and asked her specifically if she was saying that there should be no discussion of amendments to the Bill. The answer my noble friend gave was clearly "No", that that was not her view.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: We were not talking about discussions, we were talking about amendments. The noble Baroness quite clearly was angry that there were amendments tabled on this particular point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Baroness refers to her long experience in another place which, of course, we all respect. She will be aware that in another place amendments of this kind—indeed, there were suggestions of amendments of this nature referring to what we would call the second stage of reform—were ruled inadmissible by the Table in another place.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Everyone who has had experience in another place, which includes many in this House, is aware that amendments can be ruled unacceptable and not debated. There is no argument about that. That was not the case that I was making. I was trying to tell the noble Baroness—possibly trying to extend her education of the general system of government in this country—that there is nothing wrong with an opposition opposing it. It is as simple as that.
I very much want to support, even if briefly, my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch in the two amendments. To proceed before a Royal Commission has reported seems to me to be not only putting the cart before the horse but putting the cart in a position when the horse is not even in the stable. What in the world is
208
the sense of having a Royal Commission to report on something when half of what it is to consider has already been dealt with? What, indeed, if the Royal Commission decided, as some of us feel to be the case, that the hereditary Peers have served this House, and continue to do so, extremely well; that they do about half of all the solid, slogging work of the House and are, indeed, valuable? The Royal Commission might well reach the conclusion that it would be wrong to get rid of such hard working people who work for nothing.
It may also point out that in the main it is the hereditary Peers who provide the youth in this House, which is a very good thing. There are many other cases which the Royal Commission might discuss and conclude by saying, "Wait a minute. You should not really have got rid of the hereditaries. You haven't thought this thing through. "
I am a little tired of hearing about the Labour Party manifesto. I remind the Committee that it has been reported that only 2 per cent of the people who admitted reading it knew anything about this suggestion. Of that 2 per cent perhaps only I per cent knew that there would be a one-stage Bill or even understood what that phrase might mean. After all, as I understand it, there were several other assurances in the Labour Party manifesto. It was not just a "one issue document" to which the people of this country overwhelmingly agreed. I am a little tired of being told that it was.
To go ahead without listening to the carefully thought through opinion of experts about this House and how it can be most effective seems to me to be absolutely absurd. Is not the Royal Commission going to look at how the House of Lords has worked all these years? If a Royal Commission is to be set up, I do not understand the sense in going ahead without listening to everything it might have to say on the efficacy of this House and the way business should be conducted here in the future.
Lord Bach: I have listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness. May I take it from what she has had to say that she does not agree with the conclusions reached by the Mackay Commission set up by the leader of her party?
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am merely speaking to the two amendments as they are set down on the Order Paper. I believe that I am perfectly in order in doing that.
Lord Bach: Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for coming back, and will answer my question. I think it is a fairly simple one.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: The question asked had absolutely nothing to do with what I said or the two amendments. I am therefore perfectly in order in refusing to answer it.
Lord Desai: I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as they both know. In pushing the amendment they have argued that if it was passed it would somehow improve the Bill. However, they also

209
say that all the amendment does is not to amend the Bill but delay its implementation. Amendment No.113 states:
"shall not come into force".
Therefore, it will not alter what the Bill says. It says, "Here is a Bill. Let us suspend implementation until January", in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, or—who knows when a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament will be—let us say December 2000; that seems to be the consensus. Therefore, if we were to take their speeches at face value, they say, "Oh. no. We don't want to improve the Bill itself; the Bill is fine. We just want to delay its implementation".
Let us accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, that the requirement that there be a resolution by both Houses of Parliament is intended to be a Trojan horse for the amendment of the Bill in a way which is not intended in the Bill as it is before the House. The purpose of the Bill is stated at the top; namely, to remove the hereditary Peers. That is its only purpose. If the resolution of the two Houses of Parliament is not to alter the substance of the Bill, what is the point of the delay? It does not improve the Bill; it just delays it. If it is going to change its substance, then in rejecting the purpose of the Bill noble Lords are going against the manifesto of the Labour Party. My noble friend Lady Crawley said that she objected to a delaying or wrecking amendment. Discussing an amendment is fine.
Lord Boardman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said, or intended to make clear, that we are talking about the constitution of this House, which we hope will last for centuries afterwards. It is not unreasonable to have a delay of eight or nine months—which is the time for the Royal Commission to report—in order to set up what we believe to be the best constitution for this House. The delay is in order to have the considered report before the die is cast.
7 p m.
Lord Desai: With respect to the noble Lord, that is not what the amendment says. It does not say that when the commission has reported we will have another Bill incorporated into this Bill and we will consider that. His amendment says that the Act shall be as it is when it is enacted.
So the noble Lord is not talking about a second stage in these amendments, and nor is the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. They say: "It has been agreed that this Bill should go through as it is, but somehow, for various reasons—the atmosphere is not right; we are waiting for Hurricane Mitch or whatever else it is; we have waited 700 years—we are going to delay its implementation". But either the delay is going substantially to change the Bill and this is therefore a wrecking amendment, or it is otiose. We have reason to believe, therefore, that these amendments should be rejected.
Lord Crickhowell: The central issue for many of us in relation to this Bill is that we object to passing a constitutional Bill which leaves us in a black hole.
210
I suppose it was characteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that he should speak so firmly in support of a vacuum. But I am bound to say that he is a little foolish if he urges us to fire the heavy guns. I can assure him that I feel no inhibitions, either because some deal has been done in which I was not involved or indeed because of any interpretation of the Salisbury convention, about firing guns. But I shall fire them at the moment of my choice and not at the moment of choice of the noble Lord.
I always feel that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is desperately regretting that moment when he left the Labour Party and is seeking his way back as rapidly as he possibly can. But then his whole life, to use that immortal phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, earlier, has been the development from a correct premise to a wholly fantastic conclusion.
I turn to the more realistic and sensible, but not very convincing, argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She hung her hat solely on the manifesto pledge. One of the difficulties I have about the manifesto pledge arises from a criticism made by the Labour Party about the Conservative Party when it asked, "Why did you not get on with reform when you were in government?". The Labour Party had 17 years or so to work out its proposals for constitutional reform and all it was able to come up with was this simple, short manifesto commitment and this simple, short Bill. All the great brains, the think-tanks, the advisers that were working away for the whole of the 17 years, could not produce more. All the information I can get out of government, government departments, advisers in government—one still has a few ways to sift what is happening within government and government departments—is that the Government still do not have the faintest idea what is to follow this Bill and are relying solely on the Royal Commission to give them some ideas.
There is therefore a pretty strong case, when we are dealing with a constitutional Bill of this importance, to say, "We will not recklessly get rid of 'what we have at the moment until we can be pretty certain that we know what is going to follow on; at least until we have seen what the Royal Commission has had to say and Parliament has had an opportunity in both Houses to debate it". We know now that the issues are pretty complex, even if we did not know it before We now have the report of the Mackay commission, which was referred to by a Member of the Committee who has now left the Chamber. That did not reach any final conclusions; indeed, on perhaps the most difficult issue of all, as to whether or not to have an elected Chamber, it gave two options and left the matter for further debate and consideration. That is a subject about which some of us have strong views which no doubt we will present in due course.
If we had had doubts about the complexity of the issues, we could not have after reading the consultation paper issued by the Royal Commission with the innumerable questions it asks. And again, if we had had doubts about the matter, we could not have any after reading the views of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, In

211
the short time since he left government he seems to be able to go far further in reaching firm conclusions about the future than his colleagues did over 17 years.
I do not have any hesitation in pursuing these issues. I shall not have any hesitation in firing the heavy guns in due course, at a moment of my choice and that of my colleagues. Of course, if the Liberal Party wants to start tabling amendments and joining in the fun, it is welcome. But I expect that it will withdraw from the battle as it has withdrawn from serious battles whenever they really begin.
In relation to the views of my noble friend Lord Onslow, I do not see anything in these amendments which makes me worry about the introduction of the Weatherill amendment, whether or not I favour it. I do not express a view about that now, though I may do later. It does not inhibit or prejudice the acceptance by this Committee of the Weatherill amendment and therefore, because I am not prepared to accept at any stage of this Bill that we should allow the Government on the strength of their manifesto commitment to leave the constitutional arrangements of this country in a vacuum, I shall strongly support the amendment of my noble friend.
Lord Richard: I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. I was flattered by his reference to me. I hope he bought the book and did not just borrow it from the library. He would have found it modestly priced and well worth the money.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As the author of one book and another which is to come out, I have every sympathy and I will buy his book if he undertakes to buy both of mine.
Lord Richard: It depends how much the noble Lord's books cost and what the value is.
These two amendments are not ones the Committee should accept for one simple reason; that is, they both bring the matter back to this Chamber. After the Royal Commission has reported; after the joint committee has considered it; the matter then has to come back here in order for it to be decided whether this Bill, which the Royal Commission is not discussing, will be implemented.
Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out—he was right to do so—we would be in the position where the implementation of this Bill, which would have passed the Commons and presumably passed this House as well, would again be subject to the veto which the Opposition hold because of the composition of this Chamber. I do not believe that either the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, or the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, could conceivably expect the Government to accept an amendment which would mean that in perhaps 18 months or two years' time, after the Royal Commission and the joint committee reported, we would come back to this House and be again in thrall to the 300 hereditary Peers who take the Conservative Whip.
212
The figures in this House are always worth remembering when we are considering constitutional matters. I believe 476 Peers take the Conservative Whip; of those, 300 are hereditary. The Labour Party has 175 Peers, of which 18 are hereditary. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in parenthesis, that the Labour Party is perfectly capable of playing its part in running the committees and the work of this House without, if need be, 18 hereditary Peers. I imagine that would be the same for the Liberal Democrats. So the noble Baroness is simply trying to persuade the Committee that we cannot run the business of this House unless there is an overwhelming majority of Conservative hereditary Peers to do it.
The noble Baroness shakes her head. With great respect, that is the inexorable conclusion of the figures on the composition of this Chamber. She can shake her head as much as she likes but she cannot evade the conclusion. The fact of the matter is that, by and large, the hereditary Peers sit on the opposite side of the Chamber—300 of them. I am not prepared to accept, and I trust my party is not prepared to accept, that in order to run the second Chamber of the British legislature we have to perpetuate a system which gives such an enormous in-built Conservative majority to the Opposition in the House of Lords. It is an absurd proposition and should be rejected.
Therefore, to talk about a set of amendments which would mean that in 18 months' or two years' time the issue would have to come back to this Chamber, at which point the 300 hereditary Peers on the other side would no doubt, yet again, be able to make all the noise that they are now making, is, frankly, a proposition which I find deplorable.
Baroness of Knight of Collingtree: I have a question for the noble Lord before he sits down. Is it not the case that if they were constituted as they are at present, the Government could perfectly well vote down what this Chamber decided? Surely the noble Lord's point is not a very strong one.
Lord Richard: With great respect to the noble Baroness, the first answer to that is the fact that the Parliament Acts do not apply to resolutions; indeed, they apply only to Acts of Parliament. Secondly, for this to apply to an Act of Parliament, the procedure would have to start in the other place and then come to this Chamber. Therefore, unless we amend the Parliament Acts so as to give the government majority in the first Chamber—that is, the House of Commons—the right to vote down a resolution passed in this House, there is no other way of doing this.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that we on these Benches have, throughout the whole history and record of our party in this House, honoured the commitment never to vote down secondary legislation?

213
What is it that makes the noble Lord believe that a resolution of both Houses could be voted down by this party?
Lord Carter: That is not exactly correct. I should remind Members of the Committee that the 1968 Rhodesian sanctions order was voted down.
Lord Richard: My noble friend refers to the Rhodesian order, but a resolution of the House is not technically secondary legislation; indeed, it is a resolution. It does no good for the noble Baroness to shake her head again because, with respect, it does not advance the argument. All it does is make the noble Baroness's head shake. She really must apply herself to the point.
That side of the House is entitled to vote against a resolution of this House. I have no doubt whatever that, if this were to come back in two years' time on the basis of either of these two amendments, that is precisely what noble Lords opposite would do. Why would they do so? The answer is very simple. They would do so for the reason that they are now opposing the Bill; namely, that they want to preserve the Conservative majority here in the second Chamber. It has always been thus.
Lord Marlesford: I wonder whether Members of the Committee paid sufficient attention to the most interesting and important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It seemed to me that the noble Lord raised an interesting procedural point. As noble Lords know, I am a child in procedural matters. As I understand it, the mover of an amendment has the right at the end of the debate to propose to withdraw it. Normally that is taken on the nod, that is to say, without a Division, with all of us walking through the Lobbies.
As I understood the noble Lord, he suggested that at some time in the future an amendment might be put forward by a Member of this side of the Chamber, which the mover subsequently proposes to withdraw. He said that he would oppose the withdrawal and, presumably. that means that he would vote against it being withdrawn. Indeed, if Members on this side of the Chamber (and perhaps on the Government side) decided that they would like to have the amendment withdrawn, they would ensure that it was withdrawn because they would vote for that. I am not absolutely sure how that helps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because the result would be precisely the same. It will not have been a question of deciding on the merits of the amendment; it will merely mean that we will have spent quite a lot of time going through the Division Lobbies to decide that the amendment should, by leave, be withdrawn. withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord by referring to a debate on 19th March 1998 (Hansard cols.919 to 922) on the Crime and Disorder Bill and to the Division which took place thereafter. On that occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, asked, with the leave of the House, to withdraw her amendment. At that point, the noble Lord,
214
Lord Henley, the Opposition Chief Whip, said "No", and a Division followed. There is nothing unprecedented about what I said earlier; indeed, the Conservative Party has done this on many occasions in the past.
Lord Eden of Winton: We are in fact discussing two amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lady Blatch. Of the two, I have to say that I prefer the former amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman. I do so for the precise reason that, were his amendment to be accepted, the time-scale likely to be involved would be shorter. In other words, we would not have to wait for a committee of both Houses to report, as I understand would be the case with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Following the report of the Royal Commission, I believe that it would take some time for a committee of both Houses to report.
As I understand it, the Royal Commission is doing its level best to report by the end of this calendar year. If that is the case, what my noble friend Lord Boardman proposes is extremely modest. He has suggested that the implementation of this Bill should await the report—and only the report—of the Royal Commission at the end of this year. That is not asking a great deal.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris—indeed, it may have been both of them in curious harmony—indicated that there was the potential for delay beyond the end of the calendar year when the Royal Commission reports because of the proposal in both amendments that there should be a resolution of both Houses. I hope that I am right in saying this; but, if I am wrong, no doulbt someone will shoot me down. It seems to me that the sense of the proposal that there should be such a resolution lies in the fact that that would provide at least an opportunity for some account to be taken of the findings of the Royal Commission.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson—although it may have been one of my noble friends—who put forward the view that rather than proceeding as we are and taking a once-and-for-all decision in advance of knowing the nature of the findings of the Royal Commission, we should at least hear what it has to suggest. I cannot believe for one moment that the Government have set up this commission with their hands tied. Surely the Royal Commission has full scope and opportunity to make whatever recommendations it may choose. I suspect that the commission will take into account the terms of this Bill in its deliberations. However, it will know that by the time this Bill reaches its later stages it is likely to have been amended. despite the manifesto commitment, by Amendment No.31. tabled in the name of a number of Cross-Bench Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. If that were done, there would then be provision for retaining a number of hereditary Peers. The importance of that in the context of these amendments, and bearing in mind the possibility of the Royal Commission reporting with some regard to the position of those hereditary Peers, is that the latter might be retained for a longer period.

215
If the Government have agreed to the Weatherill amendment, which provides for the retention of a number of hereditary Peers—presumably for the good order and better working of the House; otherwise, I cannot understand why they have done it—they might also want to preserve that same group for a while longer so that we can understand the full import of the Royal Commission's findings.
I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept at least the modest proposal of my noble friend Lord Boardman because it makes good common sense. If we are embarked upon this major change—I think every noble Lord in the Chamber accepts that there is no question of stopping the process—let us do whatever we can during the course of it to ensure that what comes after the change makes good sense. It is important that the position of the Royal Commission is not fully circumscribed by the passing of this Bill and that we should not bring it into force until the commission has had a chance to report. I hope very much that that will be the case. I do not see this as a wrecking amendment in any sense. I certainly do not feel that it is a wrecking amendment and I do not think that it should be interpreted as a wrecking amendment. I accept the principle of the Bill as predicated in the manifesto. The manifesto commitment will still be honoured when this Bill ultimately becomes law. All one is asking in a modest way is to hear something of what will take the place of this Chamber in the future before this Bill is enacted. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept at least the proposal of my noble friend Lord Boardman.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I would regret very much leaving your Lordships' House but I am prepared to accept that it may be inevitable. I would particularly regret leaving it in the vacuum mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I feel passionately that I want to see what happens next. I accept the argument proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that once we know what will happen we could vote that out. However, it is far more likely in the tradition of your Lordships' House that we would accept the proposal and it would be voted out in another place if it made any sense. I suspect that that is what terrifies the party opposite; namely, that the proposal would be voted down by another place which does not wish to lose its powers.
Therefore it is highly important that we should see what is proposed and, furthermore, that there should be an incentive for another place to vote for a sensible measure in order to get rid of the hereditary Peers who remain. Why should we have a reason to stay if there was a proper and sensible alternative to our existence here? The difficulty which the opposite side has is that this matter has been outstanding for a hundred years. The Labour Party has longed to get rid of the hereditary Peers for a hundred years. It has longed for all kinds of things for a hundred years. Happily the collapse of the Soviet Union has abolished some of them. Socialism is rather out of fashion these days. Nevertheless, this archaic business of a hundred year-old shibboleth is
216
talked of nowadays in terms of modernity. The whole thing is completely laughable. However, I support the amendment with all my force and if a Division is called I shall vote for it. It is of prime interest to me and I would not mind a bit seeing it go through.
Lord Strathclyde: This has been an important and significant debate. I suspect that we shall return many times to some of the themes that have been mentioned before the various stages of the Bill are completed. There are two immediate points to make. First, these amendments go some way to deal with the issue of no stage one without stage two. Secondly, they probe what I have called the tension between this Bill being a stand alone Bill and it being part of a two-stage process.
I am increasingly of the view that what the Government intend is that this should be a stand alone Bill and that therefore we should treat it as such. When the noble Baroness replies to the debate it would be helpful if she could give a definitive view of whether this is a stand alone Bill or what guarantees the Government are giving about the long-term future of this Chamber. It would be useful for the Committee to be told that.
Amendment No.13 is grouped with Amendment No.112 and also with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch. The effects of the amendments are broadly similar. They give Parliament a lock on the commencement of the Act until we know more about what may be in store for this Chamber in the future. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman asks that we should at least have seen the report of the Royal Commission before purging the House of Lords. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch goes a little further and asks that we should have the benefit of the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses before purging the Chamber. In that context I should remind both the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the statistics on the composition of this Chamber show that the Conservative Party has about 41 per cent. Even though I am no mathematician, that does not strike me as being a majority.
I do not think there is anything inherently unacceptable about these amendments. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion—Members of the Committee opposite have heard me say this before—that what is so reprehensible about this whole process is the sense that the Government are plunging ahead without knowing what will come next. The Government's policy is, "Act before you think, not think before you act. " That is one of the great hallmarks of this Government. It is not a distinguished epitaph for this Government to be remembered as the most thoughtless, least consensual and most partisan constitutional reformers in the history of the United Kingdom.
This is an unfit way to treat Parliament, or indeed the liberties of the subject of which Parliament is the guardian. In response to an intervention from my noble friend Lady Knight, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that this is the kind of amendment which was excluded in the House of Commons. However, I am afraid to say that in another place on 3rd March 1999 a

217
proposed new clause dealt with the issue of the duration of the Act and stated that the Act would cease to have effect after the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament had been debated. Therefore even another place has debated this matter; it is right that we should do so too.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his now infamous threat—possibly even opinion—in our Second Reading debate said that any kind of commencement clause was intolerable, The Government may think that that says all that needs to be said about this amendment; namely, that up with this the Government Front Bench will not put. I think that it says everything we need to know about the Government's attitude to constitutional reform. The Government's philosophy of "because I say so" is not enough. They have to deal with the issues that have been raised in this debate because we are dealing with the reform of Parliament. This Chamber has a right to know where it is going and what we shall end up with. Even if we do not have that right, surely the people of the country have the right to know what will happen. Even if the hereditary Peers do not have that right, should not the life Peers have an opinion right at the start of this process rather than half-way through? It is also right to expect that the Government themselves should know where we are going. We do not know that; the people of the United Kingdom do not know; the Government do not know; the Royal Commission has been asked for an opinion but that has not yet been delivered.
None of these amendments asks for a fatal delay; they are quite humble in their ambition. A small delay is asked for. We should know what kind of Chamber the Royal Commission proposes before we vote out of existence a Chamber that has worked well. We should know the kind of Chamber that Parliament favours before we vote out of existence a Chamber that has worked well. The irony is that later in the Committee stage we shall discuss the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which may leave hereditary Peers here for a further generation. Yet if the Royal Commission reports in December, these amendments would leave the hereditary Peers here for perhaps one extra month, or a few weeks more than that, after the end of this parliamentary Session; or, if we wait for a Joint Committee of both Houses to report, for perhaps six months or a year beyond that. These are not long delays in the 100 years that the Labour Party has waited for this great reform; it is no time at all.
What is the Government's attitude towards the Joint Committee of both Houses? Do they have a view as to when it will be set up after the Royal Commission has reported? Will that happen relatively quickly in a matter of weeks, or will the Government wish to wait far longer? Do they know how many members the joint committee will have and what the split will be between Members of this House and another place? Do they have a view regarding what timetable, if any, will be set for the joint committee's report?
My concern is that I still do not know what the Government are so afraid of. Are they afraid that the Royal Commission or the joint committee might see
218
value in elements of the present House; or that they might not be able to justify in a year's time the high-handed action that they are pressing through now?
In considering the two amendments that are before us, I must say to my noble friend Lord Boardman that I marginally prefer the one proposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch because it allows the views of Parliament to be heard as well as that of the Royal Commission. If we believe in Parliament, it is important that its view should be heard.
Either way, this debate is about asking the Government to think again, to show some respect to the Royal Commission that they set up, albeit reluctantly, and to the two Houses of Parliament. before insisting on driving Members out of an ancient and successful House. The charge that the Government have to answer is a significant one, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: We have had another ingenious general debate. This evening we hive discussed the long-term reform of Parliament, procedure in this House and in another place, secondary legislation and the Royal Commission. We have also spent some time, albeit not completely directed in the right way, on Amendments Nos.13, 112 and 113, to which I shall now attempt to reply.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are in the Government's view another way of simply delaying the fulfilment of the pledge in the manifesto—I have no hesitation whatsoever in repeating that—to place the Bill, which we always said was the first stage of reform, on the statute book. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Crawley for pointing out that the Little Book of Calm was on the best seller list together with the manifesto. So I imagine that it will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Government are not happy to accept either of these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in introducing his amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, said that there was no intention in the amendment to undermine the basic principle of the Bill and that their concern related more to the mechanics of the way in which the Government were proceeding to achieve this reform.
I say to both noble Lords, gently and with considerable respect, that that simply brings us back to the point that I made at Second Reading, which was taken up several times during that debate. If noble Lords are behind the principle of reform, it is rather strange that, during the 45 years in which the party they support was in government, following the first occasion when it was proposed that hereditary Peers should not sit in this House, no proposal for reform was made which was in their view sensible and which they could support. We are now dealing with the Government's Bill as proposed. It has always been clear that reform was proposed in two stages.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, provides that no resolution of both Houses could be made until the Royal Commission had

219
reported. The noble Lord will be aware that it is most unusual to provide for the commencement of an Act of Parliament by resolution of the Houses of Parliament. I imagine that he will say in response that this is a significant and unique Bill—
The Earl of Onslow: I apologise for intervening, but will the noble Baroness answer one very simple question? Has she any idea at all what she would like in stage two?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am always tempted by the noble Earl's intriguing suggestions. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities for us to consider my views, the Government's views and those of your Lordships at an appropriate time. This is not the appropriate time. We are considering the passage of the Bill and three precise amendments to it.
The Earl of Onslow: I did not ask what the noble Baroness's views were. I merely asked whether she had any.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, I have.
It is worth considering the way in which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, would work. It suggests that an Act of Parliament passed by the usual methods could then be challenged by Parliament itself. I am inclined to accept the views of my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Richard, and not to subscribe to the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. I believe that in those circumstances it is almost certain that the political majority in this House would enforce a perpetual veto on whatever was proposed.
We have been round this course on several occasions—
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Will the noble Baroness accept the fact that this House has always done so in the past?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am afraid that I do not entirely follow the noble Lord's intervention. The House has always done what in the past?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: As I understood it, the last reform, in 1968, was agreed by this House but was turned down in another place.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may gently correct the noble Lord. It was in fact the White Paper on proposals that was put before this House and agreed. There was then a subsequent discussion about the Rhodesia sanctions legislation which was referred to in
220
an exchange on an intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Bill then went to another place, and we all know the history of that.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I believe that that is not quite correct. There was a Parliament (No.2) Bill which went through this House and approved the reforms that were proposed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I stand corrected by the noble Lord, but I believe his reference was to the previous occasion, on which the hereditary Peers voted on the White Paper proposals. However, perhaps I may move on.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Richard, probably correctly predicted the future in suggesting that whatever was proposed by the Royal Commission would find both adherents and opponents and that, together, they would almost certainly delay any subsequent reform and indeed the implementation of this Bill.
As I said, we have been round this course a number of times. The Government have made very clear why they intend, and have pledged, to proceed to the reform of this House in two stages. One noble Lord, in speaking to an earlier amendment, said, and I support his view, that smaller and, more importantly, self-contained reforms are often the best way to proceed on constitutional matters. Anyone who genuinely wants to reform this House should join us in that approach and, frankly, not seek to delay reform by this kind of method.
I agree that some of the arguments made by Members of the Committee today are apparently rational and have the impact of an interesting discussion which would be worthy of appropriate debate when we come to discuss both the outcome of the Royal Commission and the next stages of reform. But I cannot say too often—
Lord Elton: Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for intervening in a debate for most of which I have been absent. The Minister repeats a point that I have heard before. The Minister's reference was, "when we come to discuss". But it will not be "we"; it will be "they" so far as the hereditary Peers are concerned. It is because we are locked out of that discussion that we do not feel we can fulfil our duty to see that our departure does not leave the electorate undefended.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Lord may have missed the earlier discussion among your Lordships. Perhaps I did not use the appropriate expression. When I said "we", I was referring to the House in general and to the life Peers who, as we have discussed, we on this side of the House feel are probably more than capable of defending both the electorate and discussing the future of the House in a sensible fashion.
As I have said before—I said it at Second Reading and in the various debates that we have rightly had on this subject—we see the Bill as a self-contained act of reform. That does not, however, suggest that it is a single act of reform, to reply directly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We are aware—

221
again, I perhaps repeat myself; the Committee must forgive me but some of these arguments have been repeated several times&—that there have been several attempts this century that have shown that abolishing hereditary rights to sit and vote will simply not happen if it is tied to the search for a perfect long-term solution. As I said at Second Reading, the Government are not prepared to fall into that particular trap in 1999. We do not believe that we should do nothing just because we do not intend, and it is not yet possible, to do everything.
Amendment No.113 is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Some Members of the Committee seem to prefer that amendment; some seem to prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. After the earlier discussion on Amendment No.10A, I shall assume, unless I am contradicted, that the amendment of the noble Baroness is not official Opposition policy&—although of course the noble Baroness is a Member of the Opposition Front Bench and a Shadow Minister. I shall assume that the amendment is not official Opposition policy unless I am contradicted.
As the noble Baroness has said, and as other Members of the Committee have agreed&—
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness is making a rather clever point, which I missed. There was an obvious pause, allowing me to intervene. If she was making a clever point, could she go through it again in a rather more simple fashion?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: To put it at its baldest, we are waiting for the noble Lord to give his advice to members of his party. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were to suggest that the Committee should divide on the amendment, is that something that the noble Lord would support?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness was here when I made my speech and heard me say that I marginally preferred the amendment of the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Boardman have not yet replied. They may take the view that their amendments are imperfect. At the moment it is an entirely hypothetical matter. It may he that their amendments are perfect in every way. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is indulging in a bit of sport, a ploy; that is what he was on about. I am certainly not going to play the games that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wants me to play.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure that the Committee will understand from that intervention precisely what the noble Lord intends. We on these Benches are a little confused. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who we regard as a distinguished Member of the Opposition Front Bench and spokesman for her party, has tabled the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is a little rich for the noble Baroness to be very concerned and confused about my single
222
amendment when the noble Baroness has no idea what size the interim Chamber will be or what the stage-two proposals are likely to be.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am attempting to address the amendment which stands in lie name of the noble Baroness. I am very happy to discuss numbers with her. As I said in an earlier response, I think that that issue is more relevant to a debate on the second stage of reform than to this Bill. The noble Baroness said, and the noble Lord agreed with her, that the resolution of both Houses of Parliament on the basis of the Bill should not even be put to either House until the Joint Committee of both Houses has reported on the findings of the Royal Commission.
By my reckoning, that would mean that there would be no possibility of the Act coming into force until at least the end of the next Session of Parliament. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, it would spill over into the Session after next. In that case, I imagine that the noble Baroness would argue that the Act should not come into force until after the next general election, when perhaps the electorate might be asked to give its view on both stages of reform. Then, perhaps subsequently, we would hear yet again, as we have from many noble Lords today—notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Knight—that the electorate neither understands nor appreciates the terms of these constitutional matters. However, I should point out to the noble Baroness that we operate in the real world and that if the report of the Joint Committee were to recommend, for example, some variation of the Royal Commission proposals, we would be faced yet again with the cry that the Government should do nothing until some further resolution was made.
To put it at its most simple, the Government do not intend to play the game (to use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde) and to debate this serious issue (to use the terminology of the noble Baroness) in this way again. This time, in this form of legislation, on this Bill, there is one simple question: "Do you believe that hereditary Peers any longer have a place in Parliament?"—and the answer to that must be "Yes" or "No".
The Earl of Onslow: We have accepted that by accepting the Weatherill amendment, which is all about hereditary Peers. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has done so. It shows great flexibility of mind and great intellect worthy of her Oxbridge education, but the noble Baroness cannot have it both ways.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am always delighted to be flattered by the noble Earl. But he may not have noticed that we have not yet reached the Weatherill amendment, although the Government were anxious that we should perhaps consider that amendment first in order to obviate some of the discussions that we have had in the last two days in Committee and no doubt will have again subsequently. That agreement was not achieved. We are now on an earlier amendment. I am seeking to discuss with the Committee why it is that the

223
Government are not prepared to look hypothetically at the possibilities of either that amendment or further reform.
The Government believe that reform can succeed only on the basis of approaching this simple, unique, historic Bill on a one-stage, first-stage method of reform. That is why we have consistently proposed and argued for it. That is why we ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Eden of Winton: Before my noble friend rises, I have listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness has said. As I indicated, I somewhat leant towards the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman because I thought that the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch would go for a longer period of time. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde asked a number of questions about the Joint Committee of both Houses. In order that I may make the sort of judgment I may be called upon to make in a moment or two it is extremely important that I should have more information about the Joint Committee of both Houses. Surely the Government are not waiting for some other committee to report to them on what the Joint Committee of both Houses will be, how it will be comprised, when it will be put into place, how long it is likely to take and what its remit will be. Can the noble Baroness give some answers to the points made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I can give the noble Lord the response that will always be given in your Lordships' House to matters of procedure of this kind, particularly to those which affect both Houses of Parliament. When the time comes, I am quite sure that those matters will be appropriately discussed by the usual channels. As to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, concerning the draft standing orders on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which we shall come to—I did not mention it before because the noble Lord was not in his place—the noble Lord may be aware that the Clerk of the House put a draft to the Procedure Committee on 30th March, and that is now in the Library.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Am I right in thinking that the manifesto, as well as making this decision, stated then that there would be a joint committee? If that decision was made so long ago, it is surprising that it is not possible to give any details of the thinking behind it.
Lord Strathclyde: I was going to make exactly the same point. The issue of the joint committee is not one just for the usual channels; it is a matter not only of government policy, but of manifesto policy. When I asked about when the Government intended to set up that committee, that was nothing to do with the usual channels; that was to do with the Government. I asked whether it would be in a matter of weeks or a matter of months; how long the Government envisage it lasting; and what they believe the balance between the two Houses will be.
224
Those are fairly specific questions. They are not the Second Reading points which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, thinks I make all the time. We have not had answers. If we cannot have answers, it is more difficult for my noble friend Lady Blatch to take a view as to whether this question should be divided on now. These are important issues. If the noble Baroness does not know the answers, it would be much easier for her to say that she does not know the answers.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Of course I do not know the precise mechanics. I do not in any way feel ashamed of making that point. I am sure that there are many procedural questions of that kind which the usual channels will debate—questions about the form, the nature of the membership and the timing. We have always said that this would be set up once the Royal Commission had reported. That is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, in the manifesto because the manifesto referred exclusively to the Joint Committee of both Houses and not to the Royal Commission. But there has never been any question that once the Royal Commission had reported the Joint Committee of both Houses would be set up.
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the White Paper said, in regard to the further procedures on this matter, that we would hope that both Houses of Parliament would be able to consider the findings both of the Royal Commission and of the Joint Committee of both Houses at some stage before the date of the next general election. If the noble Lord is now going to ask me to give him the date of the next general election, I fear I must disappoint him.
Lord Boardman: The noble Baroness accused me of putting down my amendment purely for the purpose of delay. That is not so. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Government to tell us what they have in store—to delay the application of the Act, if the Bill becomes an Act, until we have a Royal Commission report pointing out what is in store for us. They should not pull down this ancient structure of the House of Lords without having some plan on paper to show what we might expect and without having something of which we can be proud. So the noble Baroness is quite wrong in accusing me of delay. The sooner it could happen the better. It would have been much better if the Government had thought of a Royal Commission before introducing the Bill instead of having to be persuaded to do it.
A question arises as to whether my amendment or that of my noble friend Lady Blatch is to be preferred. By the time we vote on the amendments we will have agreed which would be the better line. There is a considerable degree of support for both amendments. I certainly very much support what my noble friend Lady Blatch said. I shall not go into what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. His remarks came strangely

225
and were rather ill-informed as to the purpose of the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. We will reach the other amendments in due course.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In that case, I have to put the Question, That Amendment No.13 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that this might be a convenient moment for us to break. In moving that the House do now resume, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 8.53 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1999
7.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations apply to Northern Ireland only and cover a limited number of aspects of electoral procedure for the forthcoming European parliamentary elections. This is in contrast to the Great Britain regulations which were far more wide-ranging, covering the conduct of all aspects of the new regional list voting system for Great Britain. The regulations before us today introduce mach more minor and technical amendments to existing statute. They are tailored to fit the particular local circumstances of Northern Ireland, where the single transferable vote system of proportional representation will continue to be the electoral system used.
Despite being modest in content, this draft instrument is nevertheless essential to bring European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland into line with recently passed United Kingdom-wide legislation. As many in your Lordships' House will know, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which received Royal Assent on 14th January, introduced the new electoral system for European elections. This new list system applies to Great Britain only. The STV system of proportional representation which has been employed in Northern Ireland for European parliamentary elections since 1979 remains unaltered.
However, the 1999 Act changed some of the terminology applicable to all European Parliamentary elections in the UK, and this draft legislation reflects these technical changes for Northern Ireland Consequently, references to the European "parliamentary constituencies" and "representatives". referred to under the 1978 Act, will be amended to read "Electoral Regions" and "Members of the European Parliament".
In a similarly technical amendment, this piece of legislation also makes provision, in Regulation 5, in respect of by-elections for European parliamentary seats. Again this is an amendment consequential to the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections Act, which replaced the provisions in the 1978 Act by delegating them to subordinate legislation. I must stress that both the existing mechanism for triggering a by-election and the electoral procedures involved are unaltered by these amendments.
In accordance with the practice which was adopted in Northern Ireland for the Forum election of 1996 and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections last year, we have decided not to apply Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Under the Act broadcast media are prevented from covering a "constituency" campaign issue without the consent of all the candidates standing within that constituency. Such consent is not required to cover issues considered "national".
The distinction between "national" and "constituency" issues is often somewhat artificial, particularly for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland where the whole of Northern Ireland is treated as one constituency. In addition, it is clearly difficult to seek the permission of each one of the large number of candidates who may choose to stand in the electoral region. Disapplying this provision will make practical sense and will for these elections bring Northern Ireland into line with the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations for the rest of the UK.
The draft regulations before your Lordships' House make provision for the application of the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 to European parliamentary elections held in Northern Ireland. This Act enables political parties to register their names and, if they so choose, their party emblem. Once registered a party benefits from protection against the unauthorised use of its registered name, and its candidates may request the inclusion of their party emblem on the ballot paper.
Regulations 6(12) and (15) of this draft are necessary to amend existing regulations to allow parties registered under the Act to place their registered name and emblem on the ballot for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland should they so choose. The provisions of the Act do not automatically apply to European parliamentary elections held in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will see that the schedule to this draft instrument provides a new specimen ballot paper illustrating these changes.
We have also decided that it would be appropriate to update the amount which each candidate may spend in election expenses. The limit of candidates' election

227
expenses for European elections was last set in 1994 for the election of that year. We considered that it would be appropriate to review the level at which the expenses were set, and consequently the revised figures in these draft regulations reflect an inflationary increase on the 1994 figures to bring them up to date. As I have previously mentioned, the electoral system to be employed in Northern Ireland in June has not altered, so there has been no necessity to devise a new system of calculating candidates' expenses, as there has been in Great Britain.
A further important amendment which this legislation brings forward is an amendment to Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The expenditure which can be incurred by a third party without the approval of an election agent is determined by Section 75 of this Act in the amount of just £5. However this provision as applied to parliamentary elections was found to be in breach of Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. It was the judgment of the Court in the Bowman case that setting the limit on such expenditure at such a low threshold placed an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. Accordingly, we have increased the £5 limit for these European parliamentary elections to £5,000.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this increased figure accords with the spirit of the recommendations contained within the report of the Neill Committee. The report advocated a limit of £500 for each parliamentary constituency. However, for European parliamentary elections Northern Ireland is not divided into constituencies but the whole of Northern Ireland is treated as one much larger electoral region. Consequently, we have therefore opted for the higher amount of £5,000 to cover the entire electoral region. This amount is identical to that which will apply for each of the electoral regions in Great Britain.
In conclusion, this draft instrument makes provision for a number of relatively technical amendments to the existing statutory framework for European elections in Northern Ireland which, while relatively minor, are nevertheless essential if the June elections are to run smoothly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Dubs.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the aims of the regulations. My first comment concerns these regulations and in addition those that apply to Scotland and Wales, which have been debated. Surely, this indicates a need for primary legislation in a new representation of the people Act. This would give the House the opportunity to debate and amend proposals in a Bill—a luxury that we do not have with secondary legislation.
I understand that these regulations are technical and mirror much of the Great Britain regulations which were debated in your Lordships' House on 22nd April. These regulations are specifically tailored to fit the local circumstances in Northern Ireland. I wish to ask three
228
questions. First, I deal with the issue of recounts. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish exposed a flaw in the legislation. He has done battle with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I understand that the single transferable vote has been in place in Northern Ireland since 1979. Is the Minister able to assure me that a candidate who may be well down the list will be able to call for a recount where the figures are close and can be vital to the final result?
Secondly, in Regulation 6(4) I am mystified by the hefty hike from £5 to £5,000. I thought that this item was concerned with the required deposit, but surely the previous figure was £1,000, not £5. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could assist me with my comprehension.
I come last to by-elections. I refer the Minister to the example of the ballot paper on page 4 of the regulations. For ease, suppose that the first three are elected, with number four coming next. Then for some reason one of the three Members leaves the European Parliament. At that stage number four will be deemed to be elected. However, a difficulty will arise as he comes from another party. Proportionality would be lost and it would be a return to first-past-the-post. Can the Minister explain how what appears to be completely illogical and against government thinking is acceptable in this instance?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the regulations in their entirety. It is pleasing to note that now in Scotland, England and Wales we also have the benefit of proportional representation in the European parliamentary elections for the first time. I have little to ask about the measure because most of it is self-explanatory. I thought that the part on by-elections would have answered the question posed by the noble Baroness.
My question is concerned with the increase from £5 to £5,000. I went back through the legislation and looked at the 1978 Act. I found that in that year the figure that could be spent by an individual was 50p and in 1983 it went up to £5. In 1999 it has gone up to £5,000. That shows quite a jump in inflation. My colleagues in the Alliance Party thought that perhaps they should not make it common knowledge among all their supporters in case they went out and spent vast amounts of money on the election.
I have one question on the form of the ballot paper. Will independent candidates be able to choose their own emblem? At the moment it appears that a blank space by a name may be seen in some cases as a disadvantage. I do not believe that it will cause the electorate any particular difficulty. I have monitored many elections around the world. I remember monitoring elections in South Africa where sometimes help had to be given to the electorate in finding their candidates. This was helped by members of the Inkatha party. Inkatha joined the election at the last minute and a sticker had to be added at the bottom. When assistance was asked for in

229
voting for the particular party, all they had to say was "On the bottom". Apart from that, we support these provisions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am sure that half an hour ago the noble Lord, like others participating in this debate, looked forward to addressing a full House. For some reason or other that I cannot understand, most noble Lords have disappeared. The Minister explained how the regulations had been tailored to meet the needs of the slightly different system in Northern Ireland and various other conditions there. I believe that I have a duty to acquaint your Lordships with how that different system came about. In the late 1970s when the then government of the United Kingdom was preparing for the very first European elections they identified the one party that should be guaranteed a Euro-seat. They did better than that and went on to identify by name the one candidate who must be guaranteed that seat.
To achieve that result the then government decided to impose proportional representation on Northern Ireland alone. That was why we had it 20 years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. But to make that scheme work in 1979 Her Majesty's then government had to upset the nice round figure that had been decreed for the European Parliament and create an odd figure by adding one to ensure that Northern Ireland did not have the two seats to which it was just about entitled but three to make the system of proportional representation work and ensure the election of the candidate who was named by the government. I shall not embarrass that individual by naming him. but he is not present here.
The two seats would not have secured the election of what I may call their man. Therefore, the rigged election, having worked in 1979, continued to keep in place the chosen one of Irish politics for 20 years, which is something of a record. In fairness to noble Lords I felt that I should explain why this curious situation—which is not quite the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom—has applied to Northern Ireland for an unbroken record of 20 years.
The modern extraordinary variation lies in the increase from £5 to £5,000. I hope that I have got the terminology right. There may be some confusion about the amount that a person not authorised by an election agent may spend to influence the election of a candidate. It is not, as I understand it, anything to do with that amount which is permitted to be spent by the candidate and/or his agent.
This time this startling change was made not by the government of the day but at the behest of the European Court of Human Rights. I have to say, with very great respect, that however learned in law the Commission members may be, their ridiculous ruling shows clearly that they have never fought elections and still less could they have served as an election agent.
One result of all of that is certain: national corrupt practices courts will have to brace themselves for overtime duties in the year ahead after the European elections.
230
I shall restrain myself from comment on the proposed form of the ballot paper, beyond suggesting that maybe the designers of the graffiti tailplanes for British Airways might have done a slightly better job.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made and will do my best to answer the specific questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is aware of why we do not normally have primary legislation for issues relating to Northern Ireland. After devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to deal with these matters as primary legislation; for the moment we are stuck with a system which has some faults but which is the one we have been using for some time now.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has said that the Stormont Assembly, when it begins to work, will deal with such matters. Will it have jurisdiction over electoral law, particularly in regard to European elections?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, no, it will not have jurisdiction over electoral law. The noble Lord is quite right and I thank him for that. As a general proposition, however, under this particular procedure a great deal of the Northern Ireland legislation which we deal with in this House will be passed in future to the Assembly; but not matters that stay within the responsibility of this Parliament.
Turning to the specific points which have been raised, the first question the noble Baroness asked related to recounts and whether someone lower down the list could call for a recount. Normally, it may be appropriate in relation to a person lower down the list and where a change would influence the outcome in the vote, but I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness and give her more information. I suspect that the answer will be that the returning officer will exercise his or her discretion in each particular instance.
I deal now with the £5,000 and the question of deposits. The £1,000 deposit is what a candidate has to put up. If the candidate fails to achieve a certain proportion or quota of the vote, the candidate will forfeit the deposit, as is the case in parliamentary elections here.
The £5,000 figure—an increase from £5, which mirrors Great Britain legislation—is the sum of money which can be spent by a third party without the approval of the election agent. A third party, not a candidate, is therefore allowed to spend up to £5,000 in this election in Northern Ireland: presumably expenditure intended to make some political point as regards the elections. That is quite different from the deposit that a candidate has to put down, which the candidate may lose if his or her vote is rather small.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is there no limit on the number of individuals who could put forward £5,000?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was afraid that question was coming! My understanding is that there is no limit, but

231
I shall look into it further. If by any chance that answer is not correct, I shall write to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness and make it clear.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I put this point to the Minister while he meditates on the question which has just been put to him. This is not a facetious matter and should not be treated as such. One can envisage an election influenced by certain unofficial groups or lobby groups, and one thinks immediately of angry farmers or angry lorry drivers. If they are all permitted—and they are, as I understand the regulations—to spend £5,000, we could end up with other candidates beyond their chosen candidate benefiting by some £50,000 more. That could be spent quite legitimately, not by the candidate or his agent, but by the lobby group, without any approval from Parliament or from anyone else.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I want to look into this further. If what I have said needs to be elaborated on in any way or if it should not he fully correct, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I draw a clear distinction between the sum of money which is a deposit and the amount of money which can be spent by a third party. It is the latter which is the subject of the discussions which we have just had.
The noble Baroness also asked a question about by-elections. Let me explain how by-elections will work. I do not think that the noble Baroness has it quite right in the way she described it. If there is a by-election, there will be a straightforward election based on a first-past-the-post contest to fill the single vacancy. It will not pass down the list to a candidate who did not succeed.
I appreciate that that is a different procedure from that adopted in the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is a procedure which we have been using in Northern Ireland ever since these arrangements were first put in place. I do not think that we have had any by-elections in those years, but we are certainly not seeking to change that.
The noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, asked about the use of the emblem on the ballot paper. Only registered political parties can use the emblem. Independent candidates would not be able to do so. On the sample ballot paper which has been printed they would simply be designated as independent candidates, together with the other details about them.
I believe that I have dealt with all the questions that have been put and I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.53 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 to 8.53 p.m.]

House of Lords Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.14:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2)")
The noble Lord said: On Tuesday 20th April. we had a full debate on Amendments Nos.14, 29 and 109. I have decided not to initiate further debate on this tonight. However, I reserve the right to speak on the matter at a later stage. I therefore ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No.14, and to say a few words on it. I did not do so previously. I believe that it is in order. We were confused on Tuesday, first, due to the time of night at which we debated the amendment, and secondly, because at that time the amendment was grouped with the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Selsdon on which many of us concentrated. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, answered some of the points, but because the amendment is important, it is worth retreading briefly some of the ground.
It is an important amendment because it is a possible alternative to the Weatherill amendment, which does not have universal support in the House and which we have yet to discuss. It would be helpful, therefore, to have a fuller discussion on this amendment.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to explain in a little more detail how the voting system will work. This is a House of fluctuating numbers, depending on the discussion and the time of day of that discussion. How would the votes be weighted so that a sensible result occurred on a Division?
I should like also to clarify one point which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, made at col.1138 of the Official Report of 20th April. He said:
"The Government would get their business immediately".
Lord Haskel: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. Is it in order to debate an amendment which has not been moved, and to ask the Peer concerned to respond after he has said that he will not move his amendment?
The Earl of Caithness: It is. The amendment is in the name of the House and anyone can speak to it even though it is not moved by the noble Lord on the Marshalled List. If the noble Lord considers the Standing Orders, I think that he may find the reference at page 111, or close to that page.
At col.1138 the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said that the Government will "get their business immediately ". Perhaps I may probe a little more. One of the great strengths of this House is that the Government do not always get their business immediately. I have said before, and I shall say again on many occasions, that one of the great strengths of this House is that the government of the day can be defeated. What provision does the noble Lord have in mind with regard to

233
weighting a vote so that the Government can be defeated and another place have the time to think again on the issue?
I turn to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said in his brief reply to the noble Lord. I note a contradiction in the noble and learned Lord's argument. It is always nice to find that. At col.1150 of the Official Report of 20th April he said:
"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".
At col.1149 the noble and learned Lord agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on his first point. It is a small point, but it is rather fun when a noble and learned Lord makes a contradiction.
First, would the noble and learned Lord and the Government take a more benign attitude to the amendment if it were limited only to stage one so that the purport underlying the noble Lord's proposal would come to an end when the Government brought in their phase two? Secondly, the noble and learned Lord spoke to the noble Lord's third point, on the number of hereditary Peers who would be left. Would it be more acceptable to the noble and learned Lord and the Government if one limited the number of hereditary Peers right at the start? The days of the part-time politician are over, due to these reforms; and phase two will make it even less likely that someone can participate in this Chamber on a part-time basis. If one were to state that those hereditary Peers who had not attended, say, on average 25 per cent of the sittings of the last two Sessions would not be considered, the number of hereditary Peers would reduce quite remarkably, and the phased operation proposed by the noble Lord would then come into play. Therefore, there would not be so many hereditary Peers, which is what the Government want. I should be grateful for a reply to those points. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Geddes: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for giving us the opportunity to re-open the debate on the three amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I discussed with the noble Lord outside the Chamber what I intended to say.
I apologise to your Lordships in advance because, although previously I had no opportunity, I have taken advice from the Clerks and have tabled an amendment which will appear in my name on the new Marshalled List. It will propose a variation on the theme of Amendment No.109. I wish to speak briefly to my amendment.
I pick up the point mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, in col.1142 on 20th April. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Caithness has mentioned it again. What concerns me about Amendment No.109 is that, as drafted, it gives unfettered power to the executive of the day. I make that point most seriously in an apolitical sense. I take no political view of the issue at all and in order to display my credentials in that respect I remind those of your Lordships who were here some years ago that I voted against my party on a three-line Whip on the then community charge.
234
I am looking at the issue from the point of view of the operation of Parliament in the round. I suggest that it is extremely important that this House in whatever guise—and I agree with Amendment No.29—should provide a check on the executive. That is important to the democracy of this country. We should be able to say to the executive of whatever political persuasion—I repeat that I take no party political line on this—that it should think again.
The amendment which I earlier tabled—and having had the opportunity to speak tonight I intend to withdraw it before it has even reached the Marshalled List—would read 180 degrees away from Amendment: No.109. I am trying to suggest that, given a weighting system of votes in this House, at all times there should be a weight, albeit a small weight, against the government of the day. In that case, using unparliamentary language, if every single Member of this House were to gang up against the government of the day, the government would be obliged to think again. That is the purpose of the amendment which I have put down. I repeat that I intend to withdraw it because I have had the opportunity tonight to discuss it. I urge your Lordships to think seriously about the ability of this House to be a check on the executive.
Lord Desai: I rise to speak briefly to the amendment. The amendment moved, or not moved, by my noble friend will do nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, wants to do. It will not keep the executive in check because the problem is that this second Chamber has never been taken seriously because of the presence of the hereditary peerage. Therefore, we have a de facto unicameral legislature.
The reform is in two stages. The first is to remove that element which subjects us to attack from down the corridor whenever we do anything constructive which the government of any colour do not like. They say, "You unelected hereditary Peers, go a way!' As the noble Lord probably knows, I do not want to he here either, but this is not the occasion to discuss the abolition of life Peers, too. However, the point is that so long as hereditary Peers are retained, in whatever guise—they are the nicest of people and I like them very much and shall love them ever after—they are detracting from the legitimacy of this House. If your Lordships wish to challenge the executive, do not vote for this amendment. No weighting system is good enough. What is needed is the removal of the hereditary peerage and then we can discuss numbers.
Lord Marlesford: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain what he means by the House of Lords never being taken seriously? Who has never taken the House of Lords seriously and since when?
Lord Desai: The House of Commons and the country. I can give many examples of when this House has taken a sensible position on a Bill and tried to amend it and that has been rejected. That is the argument put forward by Labour and Conservative governments. I recall Michael Howard as Home Secretary wanting to set up borstals for 13 year-old

235
boys. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was against that. When the Bill was returned to this House, the noble Lord rose and said, "My Lords, we are right, but I am not going to press my amendment because we lack legitimacy ". Because we lack legitimacy we have a de facto unicameral legislature. I should like to have an effective second Chamber, but we shall not do so while the hereditary peerage is here.
Lord Marlesford: Again, before the noble Lord sits down, I know exactly what he wants but that is another matter. Of course there are occasions when the other place is greatly irritated by amendments made in this House, but over recent years thousands of amendments have been accepted by it. They would not have been made to improve the legislation without this House. Therefore, how can the noble Lord say that this House is not taken seriously? Surely, legislation is a serious matter.
Lord Desai: When it comes to the crunch, we do not matter.
Lord Goodhart: Why are we debating this at all? We are debating an amendment which has not been moved, when Amendment No.15 in a later group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raises exactly the same sort of—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My understanding is that the amendment has been moved.
Lord Goodhart: My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, said that he was not moving it. It was moved not by the person in whose name it stood, but by members of the Conservative Party.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the relevant extract from the Companion:
"Amendments may be removed from the list of amendments at any time, at the wish of the proposer and with the agreement of any Lords who may have added their names to his. An amendment which has been tabled need not be moved. But where none of the Lords who are named as supporters of an amendment moves it, any other Lord may do so. "
That is what happened in this case.
Lord Goodhart: I am not suggesting that the amendment was moved out of order. What I am suggesting is that it is absurd when Amendment No.15, in the next group of amendments, raises precisely the same issue with the exception of Amendment No.109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, which proposes that all Peers are equal but some Peers are more equal than others.
Lord Trefgarne: I too have been listening to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and would like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I do not think that the House of Lords is held in the disrepute
236
that the noble Lord suggests. As my noble friend said, we have created a very good place for ourselves in the constitutional system over the years. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not think that. If he has such a low regard for the House of Lords, why did he bother to accept his peerage in the first place?
Lord Desai: Partly to get rid of the noble Lord. but partly for the following reason. Many people have accepted that the executive in this country is very powerful, and any party with a majority in another place can get through any legislation it wants. In the past 50 years only twice has the Parliament Act had to be invoked. So, by and large, the House of Commons can do what it likes, regardless of what we do. I rest my case.
I am not saying that we are disreputable. We are liked, but we are ineffective. I want us to be effective. I want us to defy the executive, and we shall not do so while the hereditary peerage is in the House of Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord is condemned by his own words. The Parliament Act has been used twice, as he said, or perhaps three times since the war, and that is because it has not been thought necessary, because the will of the House of Lords has generally prevailed. Therefore, the noble Lord is not correct. I am still wondering why he bothered to come here.
Lord Desai: To be able to help my party get rid of the hereditary peerage.
Viscount Cross: If I am in order, I should like to speak to Amendment No.29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. It is very good amendment. It has great merit, and if at a later stage the noble Lord should seek the opinion of the Committee I shall certainly support him.
In this country great institutions have evolved over the centuries by degrees, and this is a very good way to proceed. At the end of it, we should have a much smaller House of Lords. The heirs of hereditary Peers could become life Peers should they become distinguished and if they would like to accept such a peerage. This simple and practical solution would get over the difficulty as to who should remain as hereditary Peers and who should leave. I support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the amendment because when I spoke at the end of the last day in Committee to a very large group I spoke only to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Selsdon as I had hoped that we might carry on the debate until today on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux. I shall not say a great deal about it, but I could perhaps describe it as the rather more gentle approach to the question of reforming the House of Lords and more consistent with the way in which the British constitution tends to evolve rather than through revolutionary phases.

237
The noble Lord's proposals are certainly worthy of consideration. Both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, think there may be some merit in part of the amendment. It is a view fairly widely shared that there may be a better way of dealing with the Government's problem—or problems, because they have two problems. The one they trumpet is that of the hereditary peerage, but the true problem is the numbers one, because if the Labour Party had managed to hold on to many of the people who were made hereditary Peers over the last 50 years from the Labour Benches, or their successors, and it had a majority in the House of Lords, I am not sure that we would be having this discussion. Every time I hear a speech or read a book, heavy into the book is the numbers game. The Government are quite distressed about the numbers game.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall. has made an interesting suggestion. I was amazed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, dismissed so readily what he described as the block vote. I thought that that was loved dearly by the Labour Party. The noble and learned Lord told me that it has gone to one-man, one-vote. That certainly was not the position in Wales in the attempt to make sure that Mr. Alun Michael was elected. One-man, one-vote was set aside for the purposes of that election. The block vote is known to the Labour Party and it understands it quite well. I am not greatly in favour of the block vote in any shape or form and I am not greatly in favour of that part of the noble Lord's amendment.
However, my noble friend Lord Caithness made a valid point when he suggested that it would be better if the noble Lord's amendment provided that those hereditary Peers who never or hardly ever attend should lose the right to do so and that those hereditary Peers who attend reasonably frequently or very frequently and take part in our proceedings should be phased out by the proposed method. If he did that, the noble Lord would go some way to answer some of the criticisms made.
The problem with weighting the voting system is that if the weighting represents the other place, that will mean inevitably that the Government have an overall majority, which will include the Cross-Benchers. In that case, the House will become a mere reflection of the majority in the House of Commons.
The suggestion is that there is to be a revising Chamber with its powers constrained by the Parliament Act. I have no problem with that, but believe that that will change once the hereditary Peers leave. In that event, it is fairly pointless merely to have a little echo of the House of Commons where the Whips can whip in a majority. I believe that there is general agreement on all sides of the Committee about that. One of the merits here is that people can act rather more independently of the Whips. I certainly bear the scars—although they are diminishing with the passage of time—on my back from occasions when I was beaten. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the government then backed down in relation to the matter on which they were defeated. Therefore, the question of the Parliament Act did not arise.
238
I am sure all noble Lords were greatly disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would he happy to leave the House. We should be most unhappy if that were to happen.
Lord Desai: I assure the Committee that when I leave this House, I want to take the noble Lord with me.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is all very well for the noble Lord who has all sorts of professorial things to do, but what should I find to do if I were not able to tease the Government and fulfil what I believe to be the responsibility of your Lordships' House?
One of the major defects in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is the weighting of the voting. I understand that he included that to get round the problem of his party's obsession with the numbers game. But some of the suggestions that my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have made about removing the "nevers and hardly-evers" would go a long way to help in that regard.
I sympathise with the Government's point about numbers although I believe that they rather over-estimate the problem. As I said, I had a number of defeats inflicted on me. That does not suggest to me that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the then Government Chief Whip, was able to whistle in huge armies of people to support the government. Occasionally we thought it better not to whip in too many Peers in case they were not persuaded by my argument. That is one problem with your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House feels obliged to be persuaded by the argument. That is a totally alien idea to the House of Commons where the last thing that anybody is persuaded by is the argument. The Whips rule in the House of Commons; the argument does not matter. There is a major difference.
Therefore, although I believe that it is an ingenious weighting system, it is fundamentally wrong in its objective, which is to make this House a mere reflection of the other place. I certainly believe that the noble Lord's more gentle approach to the hereditary peerage would be in keeping with what we are told continually is the more gentle approach of this Government.
The Earl of Kinnoull: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No.15, to appease the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No.15 comes in the group after next. It may be sensible to wait until we reach that group.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I was not consulted about the grouping of Amendment No.15, but I am happy to comply with that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As we have had this debate once before, perhaps I may reply to only the specific points that are new in relation to this debate. First, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is absolutely right;

239
there was a contradiction in what I said; namely, that what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said was wrong and flawed in every respect. He is right to point out that I entirely agreed with him when the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said that the time had come for the end of the hereditary Peers and that was the settled view both of the country and this House. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in relation to that.
Secondly, the noble Earl asked whether restricting the number of hereditary Peers who survived to those who regularly attended—that is slightly truncating his argument—would make it more palatable to the Government. The answer to that is no. The Government's position is that they believe the time has come for hereditary Peers to be removed from the legislative Chamber. They have indicated that they would support the Weatherill amendment if moved, but that involves removing 659 of the 750 hereditary Peers. That is their position.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that he would like a chamber where one party did not have an absolute majority. This Government have said that in the transitional House they seek broad parity with the Conservative Party in relation to numbers. That would mean that they would not have an overall majority in this House. Therefore, it would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, supports the proposals of this Government in relation to the transitional House.
I have great sympathy for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not suggest for one moment that what happened was not in order, but it is rather difficult to follow, for a new boy: one is speaking to an amendment that has already been spoken to once before, the same issue will arise in the group after next, and one noble Lord speaks to an amendment that he has not yet put down on the Marshalled List and of which we do not know the details. I do not, for one moment, suggest that any of that was out of order.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cross, gave an excellent speech. However, I do not believe there was anything in it to which I have not replied. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in the persuasive way for which he is so famous, skilfully seeks to give some support to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, without pointing out that his "rather slower" approach involves 15 years before 50 per cent of the hereditary Peers will have gone and 60 years before they will all have gone. That would be a very slow approach indeed.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: Because of the lateness of the evening, I shall be brief. First, perhaps I may respond to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as regards the way the voting system would work. I had decided to leave this until Report stage because it is almost impossible to talk about a formula and statistics in the House. I shall, however, prepare a note and put it in the Library for Members to read if they so wish.
The aim of the amendment is not to reduce the number of hereditary Peers—the fact that they are hereditary Peers is beside the point—but to reduce the
240
number of Peers attending this House arbitrarily and on such a scale that I cannot accept it as a good thing to do. We do not know the quality of the people who will be going; what experience they have had, whether they are able to attend regularly, and so forth. For us to ignore that cannot, in principle, be right. For the sake of the House, let us take more of a measured approach. This would all have to be done in the context of the Government's manifesto. I am doing this because, as the Prime Minister knows, I am a keen supporter of him and my party on this matter.
Perhaps I may briefly talk about the weighting system in practical terms. This system ensures that those Members who are not members of the Government have their vote in the usual way, but those who would be supporters of the Government would have a vote times the weighting factor. This is necessary because if the number of hereditary Peers is to be reduced, if they are to be replaced or if they are not to be replaced by their heirs on their death, there is a system of rapid decline. As the Minister pointed out, it has an asintotic effect at the end. That is the mathematics. It declines very rapidly. I apologise for using mathematical terms, but it is incredibly simple. That is why I said it would be necessary for everybody to have a note to explain how it works. What, in fact, would happen is a rapid decline.
That is how we would vote. When we go through the Division Lobby, the Clerks would put their ticks on the paper in the usual way, but when they come to do the aggregate, they would have a look-up table which would say, "Instead of reading 323, please read 296". The Whips would come in in the usual way and nobody would really know the difference.
Lord Naseby: On a point of order—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I would really prefer not to give way.
Lord Naseby: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have a point of order. What happens on a cross-vote when some of the weighted voters decide to vote in the Content Lobby and some in the Not-Content Lobby? I hope the paper that is to be distributed will explain that in some detail.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: The vote still stands, of course. When Peers vote against the Government, the vote would be carried across.
Perhaps I can comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the question of the unfettered power of the Government. That point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. In looking at the weighted voting system I tried to balance the points made by my noble friend Lord Richard, who is not in his seat, who talks convincingly about the democratic legitimacy of the Chamber. I tried to reflect the weighted voting system in this Chamber on the number of seats held by the government in another place. But of course one could change that for a system based on a greater

241
independence of the House. I am open-minded on this. I chose the one that gives democratic legitimacy because more people raised that with me. One can change this around and I would be happy to change it at Report stage if that was felt to be desirable.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, for his comments. I appreciate his courtesy in what he said. I wish to make one final point on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in relation to bad attenders. Again, that is a convincing argument. But I tried to obtain simplicity. And that simplicity arose—I do not intend to spend time on this—by my own personal analysis when I sat down one weekend and put down what I felt should be the objectives on which reform should be based. Then I put down on a piece of paper what should be the principles. Then I came up with my solution, which I feel is objective. I believe it is in the interests of the House that I arrived at that.
I say in a kindly way—one finds this in business—that oftentimes people sit down and design a product and then say, "Let us see how we can use this". That is the thinking of the 1950s. Modern thinking is that one sits down, decides what one's objectives are and comes up with the right solution. In doing that, one can obtain consensus and a decision based on the interests of this Chamber. I say to the Committee that will do what I believe to be right for this Chamber as well as being loyal to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister.
I do not want to spend more time on this. I should like to try to get everybody home and to bed early tonight.
Lord Northbrook: The noble Lord kindly explained to me around a week ago over dinner how his ingenious system works. As a point of order, can he say how the Cross-Benches weighting works? The whole idea of the weighted average system, which I hope my noble friend Lord Ferrers has had time to digest over the past week, is a good idea. It is simple; it is ingenious in its simplicity and achieves what the Government require in a just and equitable manner, albeit over a slightly longer period than perhaps they wished.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I have regarded every body who is not on the government side—the Cross-Benchers, the Liberals and the Conservatives—as being equal; whether or not one is hereditary, all are equal. The system that I have devised would multiply the votes on this side of the Chamber by the weighting factor.
In practice, the principle of this weighting system would be placed before the Procedure Committee. Indeed, the Clerk of the Parliaments would actually draw up the formula and put it before the Procedure Committee. It would then, in turn, be endorsed by the House. So the principle of the system would be laid down by this Chamber. Again, that is placing the
242
responsibility in this House rather than having it carried out by the executive. The more that we do in this House as parliamentarians, rather than the executive, the better.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises that anything fewer than 25 votes for each Member of the Liberal Democrat Benches would be wholly unacceptable to us.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for what he has said. Indeed, it has helped to clarify the thoughts that gave rise to the amendment. It has also proved how useful a Committee stage can be in this Chamber because, on Report, we could certainly never have had this debate in preparation for a further stage. I even hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, if he paid attention, has learnt something that he would not have learnt by the moving of any of the subsequent amendments that he wanted to discuss. I say that because none of them refers to a weighted voting system.
I shall read the noble and learned Lord's response with interest. I shall also read with interest the paper that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is going to place in the Library of the House; indeed, all noble Lords would benefit from doing so. Again, without this debate, the noble Lord would not have been able to say that he was going to do so and have that fact recorded in the Official Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No.14A:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A)")
The noble Lord said: The time has come for close scrutiny of this Bill, most particularly its legalities. As I have said in earlier speeches, I have observed many alternative proposals for the reform of this House, some of which appear to most as convenient structural fixes. I am deeply concerned with the legalities of what this Bill purports to enact. I believe that it is defective in law.
A great deal of time and attention is being given to restructuring the House as a reform; but little, if any, is given to the far more substantive issue of a Bill removing hereditary rights. Does that difference of attention mean that we are not to be concerned with the legalities of the Bill? Alternatively, are we concerned only with how the House will be restructured?
In moving Amendment No.14A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.30A and 68A as grouped on the list. The purpose of Amendments Nos.14A and 30A is based on the existence of property and personal rights of hereditary Peers, created by Letters Patent under the Great Seal. These rights are to a seat, a place and a voice in the Parliaments and assemblies of the United Kingdom.
In addition to rights created by Letters Patent, our common and customary laws for centuries, well before legal memory, have recognised as valid and enforceable the rights and property acquired by usage. The law indicates that these rights are acquired by a defined group, without use of force, about a specific place and

243
openly for all to see. There are many substantive case-law precedents which affirm and recognise these rights, but which this Bill will remove.
Letters Patent may be abolished by statute. That is no different from a government abolishing all wills and deeds and covenants of property.
However, it is not parliamentary practice for common laws, particularly those concerning property and title, to be abolished by Parliament without first appointing a law commission to review them and Parliament considering its recommendations. The Government have not followed that practice.
Customary law is the foundation of parliamentary law. Custom is the sole basis in law for the process used to enact Bills into statutes. To abolish one customary law, especially concerning property, presents an undermining of and a challenge to all our laws based on and existing by custom. Such abolition challenges a fundamental principle of our English laws and does so without proper advice and consent.
All Peers have property rights in the Palace of Westminster. These rights of property are the same as those recognised in our courts, such as to walk across another man's field to attend church; to take water from a spring; to hold a horse race; to use another man's beach for drying fishing nets; or to hold a fair. Such rights are the basis and not the result of our constitutional laws. In my previous speeches on the reform of this House I proposed the convention of the constitution by which hereditary Peers would agree not to have their votes taken into account. This is the proposition in my Amendment No.68A. The great advantage of this amendment is that the Government would not need to introduce a Bill to abolish Letters Patent, nor rights existing in common law and custom. It also avoids having to pass a Bill to annul each Letters Patent for each hereditary peerage and the parliamentary time and expense of so doing.
The aim of Amendment No.68A is for the hereditary Peers to secure a statutory protection of their vote but that their votes are not taken into account in the passage of Bills and the rules of procedure in this House. At the same time the personal and property rights of hereditary Peers to attend, sit and speak would remain as established by common law and Letters Patent. A vote not counted is better than no vote at all. Even though by this amendment votes of hereditary Peers would not be counted, their views and opinions would still remain a valued and enduring indicator of opinion in Parliament. The revising role of the House is sustained by the quality of its best opinions. Hereditary Peers will remain a constant and abiding influence on governments and they will acquire perhaps even more profound influence when not associated with partisan views. Surely it is a mistake to believe that all power rests solely in a vote. Well formulated and delivered opinions and policies form the will of an electorate. As the pen is mightier than the sword, so a sound and independent opinion forms the vote.
I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is present. His amendment suggests a two-Writ system. However, that amendment would specifically omit any
244
voting by hereditary Peers. It would remove the right to vote completely. My amendment preserves the vote but not the right to have it taken into account. It provides for the greater democracy in Parliament desired and sought by the Government but without the need to abolish legal rights. It also takes into account the truth that the Government do not have a mandate from the electorate to rescind the property rights of hereditary Peers. They have a mandate to reform the House of Lords, but the Government did not declare how they would proceed. Their mandate cannot possibly be interpreted as an authority for them to abolish property rights, except perhaps by the most devious and tortuous twisting of the real significance and meaning of a political manifesto.
In my Second Reading speech the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intervened before I sat down and asked me whether I challenged Parliament's power to rescind Letters Patent. I supported my reply in a letter to the noble and learned Lord where I answered no. However, I also said that the Government could not claim to have a mandate from the electorate to rescind property rights. This was never mentioned in the Labour Party's manifesto and therefore cannot have been supported by the electorate. My amendment would enact a protection and continuation of property rights without opposing the reform of this House; nor would it be adversarial to the Government's desire to achieve greater democracy in Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Government will see the pragmatism of my amendments.
Hereditary Peers would never have attracted such political focus if their votes were not counted in making the laws in Parliament. The amendment, if enacted, will relieve the problem of the inherited political power of an embedded Conservative majority.
This group of amendments also deals with matters concerning property rights created by Letters Patent and with the consequential legal issues invoked by the Statute of Westminster and the European Convention on Human Rights. These two matters will be examined in greater detail in relation to my Amendments Nos.111A and 120A at a later stage. But I touch on the Westminster Statute and European human rights issues today because my Amendment No.68A moderates the need to invoke the Westminster Statute and avoids human rights challenges in the courts.
The need to obtain the consent to this Bill from all the Commonwealth Parliaments is mandated in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931. That is because, by removing the rights of hereditary Peers created by the sovereign's Letters Patent, the Bill directly diminishes the sovereign's own hereditary rights. By its very purpose, the Bill more than touches on the Queen's titles. It removes the hereditary right of our sovereign to create hereditary Peers who have the right to be Members of this House. That is the very substance of the sovereign's hereditary right. It is the Queen's right, inherent with her titles, to create hereditary Peers with the right to be Members of this House. By this Bill, the Queen and her successors will

245
no longer be able to create hereditary Peers with a right to membership of this House. That is the basic purpose and effect of the Bill. As such, it directly invokes the Statute of Westminster since it changes the sovereign's rights and titles. I refer noble Lords to the preamble to the statute for serious consideration. If your Lordships and the Government will consent to it, my amendment avoids those profound dilemmas.
The amendment also avoids the prospect of an application to the European Court of Human Rights to decide whether the removal of an embedded Conservative majority in this Parliament is lawful. In the debate on the White Paper, I referred noble Lords to the successful Turkish case in the European Court. In my speech at Second Reading I stated that the Government are motivated by a political objective; namely, to remove a political group and thus change our constitution in so doing. That cannot be accepted as a lawful motive to achieve constitutional or democratic reform of our parliamentary government.
The Turkish case decided that it is not lawful under European human rights laws to exclude a group from political participation simply because it is politically regarded as undermining the structures of the state. The fact that this Government pursue greater democracy does not morally or lawfully entitle them to violate human rights laws. Thus my amendments provide a practical compromise and a legal alternative to achieving the greater democracy that the Government seek.
The Turkish decision protects the rights of all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations. Therefore I have to reject the view expressed by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in the Explanatory Notes on the Bill that its provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are not. These amendments avoid those traps and snares that the Government have set for themselves and for the Opposition, and which lie set and ready in the provisions of the Statute of Westminster and the European Human Rights Convention and laws. The Government should carefully consider the substantial features of my amendments. I believe that they provide far stronger credentials to achieve greater democracy in Parliament than does this Bill.
Finally, will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Government, both prior to and during the passage of the Bill in Parliament thus far, have consulted with the Queen concerning the effect of the Bill in abolishing Her Majesty's hereditary rights and titles? If so, will the Minister also assure the Committee that the Government have advised the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, about the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931? Furthermore, have they advised Her Majesty that the Bill invokes the statute and thus its mandatory requirement to obtain the approval of the Commonwealth parliaments? I am willing to accept answers in writing to those questions if the Minister is unable to respond tonight. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for explaining the purpose of his amendments. As I understood him, he said that his Amendment No.30A gave personal and property rights to enter, sit and speak in the House of Lords as granted by Letters Patent. Letters Patent create a peerage and give the right to receive a Writ of Summons to attend Parliament. It is the Writ of Summons that must be presented, as was debated earlier today, before a Peer takes the Oath of Allegiance, either on introduction or at the beginning of any new parliament.
As was said earlier, Clause 4(2) makes clear that the right to receive a Writ will be abolished by the Bill—except perhaps for the various Peers who may be allowed to stay for a temporary period if the Weatherill amendment is accepted. Thus if any hereditary Peer arrives at the start of a new Parliament, claiming his rights under common law or based on the Letters Patent, and relying on his Patent as a talisman, he will not be able to sit unless he has taken the Oath—and he cannot take the Oath if he has no Writ of Summons. The amendment is therefore flawed in that way.
The amendment is also flawed because it does riot include all hereditary Peers. It relates only to peerages created under Letters Patent. This would exclude the 35 or so hereditary Peers who hold baronies created by a Writ of Summons, of which I am one. Baronies by Writ are the oldest baronies of all and are not dependent on Letters Patent, certainly not the 13 extant baronies dating from before 1387 when the first Patent was issued exceptionally by Richard II to John Beauchamp, who became Lord Kidderminster. Baronies by Writ are baronies of England and differ from the later baronies of Great Britain and the United Kingdom created by Letters Patent in that they allow descent to heirs general rather than to heirs male, thus allowing women to succeed, I am very glad to say, and, since 1963. to sit. I have no Letters Patent—your Lordships may think that it would not be of very great importance if I was not allowed to sit—but I have asked a number of other holders of Baronies by Writ whether they possess Letters Patent. Everyone said that they did not. and one or two said that they had never heard of them.
Amendment No.30A is an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Bill. It is basically unsound and based on a false premise. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. If he does not, I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Viscount Cranborne: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie on provoking a magnificent response from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which will have come as no surprise to those who have heard his authoritative pronouncements in the Procedure Committee. It was extremely courageous of my noble friend to propose his amendments in front of the noble Lord. knowing, as I am sure he did, that he would elicit such an authoritative reply.
For reasons which I will not explain at any length, I would hesitate to rebut my noble friend's contention. I certainly would not wish to tangle with the noble Lord,

247
Lord Strabolgi, on the matter of Peerages by Writ as opposed to Peerages by Letters Patent. Certainly, as the possessor of a relatively modern peerage compared to that of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would not regard myself as an authority on the matter. What I should like to do is to refer to Amendment No.30A which was proposed by my noble friend and, with the greatest of respect to him, suggest to the Committee that, perhaps for non-technical reasons, my noble friend might care to withdraw that amendment. I suggest that not for technical reasons, but for purely practical ones.
If I understood my noble friend correctly, he dismissed somewhat airily the perils of two classes of Member of any House of Parliament. I wonder whether I may bring back my noble friend to that part of his argument. I have been quite attracted by some of the arguments that I have heard in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the merits of Members of a reformed upper Chamber being drawn from different categories of people. Indeed, people from different sources should perhaps be suggested as Members of the reformed upper Chamber. But I would regard that as being very different from Members of any Chamber of Parliament, let alone the upper Chamber of this Parliament, enjoying different rights and privileges once here.
All of us have been astonished and riveted by the speeches of the hereditary Peers. We have never been bored and we have never been unimpressed in any way. We have hung, metaphorically, like Miss Prism from the lips of every noble Lord who has spoken. But I wonder whether that enthusiasm and respect would long survive the knowledge that a noble Lord who sat here by hereditary right or by Writ of Summons—in spite of the answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a little earlier; perhaps we ought to be more precise—had detained us, however learnedly and entertainingly, when we knew, in the final analysis, that that noble Lord could not affect the final decision of the House because he did not enjoy the privilege of a vote.
As a former business manager in the House, I suspect that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, or perhaps their opposition opposite numbers, would increasingly find themselves the subject of complaints about some Peers keeping the House up purely because they were exercising rights which were different from the rights of other noble Lords. We would find two classes of Member who inevitably would be treated as such.
It has been one of the glories of your Lordships' House so far that all noble Lords who are Members of the present House, whether life Peers or hereditary Peers, are treated alike. There have sometimes been jibes from the Government Front Bench during the course of the present Parliament when votes have gone against the Government and they have endeavoured to say that that was entirely the fault of the presence of hereditary Peers. They are entitled to point that out. But I think that I am right in saying that when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and her myrmidon, the Government Chief Whip, have been moved to make such remarks, it has in no way been in the spirit that
248
under present circumstances any Member of your Lordships' House does not have the right to exercise that vote. They merely wish to remove that right; but while we still have that right, they acknowledge that we have the right to exercise it.
I suspect that if noble Lords were allowed by hereditary right to sit in your Lordships' House, as my noble friend proposes, and they were to venture to keep your Lordships up, as I am doing even now at a late hour, very soon for practical reasons they would find themselves the object of second-class status or discrimination of one kind or another.
I ask my noble friend to consider whether it is wise in any chamber to have two classes of member. As soon as it happens not only does it engender the kind of irritation that I have endeavoured to describe, together with the example that I have given, but it will begin to encourage invidious comparisons between members. Inevitably, different Members in the House with different rights will find themselves subject to all kinds of different treatment. I regard that as deeply injurious to the present harmonious relations between people who sit in this House having arrived by different routes.
While it is sensible to listen with respect and admiration to my noble friend, I wonder whether his Amendment No.30A carries with it more practical dangers whatever be the technical rights and wrongs of the case. I believe that he was very courageous in advance to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on this matter.
Lord Carter: The noble Viscount referred to me as a myrmidon. I have looked up the word and see that it means either a hired ruffian or lowly servant. I just wonder which of the two the noble Viscount had in mind.
Viscount Cranborne: I would never regard the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip as a ruffian. He has certainly been hired, so perhaps that part of the description fits. Servant? Surely not. Perhaps I should find a better and more elegant word and I therefore withdraw the appellation.
The Earl of Northesk: I should like to address the question of personal and property rights raised by my noble friend Lord Norrie. Notwithstanding our first debate this afternoon on the issue of the Writ of Summons, I remain confused by the phase on the face of the Bill
"a member of the House of Lords".
Consequently, as a first port of call can the Minister assist the Committee by advising where the statutory precedent for its use is to be found. It is my understanding that it has never been used before in an Act of Parliament.
No one should have any reason to doubt that the Government are aware that the concept of a hereditary peerage is not defined in statute; rather, as we are all aware—and I hope that I do not trespass on the sensibilities of the noble and learned Lord the Lord

249
Chancellor as to its arcane nature—its definition is to be found in case law and precedent developed over time in line with the evolutionary character of our constitution.
Happily, consultations with the Library of this House on the point have elicited two key cases this century which have had the effect of restating the essential criteria to be considered in this context. First, there is the judgment in the claim of Viscountess Rhondda in 1922:
"A peerage is an inalienable incorporeal hereditament created by the act of the Sovereign which, if and when he creates it, carries with it certain attributes which attach to it not by any reason of any grant of those attributes by the Crown, but as essentially existing at common law by reason of the enablement created by the grant of the peerage".
Secondly, the 1994 edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, following upon the Norfolk Earldom case of 1907. states:
"'Peerage' may he defined as a dignity to which is attached the right to a summons by name to sit and vote in Parliament".
My further researches on this point add considerable weight to the principles contained in the two passages that I have cited. In a debate on the viscountcy of my noble friend Lord Oxfuird in 1977 the noble and learned Lord. Lord Keith of Kinkel, commented (albeit in a case involving a Scottish peerage) thus:
"First of all, I suggest that it is desirable to understand the nature of a Scottish peerage. It is a species of heritable property which descends to heirs according to the canons which, in the law of Scotland, are appropriate to the descent of any kind of heritable property, and of course your Lordship will apareciate that land is the most important kind of heritable property-. —[Official Report, 27/6/77; co1.900.]
Noble Lords will of course appreciate that land is the most important part of heritable property.
In the same debate, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton developed this theme:
"It seems to me that to deprive a small group of persons … of what is already a vested right, if they are able to prove it, without compensation and without very good reason, would be entirely wrong". —f Official Report, 27/6/77; col.910.]
It is also worth noting that the Redesdale Committee's Third Report on Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, dated 1822, observes that,
"a peerage being a hereditament created de novo it can have no existence but according to the terms of its creation and must cease to exist the moment there should be a failure of those to whom it may be given by the words of the patent".
I offer your Lordships one more quotation, from the Cowley v. Cowley case in 1901:
"the dignities of the peerage having been originally annexed to lands were considered as tenements or incorporeal hereditaments wherein a person might have a real estate; and although dignities are now become little more than personal honours and rights yet they are still classed under the head of real property".
I cite those precedents for the record merely to support the substance of my noble friend's contention that property rights attach to the existence of a hereditary peerage.
In the circumstances, I simply ask the Government whether they in turn accept this or whether, despite those precedents, they have some other perceptions about this matter.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My noble friend Lord Northesk quoted my own family peerage case, but what concerns me tonight is what is legal or illegal.
250
I am minded of the visit of Peter the Great of Russia to Westminster Hall in 1697. He was brought in by his guide and was shown this great building, which was defined as the greatest building in Europe. He saw people walking across the steps and asked who they were. His guide said, "Your Imperial Highness, they are lawyers". He said, "I have but two lawyers in my entire kingdom and I am minded to behead one of them the very day I return".
We have heard the manifesto of the Labour Party. Where stands the law in this matter? We have to debate for long hours in this Chamber. We are not taking the advice of our predecessors. I wonder whether I may remind noble Lords of my own peerage case—or rather, my late kinsman's peerage case—in which Lord Keith of Kinkel said:
"My Lords, the law on this problem is not an arcane one. It is entirely clear to those who are instructed and experienced in the law of Scotland about heritable property, and I suggest that it is a body of law which could not he repealed, as is suggested by the noble Lord"—
he was referring to Lord Molson—
"without upsetting the whole basis of Scots peerage law. It would be possible perhaps to introduce by Act of Parliament some form of prescription of peerages, a species of limitation, but that would he an exception to the basic principle of Scots law that hereditable rights never prescribe. There is this consideration, too, my Loris: that having in view that every peerage not extinct or attained is vested in someone, even though he does not at present receive a Writ to attend, to introduce this prescription would involve taking away vested rights, and I do not think that this is a principle which is readily accepted in any Act of Parliament, at least not without some compensation being provided for". —[Official Report, 2716177; col.902.]
What concerns me is that we speak of the law, and we are disinclined to refer to it. I am not a lawyer, but there are moments in this Chamber when we need guidance. I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench will give us firm and direct guidance in this matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend Lord Norrie raised a number of points. However, one point is perhaps more crucial than others. I hope that the Minister will address it. I refer to the concept of the property rights that attach to a peerage—indeed, the property rights attached to membership of this House which are being removed from the hereditary Peers. Is it the Government's view that there is no property right attached to membership of this House, and that therefore the Bill can be passed with equanimity?
A number of people have suggested to me that there are property rights attached to membership of this House. There are certainly property rights attached to a peerage generally. However, the peerage in its entirety is not being removed from hereditary Peers, but just the right to sit, vote and speak in this House. As noble Lords will recall, not only is the right to sit, vote and speak being removed, but also the so-called "club rights". Perhaps there is some benefit attached to those.
I hope that the Government have considered the matter and that the noble Lord will reply to it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This Bill is nothing to do with the abolition of the hereditary peerage. It is perhaps

251
worth stating that. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, who spoke penultimately, said that we speak of law often and rarely refer to it. I think that I have listened to every speech on every occasion dealing with reform of this Chamber, and that has not been my listening experience.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for moving Amendment No.14A and speaking to Amendments Nos.30A and 68A so courteously and fully. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi pointed out certain defects in the amendments. He put the points crisply: that the amendments were basically unsound and based on a false premise. Apart from that, there are other defects. The noble Lord argues, and I take up the challenge put by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that hereditary Peers have personal and property rights to enter, sit and speak in this House, and that to remove their places in this House is a denial of those rights. I repeat: this is nothing to do with hereditary titles or dignities. It has to do with the right to sit in a legislature. The right to sit in the upper Chamber of the legislature is not a property right. I shall develop that argument in a moment. I am answering as plainly as I can the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
At Second Reading—it seems a long time ago, but it is not so temporally—the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, said that the Letters Patent were a contract irrevocable even by an Act of Parliament. That is the absolutist, Bourbon view. I reject it. I do not think that it is sustainable politically, morally, socially or legally. I believe that the sovereignty of Parliament subsists and matters, and Parliament is sovereign. The world may change, but the contra-argument is that hereditary Peers are entitled, as a matter of right and as a matter of law, to their place in Parliament; that the hereditary Peers will in fact go on for ever. That is where we part company. It is said that any Act passed after the removal of the hereditary element would be invalid. That is plainly wrong for the reasons set out by the Lord Chancellor on earlier occasions. The terms of Letters Patent are not sacrosanct.
It is put to me that I ought to offer an example or two, so I shall. As your Lordships are fully aware, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 provided for all privileges and rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect of a peerage or under Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, to cease and determine in respect of all Peers who supported the Germans during the First World War. So we are not rushing on heedlessly into establishing a new precedent.
It is well established law that Letters Patent are not sacrosanct. In the case of Viscountess Rhondda, to pronounce the name correctly, the Committee for Privileges does not accept the proposition that an Act of Parliament could not vary Letters Patent. We have the further example, which has been referred to on an occasion or two tonight, of Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963 which overrode the terms of Letters Patent to give the right to sit in this House to Peeresses.
It is asserted, and I dispute it, that there is a personal property right to sit in this House. The noble Lord put his argument on two bases, and I believe that I
252
summarise it fairly and briefly. One was the Statue of Westminster and the other was the European Convention on Human Rights. A number of us here, not least my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer sitting behind me and marginally to my left, introduced that with a good deal of pleasure. I am glad that our efforts have proved not to be entirely in vain, since it is designed for all citizens of this country to have their rights repatriated, but it will not help the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The right to sit in this House is not a possession. It is not a piece of property like a house, a piece of land, a mountain bicycle or a video machine.
I listened to the noble Lord's argument with care and he gave as an example the Turkish litigation. That is nothing to this point because we are not excluding a group from participation in the legislative process. Quite the opposite; in this Bill will be seen the taking away of the long historic injustice that hereditary Peers are not able to vote in parliamentary elections. We are putting that right by giving those who have been deprived politically and legally their full entitlement to participate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry that your Lordships are treating that point with levity, because it is extremely important that we are now visiting the underprivileged with their full rights. If they were not in prison—
Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may finish my sentence because it is too good a point to miss. At least if they were not in prison they were disenfranchised and I still visited them.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he slightly exaggerate the generosity of the Government in this respect? After all, perhaps one of the reasons why Peers have been unable to vote in parliamentary elections is that they have a right to sit in one of the Houses of Parliament. If the Government intend to take away from certain existing Members of your Lordships' House their right to sit here, perhaps it is only equitable that they should be given the opportunity to vote in parliamentary elections for another place. I know that the noble Lord was displaying his usual rapier-like wit at our expense, but, nonetheless, perhaps he will admit that it was not merely the righting of a long-lost wrong; it was the taking away of one privilege and the granting of another in exchange.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry that with my lack of rapier-like wit I was unable to make my point plain. My point is that it is a good idea to treat everyone who lives in this country equally. That is the fundamental point of the Bill and the fundamental point of the Human Rights Act, now triumphantly on the

253
statute book. Part of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, deals with what I think I could call a conceptual vote, which is certainly novel to me. What he proposed, if I studied his amendment correctly, is that hereditary Peers should be entitled to vote, but that their vote should not be counted.
It would be wrong of me to say that that is a novel constitutional device in the whole history of the world, but it certainly strikes me as bizarre. If I had proposed it, the first to have objected would have been the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, saying that it would be quite wrong that those who voted would have a vote that should be disregarded. The noble Viscount made that point. I certainly would object to that. It would be deeply dismissive of those who had a vote but were not able to have it counted.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, also raised a question which demonstrated a pleasant proposition to me; namely. that at least two Members of the Committee were awake. One was the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the other was me. As soon as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned this question we interrogated each other. the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, wondering idly whether I would fall into the trap and. I praying, nobly or ignobly, that I would not. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, asked two questions: first, what was Her Majesty's view and, secondly, had we taken Her Majesty's view? As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, well knows, that would be a wholly illegitimate set of questions for me to reply to, and accordingly I do not, on well-known constitutional bases.
The question of the Statute of Westminster has nothing to do with this at all. We are not interfering with the powers of the sovereign in the slightest way. Therefore, the extant dominions have no proper interest in these matters.
I know that a number of Members of the Committee are concerned about what may or may not happen. I have read with great care the different amendments—they are slightly different in shade and effect—that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has put forward. There is no exit that will he satisfactory, because we have come to our distinct conclusions. I have said on a number of occasions, because I mean it, that I recognise that other Members of the Committee have deeply held views. There will be no safeguard, beyond the possibility of the Weatherill amendment—and I say this with great care, without any aggression, malice or ill-thought—because we believe that the continuation of the hereditary principle, the capricious donation of birth, in the House of Lords, is no longer sustainable. That is the purpose behind our legislation. There is nothing by way of device or alternative, cosmetic amendment that will be acceptable to us.
Lord Northbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned the claim of Lady Rhondda. The speech of Viscount Birkenhead, the then Lord Chancellor is interesting. He said:
"What, then, becomes of the suggestion that the right to sit is not a right granted by Letters Patent? Literally it is true. The Letters Patent require the supplement of a writ. But they give a right to demand that writ and impose an obligation to receive it and to act upon it ".
254
I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on this speech.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Viscount Birkenhead, sitting as Lord Chancellor, held that there was no need to interpret the Act, because there was no sustainable proposition that no Act could overturn the terms of Letters Patent. Letters Patent, I submit, because I believe this to be legally correct, cannot be above the general law of the land. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, placed a good deal of emphasis on common law, on historical tradition. The fact is that no aspect of common law is capable of being sustained if Parliament decides the contrary by way of statute.
The Earl of Northesk: I too apologise to the Minister for my sub-standard pronunciation. I am but a humble Scots boy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do my best to pronounce English words and sometimes I succeed.
Lord Norrie: I am delighted that my amendments have caused such massive reaction from noble Lords on the Benches opposite and I am happy too to see the smiles on their faces at this late hour. I thank the Minister for his extremely courteous and informative reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Before I call Amendment No.15, I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No.15 is accepted, I shall not be able to call Amendment No.16.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No.15:
Page 1, line 5, after ("No-one") insert ("who after the day on which this Act is passed succeeds to a hereditary peerage")
The noble Earl said: I shall be very brief. Because of something of a mix-up in the Committee immediately after the dinner break, my noble friend Lord Caithness moved extremely ably and spoke to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall; that is, Amendments Nos.14, 29 and 109. At that time, it was my intention to speak to this amendment but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it had been agreed that Amendments Nos.15 and 21 should be taken together.
The purpose of the amendment is to avoid disruption to the working of the House as it moves into its interim period. That is the message. I do not intend to argue the point other than to refer to the excellent and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, last week on the whole subject. I suggest that on that occasion he received a dusty answer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who said that the amendment would undermine the very foundation of the Government's Bill.
But how will the foundation of the Bill fare in the light of the Weatherill amendment? Is there a case for underpinning? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have debated this matter fully already. The amendment seeks to keep the

255
750 hereditary Peers who are already here to make up the alleged deficiencies of what will be a House with 500 life Peers. Even with the life Peers alone, this will be the largest second Chamber in the world. We have gone over those points time and time again and I shall not repeat them. The effect of the noble Earl's proposal is that the hereditary Peers would not be removed for 60 years and that 50 per cent would still he there after 15 years. That is in order to supplement what will still be the largest second Chamber in the world.
The Earl of Kinnoull: We heard the argument in relation to the 60 years last Tuesday when it was pointed out that we shall be in an interim period. That could not possibly last for 60 years.
Will the noble and learned Lord reply to my specific question about why this amendment would cause such massive disruption to the Government's Bill compared with the Weatherill amendment, which will also cause disruption?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Earl said that it was in order to keep the House going. I am pointing out that with 500 life Peers, I believe the House will adequately survive.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The noble and learned Lord said last week that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, would undermine the very foundation of the Government's Bill. I suggest that the Weatherill amendment does that too. What is the difference?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The difference between the Weatherill amendment and this amendment is that 750 hereditary Peers survive under the "Randall amendment", if I may so call it, whereas 659 of those 750 go under the Weatherill amendment. That is the difference.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I thank the Minister for that mathematical reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.16.
Page 1, line 5. leave out ("shall be") and insert ("who is")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.16 I should like to speak also to Amendment No.22. The effect of that amendment is that no one who is a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage,
"shall be entitled to vote in that House or in any committee of that House".
I suggest that that should satisfy all members of the Front Bench opposite. The great complaint is that the Conservative Party buses in great numbers of Members to vote down Labour governments of the day. That is totally untrue, but that is the accusation. However, if we cannot vote, that is perfectly all right and the Government have nothing to worry about. They will carry all their votes and a great time will be had by all.
I am a little windy about putting this suggestion to the Committee because I am aware that the Front Bench opposite is wary of our amendments. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House implied that she was fed up with having to repeat the same answers time and again. The fact is that if the Government cause upheaval to the whole of one House of Parliament they cannot expect it to go unnoticed. It is perfectly right that this Chamber should ask the Government what they are doing, why they are doing it and should penetrate their reasons. That is why I have no hesitation in putting forward the amendment.
All the members of the Front Bench—I say this with great courtesy, I believe—have done a tremendous job of saying nothing. They have put their heads down, rather like a Hereford bull, charged ahead and said, "Get rid of hereditary Peers; that is all we care about. We are not going to move to the left or to the right. We will not listen to any kind of argument. All we want to do is to get rid of the hereditary Peers."
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said. I believe at Second Reading:
"It is my belief that the most thoughtful among the hereditary Peers"—
I am not one of those—
"of all political persuasions, know that the time has come to say, `Thank you and goodbye'".
I do not believe that the time has come to say thank you and goodbye. I think the time has come to say. "Thank you and please continue. " I apologise to the noble Baroness. Those remarks were made during the House of Lords reform debate of 14th October, not at Second Reading. The noble Baroness has perhaps changed her view since then. I have just refreshed my memory of what she said in that debate. She stated:
"Perhaps I may emphasise again that the purpose of this debate is to take stock and to listen to your Lordships". —[0fficial Report, 14/10/98; cols.921–2.]
I have to say that when I read that, I practically fell off my chair. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has listened very much. She has listened as if to a noise like dripping water in the background that she has to push to one side as being a great bore. The Government are making a considerable change. It is right that we should ask the Government why they are making it and test them as to whether they believe it is the right thing to do.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—
Noble Lords: No.
Earl Ferrers: What did I say? I thought I said "the Lord Advocate".
Noble Lords: He is not the Lord Advocate.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise. I was trying to be polite. the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, stated that there were 570 life Peers and that that should be enough to look after the interests of everyone. Frankly, I believe that an appalling amount of humbug goes on about this.

257
There are many life Peers on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as well as on our side, who play no part at all. Many hereditary Peers play no part at al]. That does not matter. Those who play a part are told by the noble Baroness that the time has come to say goodbye to them; those who do not play a part are told that they are backwoodsmen and do not care what is going on. So hereditary Peers cannot win.
I could not help but be slightly amazed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I warned him that I would refer to it. He said,
"we still have a second Chamber with a potential size of nearly 1.300 Members and with a current maximum attendance of about 1, 150…The poor Americans and Canadians bumble along with a little over 100 in their senates. The Germans do even better with only about 70. The French seriously overdose"—
an unfortunate expression—
"with over 300 in their Senate. Even when the hereditary Peers have been removed from this House, there will be over 500 life Peers and Bishops". —[official Report, 30/3/99; col.360.]
So the argument went, "Get rid of all the hereditary Peers and we will be perfectly all right because we will still have 500 of them".
The noble Lord went on to say:
"Around 50 per cent of the adult population are women and 7 per cent, ire from ethnic minorities",
and the Chamber does not reflect that. He then said at col.361:
"Basically, we are a club for older white males and are seen as such by many people outside this Chamber".
I must say I wondered why the noble Lord bothered to become a Member merely to contribute to the problem. He contributes by adding to the "white males"; he contributes by adding to the ethnicity problem; and he contributes by adding to the gender problem. Anyhow, he has had the advantage of being here for six months and he gave us the benefit of his view which is that, after 600 years, your Lordships should be asked to go away.
The purpose of my speech is to say to the Committee that this is a very helpful amendment. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to respond to this amendment. I want to tell him that it is an extremely helpful amendment. He will get all that he wants. Hereditary Peers will not be able to vote and therefore they will not capsize the voting arrangements. But they will he able to contribute.
What is the harm in that? Members of this Chamber and many other people have referred to the expertise in your Lordships' House. I am sure noble Lords opposite think that all the expertise comes from life Peers. I am sure that a lot comes from life Peers, but quite a lot comes from hereditary Peers. If it is expertise that is wanted, let us hear about it. Let us bring all the knowledge that is available, from whatever source, into your Lordships' Chamber. When it comes to the crunch point and having a vote, hereditary Peers need not vote, and, indeed, would not be able to vote.
But what would happen in matters of heritage, art and agriculture if all the hereditary Peers were to go? I introduced a debate on agriculture just over one year ago in which only two speakers were from the party
258
opposite. The majority of people who know about agriculture tend to be on this side of the Chamber, I leave it to Members of the Committee to decide why. I do not know who knows about agriculture in another place, but not many. Although many Members represent agricultural constituencies, they are mostly solicitors. teachers—or something funny like that—or sociologists: they are not agriculturists.
Agriculture is a great part of our heritage. Around 80 per cent of the countryside is covered by land, hut that: will not be reflected in another place or in this House if all the hereditary Peers go. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, knows a lot about all facets of the law, as does his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn; but I do not know whether they know one end of a bullock from another. They may take the view that they do not like both ends and the middle is uncomfortable. Either way, it is important that people should know about the countryside and should care about what is going on there. Those views should be expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is pointed out to me. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord knows a lot about the countryside; but one man on the Government Front Bench is not many. Indeed, noble Lords opposite point with great glee to all the Peers sitting on the Front Bench here, and to all those sitting behind me. Of course they know about agriculture. I am also looking over there. If they know about agriculture, why did only two of their number take part in a debate which consisted of 35 speakers?
In fact, there is a good deal of expertise, not just in agriculture—indeed, it would be too childish to say so—but in many other respects, which can have a vent in this House. I venture to suggest that that is a good thing. Noble Lords may wonder who would come to this House and speak if they did not have the ability to vote. If they did not come here because they could not vote, noble Lords opposite would be quite content. They would say, "Well, people can come but they don't bother to do so. We can carry on quite happily without them".
I really cannot see what the objection is to saying that noble Lords and the hereditary peerage can continue. After all, the latter have been here for hundreds of years—indeed, noble Lords opposite cannot just regard it as something which is of no value at all and which can be quietly brushed aside. It is of value and cannot be pushed to one side. I cannot see why that cannot continue with hereditary Peers, and so on, being able to participate and talk but not to vote; and, incidentally, being able to come and participate in what happens in your Lordships' House.
If one has been a very good Foreign Secretary, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, one might get promoted—some would say he was promoted—and be sent to the House of Lords. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hurd was a very distinguished Foreign Secretary when he was in the other place. He, too, was promoted and came to this place. My noble friend Lord Carrington was also a very distinguished Foreign Secretary, but what will happen to him? He will get thrown out. That cannot be right. He will not be allowed to come into the House. He will not be allowed to come in and have

259
lunch. Even retired bishops can come in and have lunch. If you are a Member of the House of Commons and you get thrown out, you can go there and have lunch. But, under the Government's Bill, if you are a Member of the House of Lords, they say: "No, we don't want anything to do with you at all. Go out, and never come in again".
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is a very genial character; indeed, I can see that in his face. We can all tell people's characters from what they look like. He will understand the reasoning behind this amendment. You cannot throw out 600 years of history and say, rather like kicking a bit of muck out of the house, "We don't want that any more". The fact is—I can understand this—they do not want hereditary Peers to come and vote. I understand that even if I do not accept it. However, there is really no reason why hereditary Peers should not participate and try to contribute to what is going on here thereby helping some noble Lords who are a little deficient in certain knowledgeable matters. Indeed, they could help your Lordships to come to conclusions upon which you could then enjoy voting—something in which the hereditary Peers would not be able to participate.
On reflection, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that this is an acceptable amendment. I should remind him that one of the arts of getting a difficult Bill through is to accept certain amendments—in other words, throw the dogs a bone and keep them happy. Noble Lords opposite really have been deeply stubborn over all this. They have not moved an inch; as I said, they have just put their heads down like Hereford bulls and charged ahead. This would be a good opportunity for them to show that they really are quite understanding and that they would be prepared to help and give a little. If they were to do so, we would all make a good deal of progress and be a lot happier. Indeed, the Government would have conceded nothing of value. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should advise Members of the Committee that if Amendment No.16 is accepted I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos.17 or 17A.
The Earl of Longford: I rise to express my support for the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Of course, I do so as a good Labour man of 63 years' standing. I joined the party, having started in the wrong direction, many years before the present Prime Minister was born. So I come forward as a good Labour man. In 1968 when I was the Leader of the House I brought the measure forward and it was supported by the Labour government, the Conservative leaders and everyone else, including the Liberals who were then mostly Labour if I remember rightly. But at any rate that was good Labour doctrine. So do not let us have any idea that it was some kind of strange perverted heresy.
The noble Earl was humorous about this matter. I speak with just as strong a feeling. Now having reached advanced years my sight is not so good and I cannot tell the difference between a life Peer and a hereditary when
260
I look at them. I cannot even tell the difference between their speeches although my hearing is perfectly sound. They both seem to talk good sense. I realise that we see only some of the hereditaries here. Out of 750 hereditaries, a small proportion attend. It is no good trying to defend 750 hereditary Peers and their right to attend when two-thirds of them do not attend at all, or seldom attend. Therefore, the case for fundamentally altering the arrangements is irresistible. To prove that, I stayed up with the help of the Chief Whip and his unique staff until three in the morning to vote for a Second Reading. Nevertheless one could perfectly well tack on this proposal. It was accepted all those years ago by the Labour government of the time. There has been no real change since. The only argument produced by a government spokesman on the Front Bench the other day was that there were not many life Peers then. I do not think that that is a convincing argument. Either the measure made sense in those days or it makes sense now. Personally, I think it makes sense now.
I shall go to my grave saying that this House is a valuable House. I believe in this House; I believe in it as it is now. That does not mean that it is perfect; it needs reform, but reforms usually involve some damage somewhere. I want to minimise the damage. There will be grave damage if some of our best Members are kicked out, sacked and excluded. As I say, that will damage the House. The House will be a worse place without them. I am afraid therefore that I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: We have had an interesting discussion on various versions of voting rights this evening. We started with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who proposed that certain Members of your Lordships' House should have weighted votes. We then had the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who proposed that certain Members of your Lordships' House should have weightless votes. Now we have heard the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, propose that certain Members of your Lordships' House should have no votes at all.
I had intended to make a speech to explain why we oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, but I have decided not to do so, not only because of the hour but also because I have decided that I could not possibly have put the case against first and second-class Members of your Lordships' House more clearly than the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, during the debate on Amendment No.14A. I am happy, therefore, to rest my case by endorsing everything that he said on that subject.
Lord Eden of Winton: As I understand it, this amendment goes right back to the very root of the Labour Party's manifesto commitment. I think I am right in saying that the Labour Party's manifesto commitment was presented as a reform of the House of Lords and a reform of Parliament. There seem to me to be two main reasons why the Labour Party put that forward and why it thought that it would achieve a great deal of support.
As I understand them, the two reasons are the following. First of all, there was the "class" factor, if I can call it that—the resentment that anyone by right of

261
birth should be entitled to a place in Parliament and to exercise power over the legislative processes of Parliament. I think that that is an understandable point of view although I find it on the whole an unworthy position for a political party of this country to adopt.
The second reason was resentment against the built- in, weighted majority of the Conservative Party in this House, which the Labour Party understandably sought to rectify so that matters came into balance. That was the way it was presented. The two points were made strongly by government spokesmen at Second Reading, and riot just in this House; they were made forcefully in another place. The resentment against the inherited rights was made perfectly clear on the grounds that they had been acquired by birth and that they contributed to the incorrect, unworthy or unjustified balance in this House. That is the position.
If I have not expressed those points in the way that Members on the Benches opposite would express them, I apologise. Nevertheless, I believe that those are the two basic sentiments which inspired the inclusion of this reference in the Labour Party manifesto. There is no reform there—there is change, yes. If it had been about reform, we should not be going through all the paraphernalia of a Royal Commission, a Joint Committee of both Houses and consideration of all these factors. Had it been about reform, the Labour Party would have had its proposals ready and waiting. It was not about reform; it was about two elements that were a feature of the representation in this House against which the Labour Party had strong feelings of resentment.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers meets that very point. It removes the right to vote in this place by virtue of being an hereditary Peer. Is not that what the Labour Party manifesto said? It also removes the undue, over-weighted balance of votes on the part of the Conservative Party in this House. Is not that what the manifesto was all about? So I cannot understand why the Government should not accept my noble friend's amendment. It seems an eminently sensible, modest, moderate proposal, supported by the noble Earl opposite, who has long experience, and it fully meets the commitment in the manifesto. I very much hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Peston: Perhaps we on this side may be allowed to join in. It seems to me that some of the arguments proposed are simply wrong. I have tried desperately to understand the position of the Opposition on these matters and to look for rational argument.
The fundamental position with which I am concerned and, listening to the views from the Front Bench, my party is concerned, is that the hereditary principle is simply wrong. That is the beginning and end of the matter. It has nothing to do with the quality of the hereditary Peers.
Lord Eden of Winton: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. He said that the hereditary principle is wrong. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was at pains to make clear that what he was concerned to change was the right by
262
heredity to sit and vote in this House. There was no question of attacking the fundamental principle of heredity, which continues.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord does not understand what I am saying, although he produced exactly the right words. It is not acceptable in any legislature of any parliament that people should sit, legislate, speak arid vote as a result of a hereditary position. That is the beginning, the end and the whole of it. It has nothing to do with the quality of hereditary Peers. I stand second to none in my admiration of many of them. I would never argue that they are somehow inferior to me or make a poorer contribution.
Perhaps I may say directly to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in terms of his quality, that he will not lose the right to be a nominated Peer. Some of us would very much welcome him, and others, here in that form. But it is intolerable that anybody at all—including noble Lords on this side of the House—should sit here simply because their fathers were here before them. That is the only principle involved. It has nothing to do with personal denigration; it has nothing to do with lack of appreciation. It certainly has nothing to do with agriculture. The notion that somehow or other that is the key element in the future of our great country is about as preposterous an argument as I have heard in many a long time—and, as the noble Earl knows, I have sat through many preposterous arguments. I have even put forward one or two myself.
That is why some of us are bewildered beyond belief as to what the Opposition are up to. The issue starts with the hereditary principle and ends with the hereditary principle. We are opposed to it. I am looking around and I can see several noble Lords whom I still regard as my friends. I would like to see them remain here. Under most of the likely reforms, the leaders of their parties will be in a position to nominate them, but they would then be here in their own right having been so nominated, as I am. They would be no worse than me. That would be their position.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Can the noble Lord explain why nominated Peers have this great democratic principle at heart? Why should anyone who is nominated be any more democratic than someone who happens to be here by virtue of winning the genetic lottery?
Lord Peston: We are now going back to the beginning of our debates on this. The reason is that nominated Peers, whether on the opposition side—there are several nominated Peers there—or on this side—I am not saying that we are any good—were nominated by Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition. That opportunity is still available to noble Lords opposite.
That is what the argument is about. It is not about who is better or who is worse, who are friends or who are enemies; it is about the hereditary principle which I heard my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friends on the Front Bench argue against a few hours ago. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord.

263
Lord Eden, that I should like to believe that I would hold that view even if overwhelmingly the hereditary Peers were all socialists.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Before the noble Lord sits down, there are many on this side of the House who are considerably puzzled by what is being said on the other. The noble Lord has twice said that the hereditary principle is wrong. Will he say whether he extends that view to the Throne?
Lord Peston: That is an absurd question with which to intervene. We are discussing a House of Parliament within a parliamentary democracy. I am not for one moment suggesting that the eldest child of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, cannot inherit his title; assuming that the noble Earl has great lands—I do not know whether he has or not—I am not for one moment suggesting that he cannot pass them on; I am not even suggesting that his genetic make-up and that of his dear wife cannot be passed on to his children. I am simply saying that no rational philosopher, when considering parliamentary democracy, would remotely argue for a hereditary peerage. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about the relative quality of hereditary Peers and life Peers. We have had at least five days of Second Reading-type debate; we are to have three days in Committee; and I am told that we have many more days to come. I should like to focus on the one central theme and agree that we disagree—I am not saying for one moment that we do not disagree—but we should forget all the extraneous stuff which keeps coming up and which simply has nothing to do with what the Bill is about. That is all I am trying to say.
Lord Palmer: Along with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I put my name to the amendment. One of his main reasons for putting forward the idea of hereditary Peers being able to speak and not vote—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—is that, as the Bill stands, the House will lose a great deal of expertise. One thinks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, after his long parliamentary career and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has spent many, many years in the House. I beg the Government Front Bench to take that point on board.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, there are noble Lords with experience of conservation and the heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, seemed to say, "Forget about agriculture", but agriculture is an extremely important industry. When I initiated a debate on agriculture, 21 noble Lords put down their names to speak, of whom 17 were hereditary Peers. Without those 17 hereditary Peers, the debate would have been a non-event.
I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl's amendment. It seems to meet the point to which the Government object—the right of hereditary Peers to troop through the Lobbies. If one interviewed some noble Lords on the Government Benches after they had been through
264
the Division Lobbies and asked them what they had been voting about, some might say, "Have I been voting?" This amendment would remove that problem.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: As I understand it, the debate is something to do with agriculture. However, the fact is that I cannot understand the amendment, although it comes from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a man whom I greatly admire. I disapprove of the means of nominating hereditary Peers, but I make this practical suggestion. What is to stop the nomination of the very good Tories, and others who are hereditary Peers, so that they can speak and vote? That is logical. But we should not have turned loose on us the vast mass of backwoodsmen. I have listened to some of their recent speeches. Surely it would be a great blessing if they were not allowed to speak and we were content then with the good Tory hereditary Peers who abound on those Benches.
11 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I have put my name to this amendment and I should like, with diffidence, to support most strongly the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In my view, an interim House, retaining as a transitional measure a considerable number of non-voting hereditary Peers, is greatly to be preferred to what the Bill offers.
My noble friend's amendment deals with the question of the political imbalance of the House, but more than that can be said about it. It can be said that the House would function with 500 life Peers and it may be that, according to the lights of the Prime Minister, it would function better than the present House. But what one has to look at is cumulation and not alternatives. It is certainly true that committees would be filled, Questions would be asked, speeches would be made, amendments would be moved and Divisions would take place, but functioning in that sense is not enough. Bare functioning is not what makes a second Chamber. Important functions of this present second Chamber include the scrutiny of legislation and the interrogation of government. In performing both those functions, the continued presence in the interim House of hereditary Peers in an advisory capacity or indeed as advocates would add considerable weight to that of the 500 life Peers because of the bank of parliamentary experience that hereditary Peers carry with them.
I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about this amendment. I hope I shall not hear that it falls within the ambit of the anathema announced by the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading. Equally, I shall be interested to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord. It is not always wise to anticipate replies, but I expect him to refer to the manifesto and the mandate and then to pick up the point hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that what matters at the moment is not so much the political balance of the House of Lords as the fact that the hereditary principle is wrong. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will vote against the Weatherill amendment.

265
However, I have today tabled an amendment to the Weatherill amendment. Had my noble friend Lord Geddes not left the Chamber, I would have told him that I do not intend to withdraw it. The amendment would reduce the number of hereditary Peers entering the interim House with votes and allow a larger counter-balancing number of hereditary Peers to remain in the interim House without votes. There is nothing permanent about this. Such an amendment can be contained in and sheltered by the Weatherill amendment. It can therefore be discussed on its merits and cannot easily he challenged legitimately on the grounds that it offends either the manifesto or the Salisbury-Addison accord.
There will be room for argument as to the appropriate balance of voting and speaking Peers. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne made clear, there will be room for argument as to whether there should be second-class Peers in this House at all. That discussion is for another time. I speak as a potential second-class Peer. All I can say to my noble friend, who, if there is any justice in this world, is a potential first-class Peer, is that it seems a little rich to be told that all Peers should be equal in this House and that therefore I, as a second-class Peer, should go.
The Earl of Erroll: First, I should like to correct the impression that all Peers have vast rolling acres. I do not farm and never have. Governments of both political colours have ensured that through taxation. I have written computer programs, designed software systems, done smartcard development and am on the Internet daily. One can have the virtual votes of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the Internet very easily. Secondly, I had not realised that former MPs can have lunch in the Palace whenever they feel like it, which sounds very attractive.
Lord Eden of Winton: I believe I am right in saying that former Members of Parliament who are Members of this House may enjoy the club premises of the other place but not if they cease to be Members of Parliament.
The Earl of Erroll: I misunderstood.
I am against the idea that Peers should be able to speak without having a vote. I believe that to be a great nuisance. On the other hand, it is most important that stage two legislation goes through. If a lot of Peers are to bore everyone to death in the interim and force through stage two, I believe that to be a very good thing.
Lord Desai: I do not want to go into the question of club rights, but noble Lords will no doubt agree that any Member of this House who has left it to become a Member of the other place is perfectly free to come to have lunch here.
In the long history of de-colonisation one is again and again presented with the foreign ruler who very touchingly asks, "What will you people do without us? How will you govern yourselves? We are so good, wise and nice. We hate to leave you to your own devices because we love you. Without our wisdom, experience and knowledge, how will you carry on?". There were
266
some lovely rulers and law-makers. The point, however, as John Stuart Mill said long ago, is that "Self-government is better than good government".
What we are saying is that, good as hereditary peers are—and they are marvellous people—there cannot be any excuse in principle for them to be here. The idea that somehow, without their great wisdom, experience, knowledge and so on we will be bereft and the world will be poorer is just tosh—if that is parliamentary language.
As my noble friend Lord Peston said, it is very hard for us on this side to comprehend why people do not understand. It is not the hereditary principle as biology. We cannot change biology. We have children: sometimes we have some property which we pass on. That is not what is being discussed. When we speak of the hereditary principle we are not simply talking about. the hereditary principle but about the right of the first-born son of a hereditary Peer to come and legislate. That is what we do not want.
Once we do not want that, with the right to speak as with the right to vote, then we just want rid of it. That is clearly stated and I do not know why we have to go through endless debate: "Do let us come. Do let us give the benefit of our wisdom". Thank you very much, but can we please get on with it and have a good second Chamber?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I would much rather stay in your Lordships' House and vote and speak, but I know that I could not do that if the House is balanced and it becomes a political House—which I would regret. The reason why I could not do it is that, when I inherited my position and my properties, I also inherited what I felt was an obligation to repay some of my good fortune by taking on an element of public service. I am chairman of three charities.
I can see some merit in these amendments, because at least if one could come here one would he more useful to those people whom one serves by, in any year, having to make the points they wish to make. I am fully aware that it is not only people with hereditary peerages who have a prominent position in public service; but one of the reasons we are asked to do these things is that we have a voice in your Lordships' House, in order to make the points which arise in these situations. Such points are not always made on the Floor of this House but by what are called "the usual channels", or at least they were during the last government. I find that they tend to be rather less active under the present one. Nonetheless, things change. We do have a valuable role to play by being able to make the points of the people we serve who are less fortunate than we are by having access to your Lordships' House.
Lord Monson: My name is on Amendment No.16 because it is a paving amendment, not only to Amendment No.22 which we have been discussing but also to Amendment No.23, to which I spoke last week. I still prefer my Amendment No.23 for a variety of reasons, but I do not intend to return to it tonight. I am happy to support Amendment No.22, which achieves most of the same objectives.

267
Almost exactly four hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Richard, complained that acceptance of Amendment No.13 and the two amendments grouped with it would mean that Labour would continue to be unfairly defeated by the in-built Conservative majority, or, to be more accurate, the in-built non-Labour majority, for a few months longer than would otherwise be the case. The noble Lord made a perfectly valid point. But he cannot object to this amendment on those grounds. On the contrary, acceptance of this amendment would help Labour to win more victories, unless the powerful, eloquent arguments of the non-voting hereditaries convinced a number of Labour Back-Benchers to change their views and defy the diktats of their Whips. It may be that prospect which alarms the Government Front Bench.
Lord Davies of Coity: As has been said so many times in this Chamber, the Labour Government have presented a Bill to both Houses of Parliament to achieve what was mooted nearly 100 years ago: to remove the right of hereditary Peers to vote and to sit in this Chamber in order to participate in the legislative process.
The purport of Amendment No.16 is, "Yes, we accept that we can no longer vote, but we want to sit and speak". At best that seems to be a damage limitation exercise and at worst something of a begging bowl. If it is a begging bowl, I regret that the hereditary Peers are displaying a lack of dignity which I would not have expected from them.
Why would they want to sit in this Chamber to speak but not to vote? Is it to maintain club rights; or is it to attempt to frustrate the activities of a future government because of their hereditary privilege? I find it incredible that these amendments have been put before us in this Chamber. I hope that they will be withdrawn. I hope that the hereditary Peers will recognise that the Labour Government, with the support of the British people, are putting forward a Bill that is not antagonistic to individuals but to a system whose removal is long overdue.
The hereditary Peers in this House may well justify the life peerages given to them for their expertise and their contribution. But the system has to be removed. It is no longer defensible. I do not think that it has been defensible for most of this century. It is not defensible today. I hope that the Opposition will recognise the views of the Labour Government which have the support of the British people, and that hereditary Peers will go from this House with the dignity and respect that they deserve but which they will lose if they perpetuate these arguments.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: As a life Peer, I wish to make one point in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I can assure noble Lords that it is not only the hereditary Peers who support the amendments. I welcome and have found most valuable the views expressed to this House by hereditary Peers. But I want to keep the Cross-Benchers.
268
The Cross-Bench element in this House is of crucial importance. We are sweeping away all the hereditary Cross-Benchers.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Are noble Lords opposite saying that hereditary Peers can stay on the Cross-Benches? That seemed to be the reaction. I understand that we are referring to all hereditary Peers. I understand that 70 per cent of the Cross-Benchers are hereditary Peers. Nothing has been said in the course of debates on the Bill to reassure us that we shall still have that strong element of Cross-Bench Peers. I want them. I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Ellenborough: At this late hour, I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and especially as I put my name down to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, which was briefly debated in the rather confused debate on Tuesday last.
I believe that the Bill becomes increasingly pointless and unnecessary as we go along, especially if full reform is on the way. The object of the exercise is to remove 750 hereditary Peers. However, since about half or more never come, they have removed themselves for practical purposes. So that does not get the Government very far.
Then if the Weatherill amendment is passed, 100 or so of the most active and most frequent attenders will remain. That, too, does not get the Government very far in their objective. That leaves some 150 hereditary Peers whose future this and similar amendments address. I refer to those hereditary Peers who come fairly often, but some relatively seldom, especially when they feel they have a contribution to make.
During the two debates on the White Paper and Second Reading, a considerable number of noble Lords spoke in favour of the proposition that most hereditary Peers would no longer have a vote but should still be entitled to speak. As other noble Lords have said, it is difficult to see what objection the Government can have to such a non-divisive and acceptable way of proceeding.
Incidentally, the Labour Party manifesto is most misleading. It is, of course, my bedtime reading, but I have yet to find a page which refers to the removal of the hereditary Peers' right to speak. The media have taken up the proposal that hereditary Peers can no longer vote, but they never say that they can no longer speak. Many people come up to me and say, "Oh dear, it is bad luck that you won't be able to vote any more, but never mind because you will be able to speak".
In any case, the whole proposition of non-voting Peers was endorsed by the Labour government of 1968, in particular by such eminent Labour figures as the late Richard Crossman and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The whole thrust was to provide for the need for the participation of a considerable number of part-time hereditary Peers with wide interests and experience who could make useful contributions. With or without the Weatherill amendment, that still makes sense. It deals

269
successfully with the problem of the in-built Conservative majority and the hereditary principle and it provides continuity at least for as long as the transitional House exists.
The criticism made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was that hereditary Peers coming to speak is no longer necessary because compared with 1968 there are so many more life Peers now. The only problem is that so many life Peers do not attend.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank my noble friend Lady Knight and I support the amendment because I am as concerned about defence and what will be said about it in this House as others have been about agriculture. I remember a defence debate last year with 35 speakers. Only two came from that side of the House. That is very serious.
I recognise that the Royal Commission will produce proposals for bringing expertise of every kind into this House. It may well solve that problem then, but in the mean time we could have a gap if the Government have their way. I believe that it is incumbent on us to consider our responsibility in that respect. We are better informed here than are Members in the other place. That is partly a matter of age and experience because most of the people in the other place, and most of the new arrivals here, are too young even to have done national service.
I am not being prejudiced; I am concerned about a very important subject. I hope that consideration will be given to that in our debates.
Lord Strathclyde: The most interesting speech I have heard tonight was that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said that he did not know the position of the Opposition. Clearly, he did not sit through as many of the Second Reading speeches that were made from these Front Benches as I did. I shall refer him back to Second Reading and the speeches made from this Front Bench. He might then care to examine the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, where he will see another furtherance of a Tory position which is forward-thinking, and then he will contrast both those positions with that of his own party.
Lord Peston: I entirely concede that I have not had the stamina to listen to as many speeches as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and that is a weakness on my part. But what I do not understand is this: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in his brilliant report, which I have read, entirely accepts that the hereditary Peers must go. That is the beginning and the end of all this. What I am trying to work out, as a devoted Member of the House of Lords, is what the rest of all these amendments are about.
I am quite innocent in this matter. From my reading of his report, the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the position of his party is that the
270
hereditary Peers must go. I just want to know what is going on here, day in, day out. That is all, and it is very simple.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: The noble Lord should wait for my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: The first answer to that question is that we are desperately trying to improve what is an extremely bad Bill.
Lord Eden of Winton: I think the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated that the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay recommended that hereditary peers should go. That is a misinterpretation. My noble and learned friend took as his starting point the assumption that the Bill now before the Committee had become an Act of Parliament.
Lord Peston: I have no idea what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, inwardly believes. I have only his report, which is totally predicated on the assumption that the hereditary Peers will go. I repeat that certainly the analytical part of that report is quite outstanding. That is why many of us sitting here who are interested in the next step cannot understand what the Opposition is doing about this stage, which does not seem to be consistent. I do not want to delay the Committee, because there is still a large number of amendments for it to deal with, but I would like to see some rationality and consistency from the Opposition.
Lord Strathclyde: I, too, do not particularly want to continue the debate about the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I, too, thought was excellent. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Peston's interpretation of that report is. somewhat different from mine. While his whoty elected option clearly removes the ability for the hereditary peerage to sit in the House of Lords, it does exactly the same for the life Peers, so I think there is no difference between us on that.
However, the other option clearly indicates that it is open to the independent appointments commission to recommend that hereditary Peers should continue to perform a function in the House of Lords. So I believe that his contention is wrong.
The major point that I want to make is to contrast that with the sheer negativity that we get from noble Lords opposite. We are told that this is a Bill that we must not debate, because it was in the manifesto and was passed by the people. We have heard today and at other parts of the Committee stage that somehow it is offensive to propose something different—even if not terribly radically different.
We find what the Bill does offensive. It creates a House of patronage, a House of cronies, a House of political appointees. Noble Lords opposite may not like that description. They may feel offended by But that is what the Bill does. I do not accuse any noble Lords of being like that; maybe some of them are. My point is

271
that once the Bill is through, there will be a very great temptation to have more and more purely political appointees totally in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Later in the Bill, we shall reach amendments which deal with an appointments commission. There has been no indication whatever from the Government that they want to put such a commission in place now. I understand that the Prime Minister can, without any legislation, set up an appointments commission now to deal with this particular issue of what happens when a House comprises entirely appointees.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers accepts what many noble Lords have said on all sides of the House; that hereditary Peers have brought something valuable to the House which should not necessarily be abolished in one go.
In 1968, the then Labour government's position was that such a proposal was perfectly all right. It is the one which Mr. Wilson's government put forward, which was approved in this House, but it went wrong in another place for reasons which are now well known. If it was good enough in 1968, why is it not good enough now? Did the Labour Party consider it again in writing its manifesto and if not, why not? Were there discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who spoke yet again with such power on the subject this evening?
Moreover, the point was made this evening that, perversely, if the Government are so opposed to the hereditary peerage, by accepting this amendment they would achieve broad parity between the two main political parties so that they win the votes and they make it more likely that we shall go on to a stage two.
The fundamental problem that we have had with the Bill is that there is no vision of a second stage. That is what is missing from the Bill. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she has a vision and ideas, but they are personal ideas and they must not be shared with anyone else. I understand that that is the discipline of the Labour Party. But somehow I sense that we are missing out on something. There is obviously a great seedbed of thought going on in the Labour Party, none of which is being shared with this House, the rest of the Labour Party or, indeed, the general public.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne, in an earlier intervention, made some extremely good points about the issue of sitting and voting. As a former Chief Whip, I have every sympathy with the points he raised, but I hope that in reply the Minister will concentrate not just on the points made by noble friend Lord Cranborne but address also the point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers who said that he was like a dog who needed a bone. This is an extremely good bone.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I did not say that I was like a dog. I suggested that the Government should give something to others, as though they were dogs. But I did not say that I was a dog!
Lord Strathclyde: I could not quite work out what my noble friend was going to do with a bone if he was not a dog.
272
There are a number of issues on which the Government could be rather more generous and forward-thinking in their attitude towards proposals which have been made by noble Lords not just on this side of the Committee but also from their own Back Benches and from the Cross Benches. I hope that that is one area on which we shall receive a positive answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I think we are entitled to know whether or not he is going to advise those in his party in this House how to vote in relation to this amendment and, in particular, whether he is going to recommend to them that they should vote, if it is pressed to a Division, in favour of an amendment which involves the continuation of the right of hereditary Peers to sit. So far, he has not indicated his position in relation to that.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not making this proposal. The Government have put forward a Bill and my noble friend has put forward a proposal. I was asking about the Government's attitude to this. A perfectly good proposal has been made by my noble friend. We have not put it forward from the Front Bench. A number of issues need to be answered and I hope that the Minister will do so. It is not for me to do the Government's job for them. They must come up with answers in relation to their own Bill.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am amazed by that answer. Therefore, the position is that the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords has no view, as I understand it, on whether those in his party in this House should vote for or against the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, or if he does have a view he is not prepared to say what it is. I am slightly surprised by that. I thought that the purpose of his speech was to express the view of the Conservative Party on the amendment. I was obviously wrong.
I turn to the amendment. Perhaps I may apologise for not being the Lord Advocate. I should have mentioned earlier that I was not the Lord Advocate. I am quite sure that the noble Earl would have pitched his very persuasive speech in a different way.
I fully understand the purpose and intent of the noble Earl's amendment. He believes, because he has made it clear at all times, that the hereditary Peers should be entitled to stay in this House to vote and sit, by which he means they should take part fully in the proceedings. He accepts that the amendment relates only to the rights of hereditary Peers to sit but, without any shame or apology, and in a most eloquent speech, he puts that forward as an appropriate proposition. I respect him for holding that view and I understand it. However, I most vehemently disagree with it.
Underlying the Government's approach to the hereditary Peers is the belief that it is wrong in principle that a person should have a right to sit or vote in a legislative House on the basis only of that person's birth. They believe that there are many, many absolutely splendid hereditary Peers. I must tell the House that there are a large number of absolutely splendid people

273
who are not hereditary Peers. These absolutely splendid people who, in some cases, though not many, are as splendid as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, do not have the right to question the Government in the legislative Chamber; to sit on the committees in the House of Lords; to put down oral or written Questions; to participate in debates or seek to persuade other legislators of the rightness of their position. It seems to me unfair that simply by reason of birth a person has that right even if that right were not to include the right to vote. That is the position of this Government. I do not believe it could be made clearer. I do not think—
Lord Mancroft: The noble and learned Lord has been most persuasive and helpful, as always. Can he tell me how fair it is that you sit in your Lordships' House merely by friendship with the Prime Minister? Is that a good idea? What principle does that have?
A noble Lord: Ignore it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I shall not ignore it. As regards the appointment of life Peers, it seems to me that they are entitled to be regarded and appointed on merit and on the basis of their past experience. I am happy to he judged on that basis and it seems to be appropriate that I should be.
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may be forgiven if I have misled the Committee and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I did not aim my remarks at any noble Lord in particular. nor would I dream of so doing. However, the issue has been raised and it is a correct issue. I do not defend the principle of the hereditary peerage. I have always said that to either attack it or defend it is ludicrous. But the principle that the executive that commands a majority in one House should also have the sole ability to appoint to the second Chamber is completely ludicrous. If that is a better principle than the hereditary one, I understand nothing of the principle.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I apologise for misunderstanding the noble Lord's remark. I took it too personally when I should not have done so. Secondly, the position as regards the comments of the Prime Minister in relation to this matter is that we seek parity with the Conservative Party. We do not seek in any way to pack the House, nor do we have the ability to do that. Thirdly, it seems to me much more sensible that people should be appointed on the basis of their own qualities rather than those of their parents, and they can be so judged. It might be appropriate for me to finish my speech rather than continue with this argument.
We set out our position perfectly clearly. It seems to us that we have principle on our side. It is a clear and easily understood principle. It is the principle that goes through the Bill. The proposal of the noble Earl cuts right across that principle by allowing hereditary Peers to sit, albeit not vote, in this Chamber. We therefore object to it and ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
274
Perhaps I may deal with two other points in this regard. First, it is said that the Labour government proposed such an amendment in 1968, so why do they not agree to it now? That is a point made by my noble friend Lord Longford. The position in 1968 was that there were fewer than 160 life Peers, none of whom had over 10 years' experience. The position now is that there are 500 life Peers, appointed over a 41-year period. That is a radically different situation when considering the position in relation to this Chamber.
Our guiding principle throughout this Bill is that we believe it to be wrong for anyone to be a Member of Parliament on the basis of inheritance alone. That point was made clearly in the manifesto when we said that the right we sought to remove was to sit and to vote. So there can be no question but that we have made our position clear in the manifesto. I also agree entirely with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who deprecates the idea of a two-tier system in the Lords. For all those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord—I believe I am permitted to call him such—as usual makes a very persuasive speech. I apologise if I referred to him as the Lord Advocate. That was a slip of the tongue. I should have said "the Minister of the Dome" and then I would have been all right.
The noble and learned Lord makes a persuasive speech; obdurate, as all the government speeches are because they just say "No, no, no" to everything, regardless of the argument. That is a great pity. He said that I put forward this amendment without any shame or apology. He is quite right. I feel no shame in putting it forward, and offer no apology either. I am trying to go along with the Government. They do not want hereditary Peers to vote. I say that that is fine for the purposes of this amendment; we are quite happy not to vote. But why not continue to allow our expertise to be expressed by allowing hereditary Peers to speak. should they so wish? The noble and learned Lord finds that difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he listens to his own Front Bench. That underlines his problem. He listens to his Front Bench a little too much because they will say "No" to everything. He said that hereditary Peers are wrong; that is the beginning and the end of it. That really is, as I said earlier, hereditary cleansing. Get rid of all hereditary Peers. No matter what they can do; get rid of them.
Lord Peston: I heard the noble Earl make that remark earlier. It is most unlike him to use that kind of intemperate language. It is not "hereditary cleansing" because, unlike the analogy that echoes from that remark, none of us is saying that hereditary Peers should not sit in your Lordships' Chamber. We would welcome such people sitting here as nominated Peers. I enjoy that sort of intemperate language, but it is not very helpful on this occasion.

275
There is no suggestion that this Chamber would be a better place without the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We are simply saying that he should be here as a Peer nominated by the Leader of his Party, not because his father was Earl Ferrers.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe it was intemperate language; it is factual language.
It does not matter which Member of the Front Bench opposite we choose; we can knock them all down like sparrows one after the other. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; the Lord Chancellor; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have all said that hereditary Peers are out. I am saying that that is the equivalent of cleansing.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, shakes his head, but if he will stop shaking his head for half a minute until I get to the end of my sentence, he will hear me say that he said that I ought to be here—it was courteous of him to say so—by virtue of being appointed. But this Bill says nothing about appointment; it says "Get rid of hereditary Peers". It is true that some noble Lords opposite have said that when the Weatherill amendment comes into action, there will be 100 hereditary Peers. But what is this Bill about? Are we getting rid of all hereditary Peers or are we retaining 100 Peers? At the moment, we do not know. The Bill in front of us proposes to get rid of all hereditary Peers. If the Weatherill amendment is passed, 91 Peers, or whatever, can be retained. But is the Bill one for getting rid of hereditary Peers or one for retaining them? That is a pretty fundamental difference.
Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are in a quandary. They do not know. They have not told us whether we are all supposed to go or whether about a hundred of us will stay. We just do not know the answer. When that suggestion was put forward in another place, it was turned down. They said that they did not want any hereditary Peers at all. However, now the proposal is before us and everyone talks as if there will be a hundred or so hereditary Peers. That is the mess that the Government find themselves in. Indeed, that is why my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, said that we do not know what is happening.
All I am trying to say to your Lordships in the most courteous way possible is that you can remove all the business of hereditary Peers voting to get over the problem that has infuriated people so much and still have the advantage of them talking. If that is a bore, then it is a bore. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said something pretty extraordinary. After all, he has been here for only two years. He said, "All hereditary Peers ought to go. I am all right because I was appointed by my friends. " Apparently everyone else has got to go. The noble Lord added that his view has the support of the British people. Frankly, I do not think that it has. The proposal may be in the Labour Party manifesto. That does not mean that it has the support of the British people. I believe that many British people are glad to see the House of Lords as it is.
276
However, be that as it may—and I do not wish to continue the argument for too long—I think that it would be a good thing if, in the words of the Government, we were to proceed step by step. We should keep the hereditary Peers here who wish to come and speak but stop them from voting. In that way we would satisfy everyone. If noble Lords consider that a good idea, I would be happy if they would demonstrate their agreement. We have sat on these seats for long enough. Indeed, it is time for your Lordships to take a bit of exercise and come down on one side or the other of the argument. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
11.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Alanbrooke, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L

Annaly, L.

Hemphill, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Berners, B.

Kintore, E.

Caithness, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Liverpool, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Coleridge, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Montrose, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Dunleath, L.

Northbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Effingham, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Stockton, E.

Erroll, E.

Torrington, V.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Trefgame, L.

Gray, L.

Trenchard, V.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ahmed, L.

Desai, L.

Alli, L.

Dixon, L.

Amos, B.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bragg, L.

Gilbert, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brookman, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Chandos, V.

Hardie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Crawley. B.

Hayman, B.

David, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

277

Hoyle, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Islwyn. L.

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Seal]

Richard, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sawyer, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

[Teller.]

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McNair, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Newby, L.

Thornton, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Patel, L.

Whitty. L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.51 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No.17:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("be a member of") and insert ("attend, sit or vote in")
The noble Lord said: The words "by virtue of" already appear in Clause 1. I should like to propose a different form of words for the reference to a Member of this House. It has already been suggested that this wording is not particularly apt for the Bill. Clause 1 focuses on the right of a Peer to be a functioning part of the parliamentary process, and precedence in the Appellate Jurisdictions Act, the Titles Deprivation Act and the Life Peerages Act undoubtedly shows that relevant rights are to attend, sit and vote in the House of Lords. My amendment therefore brings this Bill into line with precedent and clarifies what I suggest is some awkwardness in the present drafting. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I should mention at the outset that the purpose of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and myself in this amendment may perhaps have been slightly clearer had we been able to move our Amendments Nos.7 and 8 on the original Marshalled List. To use the Government's phrase, and mindful of our debate on the Writ issue, those were stand-alone attempts to re-work the wording of Clause 1, partly to probe the Government's intention and partly to assist them in delivering that intention more accurately and properly. In the event, those debates have not taken place, so we have not been able to tease out the Government on this issue. Therefore, some of our doubts about the intention of Clause 1 remain. I make no more of the point than that.
I make no apology for repeating this point, but from the moment the Bill was first published there were many noble Lords, myself included, who had difficulty with the phrase used in Clause 1, "member of the House of Lords". I still do. What does it mean? More importantly, what is its force in statute? That is a question that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, declined to address when I asked him about it previously.
278
Following the amendment of my noble friends on the Front Bench and that of my noble friend Lord Norrie these questions assume even greater pertinence. I repeat the comment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that it is interesting to note that the two most recent precedents in this regard—the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963—both avoid reference to "membership of the House of Lords". Both use the more accurate—I am bound to say more elegant—construction that we propose in the amendment; namely, the right to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House.
It is the same precedent to be found in the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Titles Deprivation Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred previously. I simply ask, therefore, why the Government have chosen to draft Clause 1 in the way that they have. I repeat: it would assist the Committee if the Government Front Bench could advise us of the statutory precedent for the phrase,
"member of the House of Lords".
In advance of any reply, and without wishing to stretch the point too far, I suggest that it is a nebulous concept. We are bound to assume that the Government's intent in Clause 1 is to focus upon removing the current right of the hereditary peerage as a functioning part of the legislative and parliamentary process. We have been told that often enough.
It is worth noting the wording in the manifesto. it states:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not de pendent 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 is wholly cognisant of, and consistent, with our amendment. It concentrates upon the rights of "sitting" and "voting" in the House. Clearly, the Bill, for whatever reason, has lost something in translation. It might deliver the spirit of the manifesto commitment, but not its letter. In so doing, it loses much of its impact because, contrary to the way in which Clause 1 is constructed and as intimated by the Lofthouse opinion, it is not membership of the House per se that permits hereditary Peers to be part of the process; rather, it is attendance at this House on command of the Crown in Writs of Summons and the associated rights of sitting and voting.
A persistent theme of the Bill, which I mentioned at Second Reading and which has echoed throughout our debate today, is that however much the Government may eulogise it, simplicity of drafting is no substitute for legislative clarity and coherence. The Government's rhetoric has on occasions characterised the hereditary peerage as being anachronistic and illegitimate. In passing, I simply make the obvious point that no such clarity attaches to all the other and subsequent: elements of the reform of the House. Necessarily, therefore, the question before us as a House of legislative scrutiny has to be whether the drafting will achieve the desired effect. At the very least, if only because of the Lofthouse opinion, there is room for speculation that the use of the woolly phrase,
"member of the House of Lords",

279
will not do so. The Committee's discussions on the amendments of my noble friends on the Front Bench earlier today amply demonstrate that point.
One other thought occurs to me about this. All of us, whatever the route that has brought us to this House, are acutely aware of the duties and obligations that are inter-weaved within our rights of attendance. In some small way, the use of the phrase,
"member of the House of Lords",
unpicks that stitching. In effect, it emphasises not the dignity of the status of your Lordship's House, but the perceived privilege that the Government maintain—too often they have done so in an unseemly way—attaches to the continued presence of the hereditary peerage. A small suspicion looms in my mind. Could it be that the text of the Bill owes as much to making a categoric political statement as it does to giving legislative effect to the Government's policy intention? Does not confusing the two purposes mean that neither is satisfied?
In conclusion, albeit that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and myself are only seeking to probe the Government on the issue at this stage, I cannot see that they can seriously object to the amendment. After all—although he is no longer in his place, I think I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Peston here—it does much to assist their purpose.
Midnight
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: During the course of his interventions this afternoon the Lord Chancellor said that he welcomed the questions that were put to him. I therefore felt that it was only a matter of oversight that had led him not to answer some questions that I had ventured to put to him in a modest contribution that I had made. I asked him whether the term "member of the House of Lords"had been judicially defined and how the Government themselves, if they insisted on employing it in the Bill, defined it. For whatever reason, the noble and learned Lord did not answer those questions. Yet I think that they are rather important for reasons which I will not go over again but which were well rehearsed, particularly in the context of the opinion of Mr. John Lofthouse, which was much mentioned earlier this afternoon.
The amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne overcomes the difficulty that is inherent in the employment, for the first time in statute, of this term. No one quite knows what is meant by "member of the House of Lords". It has the merit, of course, of being simple in the words which are used. We are all in favour of simple language provided that the simple language has a simple meaning. But so far we have not been given any meaning, simple or otherwise, and a great deal turns upon it.
I know that the Government are sceptical, to put it charitably, about the motives of those of us who have put forward amendments with a view to securing greater clarity in the Bill. For my part, I bear that scepticism philosophically because I believe it is important that this
280
House should hold to its task of reviewing, revising and improving the quality of legislation. What, as I understand it, my noble friend intends in the amendment is to put beyond peradventure what the Government are seeking to overturn.
We hear a great deal about the manifesto—far too much—and how unjust it is that people should have the right to attend, sit and vote in the House by reason of the accident of birth. It is that, in terms, which is put forward by my noble friend in this amendment. I shall wait now with great anticipation to hear why the Government will not abandon this hitherto totally undefined term and adopt the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment returns the Committee to some of the questions with which we started off earlier today, or earlier yesterday, depending on how one wishes to look at it. It arises out of discussions and also out of the opinion of Mr. John Lofthouse, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has just said. As my noble friends have explained, the problem is that the expression "member of the House of Lords" may well be one without any legal meaning. I see that the Lord Advocate is with us. He may well like to give us the Scottish view on this matter. I was disappointed that he did not come to give me a Scottish view on the earlier amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray.
Earlier today my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew asked the Lord Chancellor to state unequivocally where the phrase "a member of the House of Lords" had been construed in law and he made that point again because the response he received was probably not very satisfactory. The response was more or less that the phrase is a concept that the man in the street can easily understand. I am not entirely sure whether that is the same as construed in law. I wonder whether the man in the street does understand. Does the man in the street understand that Irish Peers do not necessarily sit in your Lordships' House unless they have UK peerages or that Peers with courtesy titles, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, are not allowed to sit here?
For example, my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas is flying the flag as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in his campaign to gain a seat in the Scottish Parliament, a campaign which I am pretty confident will be successful, and successful on the first-past-the-post system at that. My noble friend had the problem that not many people understood why Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in the past did not sit in the House of Lords and only now sits in this House as Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I do not believe that the man in the street clearly understands the concept.
I also have in mind my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Devizes, the Earl of Ancram. People may be very confused as to why he sits in the other place and not in this House. The reason is that his is a courtesy title and he is heir to the Marquess of Lothian.

281
1 do not believe that the man in the street can readily understand some of the nuances of titles. It is not a satisfactory' answer simply to say that there is no problem with construction because the man in the street understands it. That is not good enough.
If we are to have this law, the concept of a hereditary peerage should be properly defined. My noble friends have explained why they have used the phrase
"attend, sit or vote in".
That wording has been used in the past. In the past one often heard the argument advanced by parliamentary draftsmen that this was the way it had always been done and it should carry on being done in this way. Some members of the present Government during the passage of the Scotland Bill used the same argument when we suggested that certain words and phrases were not necessary in that measure. They said that that was the way it had always been done. It put the matter beyond doubt because that legal terminology had been used down the ages in legislation. My noble friends suggest the same here.
I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord's explanation of the earlier comment of his noble and learned friend about the understanding of the man in the street. I believe I have proved fairly conclusively that it is very much in doubt that the man in the street understands it because of the complexities to which I referred earlier.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We chose this wording deliberately to make it as comprehensive as possible. I am not aware of what the man in the street thinks of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, as he then was, but if he asks me I shall explain that he possessed that title because he had disclaimed a senior one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I always seek to be helpful. His title of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was a courtesy title as he was the younger son of the Duke of Hamilton.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Precisely. But, if anyone has investigated the arcane streams of Scottish peerages, I believe it is correct that he disclaimed his opportunity to use the subordinate title, which nevertheless was a substantive one. If I remember correctly, the titles of the Duke of Hamilton descend in a peculiarly Scottish way. I am glad to see that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on these occasions, as so often. If the man in the street, or his wife, then approached me about the problem of the Earl of Ancram I would point out that he was not a real Peer at all but had a courtesy title since his father, the present Marquess, is still alive and the Earl of Ancram—otherwise known as Michael Ancram—is not in receipt of the happy beneficence of a Writ of Acceleration.
I turn to the particular question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am not aware that I am able to point to any judicial definition of.
"member of the House of Lords",
Or,
282
"member of the House of Commons".
I am absolutely certain, sure and positive that I cannot point to any legal definition of,
"member of the Welsh Assembly".
Nevertheless, those expressions are found in statute. If someone is expelled from membership of the House of Commons I apprehend that judges will have no difficulty in construing it.
We wanted to have a simple definition that was as comprehensive as possible. It includes the right to attend, sit or vote in the House of Lords. I imagine that it would also include the right to the use of the facilities, otherwise known as club rights.
I think we have it plain, simple and understandable. We do not want continuing arguments in the future as to whether there are any other functions beyond attendance, sitting or voting which might have been former rights of Peers. That is the reason we have adopted this formulation.
Lord Marlesford: I am deeply puzzled, because:if one reads the Explanatory Notes to the Bill one sees the word "membership" defined as the right to sit arid vote. Surely it is the opposite way round? It ought to be. The Bill should have the technical terms of sitting and voting; the Explanatory Notes should have the tnan in the street's meaning of "member".
I would have thought that my noble friend's amendment was extremely sound. It is much better to have the words in the Explanatory Notes in the Bill and the words in the Bill in the Explanatory Notes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not really, because this amendment talks about attendance, sitting and vottng, whereas "attendance" is not found in the Explanatory Notes.
Lord Marlesford: That is merely an omission.
Lord Northbrook: Could the Minister comment on counsel's view that Clause 1 as it stands does not change the law? This again goes to what we talked about earlier: that nobody is a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage but the membership is conferred by the obedience to the Writ of Summons. There is therefore a need for the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We had almost a full two hours on this point, but I can still remember it. What the Lord Chancellor said, and therefore it must be right, was that a hereditary peerage inheres in the person presently entitled to it. However, the right to come to this place depends on the Writ of Summons.
That was the position earlier today and it remains the position now.
The Earl of Northesk: It is self-evident that noble Lords opposite set great store by the manifesto, so hope to pursue this point a little further. It is also

283
self-evident—returning to what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the man in the street—that the manifesto refers specifically to sitting and voting.
I wonder why the matter has changed in translation from the manifesto, which presumably is understood by the man in the street, in terms of drafting and legislation. I make that point simply because one could be tempted to the conclusion that the intent of the Government here is to make the phrasing of the Bill so comprehensive and transparently intelligible to the man in the street because they now believe that the man in the street did not actually understand the manifesto.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I did not mention the manifesto. Secondly, it has been asserted without any evidence that I have discovered that only 2 per cent of the men in the street understood the manifesto and therefore we wanted to make it clear for the other 98 per cent.
Earl Ferrers: Could I ask the noble Lord a question for my own comprehension, without irritating him too much? He did let something go rather quickly and I did not hear him properly. He spoke about club rights. Did he say that hereditary Peers would continue to have club rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly not, and the noble Lord never irritates me. We always have the most harmonious of relationships, which is why our respective friends deeply suspect us.
I did not say that existing hereditary Peers would be entitled to the continuation of club rights. I did not say that, nor did I mean it.
Earl Ferrers: Would the noble Lord be good enough to say what he did say about club rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course. I was perhaps speaking a little quickly because of the lateness of the hour. What I said was that the three activities described in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, might not sufficiently encompass all aspects of membership of this House: for instance, coming in for a cup of tea; using the car park; using the coat hook, and similar related activities. That might be something rather wider than attending, sitting and voting. For the avoidance of doubt, I simply mentioned that club rights might, for instance, be the object of some noble Lords' future ambitions, and I did not want them to be disappointed by not putting the formula as comprehensively, plainly and simply as possible.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Trefgarne: One of the features of ministerial replies to amendments during the course of these proceedings is that they often raise as many questions as they answer. I fear that that has happened again this evening and I cannot promise the noble Lord that we shall not return to the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No.17A:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("be") to end of line 6 and insert ("by virtue solely of a hereditary peerage a member entitled to vote in the House of Lords except on constitutional matters, pending the implementation of measures ensuring comprehensive reform of the House of Lords which maintain existing powers to control the Executive and such measures receiving Royal Assent")
The noble Lord said: At this early hour of the morning, I thank all noble Lords for being present as I move Amendment No.17A standing in my name. As is so often the case, unless one reads the Bill and the amendment together, the position can be difficult for the man in the street such as myself to understand. It may be wise for me to go through the amendment.
The Bill states:
"Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal".
My amendment provides that no one shall,
"by virtue solely of a hereditary peerage [be] a member entitled to vote in the House of Lords except on constitutional matters".
I do not need to continue with the remainder of the amendment.
There is only one way to know the will of the people, and that is to listen to them. Her Majesty's Government are determined at this stage of the House of Lords Bill to remove a vast number of listeners to many diverse opinions—rural, agricultural, urban or industrial. On defence we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. There are also views expressed on finance. Those listeners express the views heard when speaking on legislation passing through this House.
We are discussing stage one of a reform Bill relating to this legislature. Should noble Lords allow this stage to pass unchallenged, unheeded, the power of the executive will thrive. It will blossom and completely overshadow the importance of the will of the people.
On 21st April a conference was held in the Moses Room. Counsel's opinion was heard and questioned. The opinion is available in the House of Lords Library and is therefore in the public domain. Copies are available to all Members of the House and some have already been posted to noble Lords. During the conference it was made clear that the executive is not empowered to ensure the passage of this Bill by the use of the Parliament Acts. This House should not fear rejecting the Bill by the threat of the use of the Parliament Acts. It is quite apparent that another place is incapable of controlling the powers of the executive. If we are to be responsible to the will of the people we in the House of Lords must do so.
In Amendment No.31, my noble friend Lord Weatherill and others raise a principle which must be applauded; that a certain number of hereditary Peers should be permitted to vote. I argue that such an amendment might be best raised in stage two, and so comply with the wishes of so many of your Lordships that stages one and two should be considered together.
We should consider the two stages together precisely because the will of the people must be pursued. Hence, I recommend that the hereditary Peers should retain the opportunity to vote on all constitutional matters. There are so many sound opinions to be heard from life and hereditary Peers; opinions influenced by the feelings of millions of people outside the walls of Westminster. I call upon your Lordships to consider this amendment favourably. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I shall attempt to reply to the noble Lord's amendment with great animation in order not to invite the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to suggest that I am either exhausted or bored with the proceedings of this House. I am certainly not. If he says that some of our replies are somewhat familiar, I say to him and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, that this displays not boredom or exhaustion but the lateness of the hour, and apologise. It may be because a great many of the same arguments are deployed in advancing some of the amendments.
The noble Lord's amendment is another valiant attempt to find a combination of circumstances in which hereditary Peers can remain in your Lordships' House with certain rights. I am sure that the Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that it is no more acceptable to the Government than were the others. I understand the proposal to be that the hereditary Peers should retain their right to sit but not to vote except on constitutional matters. However, those constitutional matters are not precisely or fully defined.
The noble Lord, in moving the amendment, referred to the Parliament Acts, but of course the amendment does not refer to those pieces of legislation. Clearly, the context of the amendment and the way it was introduced suggest that any additional rights given to hereditary Peers would include a Bill, any Bill, to give effect to stage two of reform of your Lordships' House. I am afraid to say to the Committee that all I can say is, "Here we are again". This is yet another proposal to delay the removal of the hereditary Peers so that they are present and able to vote in any way—although my suspicions are that they would vote against any proposal for further reform.
The noble Lord suggested that in some way hereditary Peers may be guardians in a particular form of the constitution. But in this House any individual Peer or groups of individual Peers would nit perform that role; it is the House as a whole which performs the role and function of guardian and peruser of the constitution. The House without the hereditary Peers will retain its same place in the constitution and in perusal of constitutional matters as now.
This amendment, like all the others along these lines, fails to address the fact that the Government see no justification for the principle of continued hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Williams said in reply to an earlier amendment some two or three hours ago, this simply will not do. It is no good noble Lords trying different permutations in the hope that eventually they will light on one to which the Government will say "Yes".
286
We have already indicated that the only amendment to which we are likely to give a favourable response—and that will of course depend on the nature and type of debate surrounding it—is the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. We have already indicated that that is one which we would look at with some degree of enthusiasm, but it is not contained in the amendment before us tonight. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it, and if he wishes to press it I would ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that the noble Baroness has given quite as much thought to her reply as I would have expected. I did not gain the impression from what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. said that this is just an attempt to preserve the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords for a little longer. It goes rather deeper than that. This is about the powers of the House of Lords, and it is also about the nature of the interim House.
As I said earlier, in reply to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, what we are talking about in the Bill is not the removal of the hereditary peerage; it is the creation of a House of patronage. Some noble Lords do not like that word, but that is what it is, because nobody will be a Member of the House unless it is as a resift of that patronage. Moreover, that patronage will be in the hands of the Prime Minister. No statement that the Prime Minister has made to date—if the noble Baroness wants to make a correction I shall be very happy to hear it—has indicated to me that he will not be able to control the total numbers coming to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, was asking the noble Baroness whether she recognised that there is a danger in the fact that another place will therefore be able to control the membership of the House of Lords, and that very serious constitutional issues arise. The noble Baroness shakes her head, and I hope she will reply in a moment to tell me why that is not the case; I look forward to that. Is there not therefore a considerable danger that constitutional change will be able to go through the House with very little debate, because it has been controlled by the Prime Minister of the day?
The solution of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is to retain hereditary Peers to deal specifically with constitutional issues. That may or may not be the right way. What I would like to tease out of the Government is whether they believe there is a case for having some form of special measure to deal with constitutional issues.
We have been down this road before. In 1911 it was decided that a septennial Act, as it was then, a quinquennial Act as it has now come to be known, which was clearly a constitutional safeguard, would not form part of the Parliament Act. I know that the Government have no intention of changing that, so they have already accepted that there is a role for the House in constitutional matters. All that I am asking is this: do they think that there is an extension of that, perhaps a threshold, for instance? I think that in. the Scottish Parliament there is a threshold for changing constitutional matters.

287
So again the Government have done some thinking on these matters, which I welcome; it is refreshing. If that is not the right solution, there may be others. This is an issue to which we shall have to return, and I would very much welcome hearing the thoughts of the noble Baroness on it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: As always, I am very much indebted to the noble Lord for raising these very interesting broad principles, which, I agree, may well form part of our discussions on the second stage of reform, or indeed on the reference to the Royal Commission. They are in no way contained in the amendment before us.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have no intention of straying into stage two. I would hope that stage two would solve these problems. I would hope that once the Labour Party has thought about these things it will come up with a solution. That is not what the Bill is creating. It is not creating stage two. It is creating an interim House. This is a matter of safeguards in the interim House. We are creating a House of patronage, entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.
The question that I am putting to the noble Baroness—and I agree on stage two—is this: does she not think that there should be some greater safeguards to ensure that the untrammelled powers of the Prime Minister of the day should not be used against the interests of the country?
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very ready to engage with the noble Lord in precisely such a discussion. He will recall the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last autumn when he said that he would reduce his individual powers of patronage which led to the very sensible and somewhat detailed proposals in the White Paper on the interim House which I am sure the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee have had an opportunity to study.
However, I cannot see anything in the amendment we are now considering that raises any of those issues. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, or the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if he is championing this amendment as a broad constitutional issue, will be courteous enough to explain to the Committee the meaning of the second part of the amendment, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, as "other matters" and the words:
"pending the implementation of measures ensuring comprehensive reform of the House of Lords which maintain existing powers to control the Executive and such measures receiving Royal Assent".
Lord Strathclyde: I welcome the noble Baroness's affirmation that the Prime Minister is going to do something. But when will that be? Will it be before the passage of the Bill, before the end of the Session, at the start of the next Session or next year? The Prime Minister thinks that it is important, otherwise he would not have said that he is going to do something. I
288
presume that there has been discussion at the centre of government about which the noble Baroness will know and can inform the Committee. That would be welcome.
The amendment is one way of dealing with the issue of untrammelled powers. It may not be the solution. I merely ask whether the Government recognise that there is an issue here which needs to be resolved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I am not being entirely clear. I recognise that there are interesting issues which the noble Lord raises but in no way are they embraced by the amendment under consideration by the Committee.
Lord Harlech: I wish to address the Minister. There is a serious issue here in relation to the concept of a parliamentary democracy which is extremely important. It is happening now. What is being undermined is freedom of speech. As Nelson Mandela explained clearly to his own people and to the people of the world upon inauguration back into the Commonwealth, if you have institutions which are serious and keep a democracy in order you should keep in place those institutions and be very careful that you do not destroy them. I urge the Committee to read the speech: it is a good one.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I thank all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I should like to answer her question in part. I repeat the part of my speech in which I referred to existing powers to control the executive. I should say to the noble Baroness, while she is having a little giggle on the Front Bench. that she should listen to the public. It is the public who tell me that they are extremely disappointed that there does not seem to be any control over the executive exercised by another place. That is why I raised that issue. It was not to score brownie points.
The Front Bench of Her Majesty's Government should understand that I speak as an independent Peer. The Government are aiming to make sure that the independent Peers are retained in the House and would like it to have that independence. I am not here to delay the House. Our main role—it does not matter whether we are life or hereditary Peers—is to ensure that we ask the other place to think again and not to rush things. We do not wish to see the legislators trip up. We want to see things done correctly. I am not trying to waste time, as I am being accused of. I shall sit down but I ask Members of the Committee to bear in mind that I shall probably revisit this issue on Report having given everyone the opportunity of reading counsel's opinion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No.18.
Page 1, line 5, after ("Lords") insert ("only")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.26, 64 and 153. Amendment No.26, which is the main one, cannot be

289
claimed to be a wrecking or delaying amendment. Indeed, it is not even anything to do with arcane construction in the legal sense. It throws a crumb, which I hope Members opposite will pick up.
In moving the amendment I am conscious that it goes against the grain of the feelings of those Members of the Committee who call for the elimination of all hereditary involvement in our Parliament. But Members will observe a caveat which provides a degree of democratic legitimacy to hereditary Peers; a legitimacy that is the cause. shall I say, of the resentment or perhaps disquiet that occasions the demands for our removal.
This House has been established as a House of hereditary Peers for some 750 years, maintained notably by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Berkeley, from the opposite Benches, who, unfortunately, are not in their places. It is they and their fellows who have fashioned the principles and manners of our debate. The more recent appointees who have come to this House have come to learn, appreciate and uphold these ways and means. We, the hereditaries, are not to be rubbished into the dustbin of history. The Stalinist putsch is not by any means in the traditions of this House.
Without wishing to lecture noble Lords, perhaps I may say that these principles and manners are unique in that they are a matter not only of admiration and envy throughout the democratic world and in other legislative chambers; but are also regarded in amazement. I was expecting a roar of laughter at that. The amazement is in the understanding that they are manners that work well and better than in most political fora.
These are activities and advantages that the other place does not enjoy. If the reformed Chamber is to be elected, appointed or a mixture of both, it is important that such traditions are respected and protected. I suggest that a hereditary element should be preserved provided that that element can justify its democratic legitimacy. What better way is there of creating such democratic legitimacy than at the polls in the United Kingdom and in service in our political institutions as Amendment No.26 provides.
Seven years service will provide a double test at the polls and a sufficient degree of proficiency in the political field to enable Peers to make a worthwhile contribution to the debates in the Chamber both as politicians and as concerns their outside interests. Such will be necessary if they are to have sufficient income to perform their duties adequately and will, by definition, provide an expertise in the life of the country outside the somewhat incestuous life of politics. Hereditary Peers, as has been pointed out by noble Lords throughout the Chamber, have a varied and remarkable experience which is a source worthy of tapping.
A hereditary Peer will have the privilege only during his lifetime and it would be up to his or her heirs to prove their right in their own turn to gain the privilege under the amendment. Thus there will be in perpetuity the right of a hereditary Peer to qualify, sit and vote in the upper Chamber. I emphasise the word "qualify". That, I believe, would he a reasonable and proper remembrance and memorial to the service that we and our forebears have left to the British Parliament.
It may be objected that an unusual number of Peer; would be created who would seriously change the balance of the House. That could be a matter for the appointments commission.
There are several more pages to my speech. I should like to refer in particular to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, at Second Reading. He voiced concern at the possible implication for the monarchy of the demise of the hereditary principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, assured us that Her Majesty is content with this Bill. Nevertheless, we have heard from many quarters that there is concern throughout the country that the Bill is the thin edge of the wedge prising the constitution apart towards a republic.
I need only refer to,
"Blairite think-tank wants to downgrade the Queen's foreigr. role".
which appeared in yesterday's Evening Standard to impress upon your Lordships the need for everybody in this Chamber to understand that there is a fear that this Bill will affect the legitimacy of the monarchy. Let us beware of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our rush to complete the third way.
It is also evident that there is an element of the Weatherill amendment which indicates that there is a use for hereditary Peers, even though they will wittier on the vine. This amendment ensures that there w ill always be a place for hereditary Peers who can earn it and deserve it to sit, speak and vote in your Lordships' Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Although it is late, my noble friend has come forward with an ingenious amendment. The Government seemed to have only two objections to hereditary Peers. One was the numbers game; namely, that far too many hereditary Peers seem to end up, even if their forebears had been appointed by Labour governments, on the Conservative Benches. I suggested earlier that perhaps if more hereditary Peers sat on the Labour Benches we might not be having this Bill. But I detected from the body language on the Government Benches that I was perhaps wrong.
Perhaps it is the second point that irritates them; that is, a lack of democratic legitimacy. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam has given the Government an opportunity to look at the possibility of retaining sonic hereditary Peers, but only those who have received democratic legitimacy by being elected Members, perhaps not of an elected second Chamber but of other elected bodies in the country. He listed them in his Amendment No.26.
The first is the House of Commons. Of course, there are no examples of that nature because currently no hereditary Peer can be elected to the House of Commons unless they renounce their Peerage. We are discussing the position on the assumption that this Bill passes and hereditary Peers no longer have a seat here and have a right to vote and stand for election to the House of Commons. In those circumstances there may well he somebody who is elected to the House of Commons who would therefore fall into the category of this amendment.

291
But there are Members of your Lordships' Chamber who are undoubtedly represented in the other groups. I wondered whether the amendment could be christened the Stockton amendment. My noble friend Lord Stockton is standing for the European Parliament and I confidently predict that he will be elected. My noble friends Lord Bethell and Lord Inglewood are also standing and I equally confidently predict that they will be elected. I can certainly do it in the case of my noble friend Lord Inglewood because he is in the happy position, given the ridiculous electoral system, that he does not have to do a hand's turn to be elected because he is number one on the list. I happen to know my noble friend is working very hard, but that is one of the consequences of the list system. It is only people like my noble friend Lord Stockton who is in what I think they call the cusp position in the list who has to do some solid work. If he succeeds, he gets elected; if he does not succeed in attracting a few more votes, he does not get elected.
I point that out as an aside to show how iniquitous the list system is. But your Lordships know it is iniquitous despite the votes we had on the subject. As I calculate, my noble friends Lord Stockton, Lord Bethell and Lord Inglewood will be elected to the European Parliament. If, after a couple of terms in that Parliament, they decide they have had enough or get dropped down the list, whatever may happen to the list system, and they leave the European Parliament, then they certainly have democratic legitimacy. In fact they will have more democratic legitimacy than many life Peers. They will have been elected for 10 years; that is more than many life Peers. They will have been elected for 10 years—for two five-year terms—and that is more than can be said for many life Peers. I only managed eight years in the other place. So the European Parliament is a good example in that respect. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan was a member of the European Parliament and is obviously a hereditary Member of this place. He was certainly elected democratically for the European Parliament and would fall within my noble friend's amendment.
As to the Scottish Parliament, I have already indicated that my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, flying under his pre-title day, is even more confusing to most people because he inherited the title of the Earldom of Selkirk long after he became Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. Indeed, it has to be said that he was Lord James Douglas-Hamilton all the time that he was the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh West. He then inherited the Earldom of Selkirk, which he gave up. Unfortunately, the electorate then gave him up and he came here as Lord Selkirk of Douglas. However, my noble friend will end up in the Scottish Parliament. Some of us think that he ought to be the speaker of that parliament. Knowing his tenacity, I suspect that he will be elected to that parliament for a number of terms. Therefore, when he decides to retire from the Scottish Parliament, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to say that he had certainly been democratically elected and that he could resume his seat in your Lordships' House.
292
My noble friend Lord Sempill is also standing for the Scottish Parliament and the same argument holds for him. If he were to be elected for, say, a few terms, he would certainly have plenty of democratic legitimacy. To show that this is not just a Tory concern, I should point out to the Committee that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is standing for the Liberal Democrats. If he were to be elected for a couple of terms, it would be reasonable to claim that he had plenty of democratic legitimacy if he wanted to come here.
Members of the Committee may be pleased to know that I am not aware of any hereditary Peers who are thinking about standing for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, I am afraid that I shall just have to pass that by. Similarly, I do not believe that any hereditary Peers are standing for the Welsh Assembly, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who is a life Peer, intends to do so. However, he would not fall under this provision.
We do not have regional assemblies in England; indeed, I doubt very much that we will ever have them. I believe that that is one of these little pies in the sky which get kicked about so as to keep the people happy and the West Lothian question at bay. The proposition of regional assemblies in England seems to me to show a total failure to understand the West Lothian question or, indeed, federal states. Nevertheless, we shall leave that to one side.
There is, of course, the new Greater London Authority. I imagine that some hereditary Peers—I know not who—may be standing in that respect. There is certainly a life Peer who is more than a little interested in leading the Greater London Authority as the elected mayor; namely, my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare. There are also many hereditary Members of your Lordships' House who serve on local authorities, some of whom have given a good deal more service than seven years. Indeed, some of them have given decades of serious and excellent service to local government. That probably applies to Members from all sides. They have been democratically elected time after time. It seems to me to be quite reasonable to suggest that, when they cease to be members of those bodies, they could come to this House.
My noble friend has been very generous in his amendment. He says that this provision should apply when people cease to be members of such bodies. I am afraid that I would have gone a good deal further and said that when they achieve seven years' service, even though they may continue to be members of such bodies, they may come here to give us the benefit of their wisdom and advice, derived from their membership of such democratically elected assemblies.
I could go on, but I shall resist the temptation to do so. In his amendments, I believe that my noble friend has actually lighted on a way which may help the Government to bring to this Chamber people who have democratic credibility and legitimacy and who come from a background of other democratically elected bodies in our country. Indeed, I think it is right to give some presence to those bodies in your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. I certainly know that in any

293
discussion about local government, those of your Lordships who serve or have served in local government, as I did a long time ago, bring a good deal of knowledge to the debates; indeed, much more knowledge than people who have had no experience of local government.
Moreover, the same could be true of Members of the European Parliament. I think ex-Members of the European Parliament bring much wisdom and knowledge to your Lordships' House when matters European are discussed. I think my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam has a good point. I look forward to the Minister giving a sympathetic answer.
Lord Carter: The Committee should—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carter: The Committee should know that Chief Whips are only allowed out after midnight.
In replying to Amendment No.18 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.26, 64 and 153. Amendment No.18 is a paving amendment for Amendment No.26. Amendments Nos.64 and 153 are consequential. As the noble Earl said, Amendment No.26 is at the heart of the group. The amendment seeks to allow hereditary Peers who have served for seven years in any of the bodies listed in the amendment to receive a Writ of Summons to sit and vote in the House of Lords. In the case of the House of Commons, any hereditary Peer elected to that Chamber will be entitled to a Writ of Summons on the day after he ceases to be an MP. This has the effect of ensuring that such a Peer who has been elected to the Commons and subsequently loses his or her seat in an election can continue to remain in the legislature by taking a seat in the second Chamber. Therefore it is proposed that a Peer who has been rejected by the electorate comes straight to the House of Lords. That seems to me a rather curious concept of the democratic legitimacy that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I know the noble Lord will be glad that I am not talking about organic farming but the fact that the person concerned has done seven years' service in a relevant body is sufficient. The whole point of the amendment is that seven years' appropriate service is proof of democratic legitimacy.
Lord Carter: I am not sure that the noble Earl entirely understands his own amendment. It states that if a Peer has lost his seat in the House of Commons he immediately receives a Writ of Summons to come to the House of Lords. Therefore he has been rejected by the electorate but he comes to the House of Lords.
If a hereditary Peer is currently sitting in one of the eight bodies specified in the amendment, and has been for seven years, he will be able to continue in the Lords after this Bill is passed. I must point out that the amendment refers to a regional assembly in England, but that concept does not yet exist. Also the amendment is not clear as to whether the Peer will sit for life or for the duration of a parliament. The amendment refers to a
294
Writ of Summons which of course entitles the bearer to attendance for the duration of one parliament only. If it were for life, a Peer who had been a Member of the House of Commons could not seek re-election there. My speaking notes state that this amendment rather misses the point. After what I have just said, I think that that is rather a kindly way of looking at the amendment.
The Bill is designed to end the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. The Committee will not be surprised at that piece of information. That is not because we think they are all incapable of holding public office and that they should prove their worth in another elected body but because we do not accept as a matter of principle that in social, economic or any other terms the hereditary Peers can reasonably be considered to be representative of the people of the country as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrednish, says that the amendment is ingenious. Many years on the Opposition Front Bench have taught me that when someone uses the word "ingenious" he is a little bereft of argument. The noble Lord gave a long list of Peers in various legislatures. He displayed his knowledge of many colleagues. If I did not know the noble Lord better, I would say he was engaged in something of a filibuster.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I had been engaged in something of a filibuster, I would have listed all Members of your Lordships' House who are members of local authorities and explained the work that they did. That would have taken a longer time because many Members of this Chamber are members of local authorities. Therefore the noble Lord should be cautious as regards accusing me of perhaps filibustering, because I can do so.
Lord Carter: Well, we all know that. That is why I said it was only something of a filibuster. I also noticed that the noble Lord carefully did not deal with the central weakness of the amendment which I have already pointed out. Allowing the bodies listed in this amendment to act as a kind of workplace where hereditary Peers can spend a seven-year apprenticeship before entering this Chamber is a rather curious approach to the parliamentary process. If hereditary Peers wish to continue in the public service and stand for election to another body, that is all well and good. But to suggest that once they have completed a seven-year stint they can then by right return to this place is unacceptable. Why does this amendment discriminate against all the others who have served in an elected Chamber for seven years? Why are hereditary Peers particularly selected for this process?
The amendment is defective in drafting; it is wrong in principle; it is bad in logic. I trust that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
Lord Harlech: It is of interest not merely to those of us in the Chamber at this late hour but to the country as a whole that the Minister and he who convenes this House is also in a position where he convenes agricultural workers, who provide food for this country.

295
That is important. My reason for referring briefly to this matter is that you cannot start to explain how you cannot do that that is on statute and still have an organised union. You must be careful as to whom you are organising, the union or the country. You must be very careful what you say.
Lord Carter: I refer the noble Lord to page 65 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, which clearly states that a debate must be relevant to the question before the House.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I thank the noble Lord for his answer to my amendment. My introduction was curtailed. It was only six minutes. I threw away several pages of notes.
The object, which the noble Lord seems to have missed, was to retain an element of the hereditary principle. As I said, I know that noble Lords opposite do not like that principle, but I suggested a way whereby a small amount of that vital element should be retained as a memorial to the service of hereditary Peers in this House. I shall return to the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: moved Amendment No.19:
Page 1, line 5. leave out ("by virtue or) and insert ("because he holds")
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos.68 and 155. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who will reply, that he need not be too worried and apply himself too hard, as he normally does, to the amendment. This is an exploratory amendment. It attempts to find out exactly what is meant. The three amendments deal with the same point. The phrase in the Bill is, "by virtue of". Clause 1 states that,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I do not know what "by virtue of means. I merely think that it is better to say, "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords because he holds a hereditary peerage". It is simpler and more understandable. "By virtue of seems to encompass something rather greater than "because he holds". I can give only one example, although it is not the reason for tabling the amendment. It could be said that my noble friend Lord Cranborne holds his position by virtue of a hereditary peerage even though he does not sit in this Chamber because he holds a hereditary peerage. The words may have been chosen deliberately to exclude my noble friend. If that is so, it is slightly ungenerous. I merely think it is easier to use the words, "because he holds"; then everyone knows where they are. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think the answer to the noble Earl's question is essentially contained in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes. It indicates that,
296
"The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including … any holder of a peerage by virtue of acceleration…and …any holder of a hereditary peerage by virtue of the termination of a peerage in abeyance".
We were looking for a proposition that was sufficiently flexible to cover direct and indirect relationships. "By virtue of achieves that. We chose a broad proposition in order to be sure that any Member of the House whose membership was in any way connected or related to hereditary peerages would have his membership of the House ended. I can confirm the thought that was in the mind of the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: Oh dear! Oh dear! I was holding out hopes that the noble Lord and the Government would be more generous. My noble friend is here by accelerated arrangement—whatever the description is—and came up by that route. Having been a Member of another place, he could have been made a life Peer. Had he been made a life Peer, he would have been continued; because he is here by accelerated promotion, he will be discontinued even though he is not an hereditary Peer. That seems to be a bit tough. The noble Lord can relax; I shall not dispute the matter any further. I do not say that I will not revisit the problem later, but I am grateful to him for explaining what I thought were rather complex words. I am glad to know that there is a reason for the complexity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1 a.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.20:
Page 1, line 5, leave out second ("a") and insert ("an")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.63, 122 and 156. This is a matter of very considerable importance. It is one of a scholastic nature, at which I am not particularly expert. One wonders why one puts "a" hereditary as opposed to "an" hereditary. One talks and writes about "an" hotel and it is a perfectly normal thing to do when the word "a" precedes the letter "h".
Being a prudent kind of fellow, I tried to find the correct way of dealing with this matter. I looked in the second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, which states:
"A is used before all consonants except silent h"—
Noble Lords: The "h" is silent.
Earl Ferrers: Noble Lords keep saying "silent"; I am speaking.
"(a history, an hour); an was formerly usual before an unaccented syllable beginning with h and is still often seen and heard (an historian, an hotel, an hysterical scene, an hereditary title, an habitual offender)".
That comes from Fowler's Modern English Usage. I defy even the Government to beat that. I suggest that "an" is a more appropriate word to use than "a". I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has made a guest appearance, I wonder whether I can make a brief guest appearance. I moved a similar though slightly different semantic amendment on a Home Office Bill with which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was dealing. He accepted the semantic point I was making on that occasion. I wonder whether he will accept the semantic point being made by the noble Earl on this occasion?
Lord Newby: This is one of the most important issues we have discussed today. As part of my preparation for the debate I, too, looked up the usage of the words. I looked in Collins Dictionary which said that "an'' was formerly often used before words that began with "h" and are unstressed on the first syllable. In British English this usage is now obsolescent. I could not believe that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would indulge in obsolescent usage. I was therefore extremely surprised that he tabled the amendment. He rather condemned himself out of his own mouth because in his first speech this afternoon he talked about a singular hereditary Peer and he used the phrase "a hereditary Peer". It seems to me that he is more in tune with Collins Dictionary than with Fowler's. This amendment is ill thought through and, in view of his own repudiation of the usage earlier today, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may make one brief point. I am gratified to note that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has spent a fair part of today's debate keeping count of how many times my noble friend Lord Ferrers used "a" as opposed to "an".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I, too, studied Fowler's Modern English Usage— the second edition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, knows perfectly well that one always ought to give a full citation. He and I were both brought up to do that. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"A is used before all consonants, except silent h (a history, an (lour): an was formerly usual before an unaccented syllable beginning with h and is still often seen and heard (an historian …an hereditary title.) But now that the h in such words is pronounced the distinction has become anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time".
We do not want to overthrow precedents in this House. The phrase "a hereditary peerage"is to be found in the Peerage Act of 1963 and the Parliament (No.2) Bill of 1968—I mention that for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—which was the last attempt at reforming your Lordships' House. The Parliament Act 1911 in its preamble speaks of a second Chamber constituted on "a" popular instead of hereditary basis.
If the noble Earl had asked me for my personal opinion, I would have sided with him on the basis that one does not want to rush forward too quickly in altering the ways of pronunciation. Some people say "an"hereditary Peer. In fact the noble Earl was not as astute as always because on an earlier amendment I did myself fall into the gross error of saying "an" hereditary Peer but I hastily corrected myself so that he should not catch me.
298
In all the circumstances, particularly as I am responsible for the amendment—the single word "but"—in the Government of Wales Bill, I think we ought to stick to "a" on this occasion. But it is a point to which we probably ought to return at Report stage and Third Reading!
Lord Goodhart: In view of the reference to something that is "anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time", does the noble Lord accept that "an" hereditary Peer is peculiarly appropriate?
Earl Ferrers: I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. The trouble is that he read the wrong book. If he had read Fowler's instead of Collins he would have come to a different conclusion. I was also fascinated that he should have done me the courtesy of counting whether I had used "a" or "an". It is perfectly true that I used "a", because when in Rome one does as the Romans do. The Bill uses ''a". But I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, used "an" and I thought, "Hooray, hurrah, now here is a person who will accept my perfectly modest amendment". The noble Lord was generous enough to say that in his heart of hearts he would side with me. I suggest that he does side with me. This is a fairly important matter. The noble Lord continued with the quotation from Fowler's Modern English Usage that:
"But now that the h in such words is pronounced the distinction has become anomalous and will no doubt disappear in time".
That is speculative. The fact is that it is not anomalous at the moment and it suggests that "an" is the correct word, as the noble Lord incidentally and inadvertently used himself. This is an important matter. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
1.9 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.2.0) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Annaly, L.

Iveagh, E.

Bemers, B.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bumham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon. B.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clinton, L.

Norrie, L.

Coleraine, L.

Northesk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

EdenofWinton, L.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Trefgame, L. [Teller]

Gray, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Weir, V.

Henley, L.

299

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Ahmed, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Blackstone, B.

Seel.]

Bragg, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carlisle, E.

[Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Chandos V

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Crawley, B.

Newby, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

DaviesofCoity, L

Pitkeathley. B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L.

Desai, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Donoughue, L.

Sawyer, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goodhart, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty. L.

Hacking, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hardie, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.18 a.m.
[Amendments Nos.21 to 23 not moved.]
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.

HFC Bank Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past one o'clock.