Lords Sitting of 29 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to host a lunch in honour of the President of the Swiss National Council on behalf of the Government on Tuesday 4th May when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Empty Government-owned Housing
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advances they have made in bringing the 19,000 empty flats and houses in England owned by the Government and government agencies back into use.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are currently in the process of collating data on the numbers of homes held by government departments and agencies on April 1st 1999 and details of departments' performance against their targets for tackling the problem of empty homes. We shall publish full details and new performance targets as soon as possible.
However, from returns so far, we know that the Defence Housing Executive has disposed of 2,000 empty properties over the past year, which is 800 over its target of 1, 200. The Highways Agency has sold 589 surplus houses in the same period and has reduced the number of its empty homes by over 200 since April of last year.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, does he agree that the guidelines which the Government give need to be more precise in some respects; for example, about what actually counts as an empty home? Will the Minister consider setting specific targets for government departments about how they might reduce the number of empty flats and houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is correct to say that there are some problems of definition in this respect, given the fact that in some government departments (for example, the Ministry of Defence) there is a need to keep a certain proportion of
432
housing vacant. It is not, therefore, vacant in the sense of being surplus. We are attempting to rationalise those definitions.
As far as concerns targets, I can tell the House that all government departments will be setting targets. Indeed, I recently set the target of 18 per cent maximum vacant premises for the Highways Agency, which should bring the figure down from its present level of about 25 per cent.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the various departments have strategies for the use of empty homes? We have heard about figures and targets, but they do not amount to a strategy. The noble Lord will be well aware of the very good examples in local government where local authorities have introduced strategies which, in many cases, have been very successful.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. It is true that the level of vacancies in local authorities has decreased dramatically in most areas over recent years. Indeed, the figure is now quite low in that respect, as it is for social landlords generally. However, there is a slightly different problem in relation to many government departments; for example, there are particular problems at the Ministry of Defence. In relation to the Highways Agency, which is the second largest of these departments, the amount of time that such properties are actually vacant will depend on the progress of road schemes and whether or not they go ahead. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, may be anticipating me on that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful that the Minister has given us one or two reassuring figures which show that targets have been met in particular areas. However, if those targets have been met, does that not imply that there were some baselines somewhere? It would have been interesting to hear about them. More importantly, I presume that those baselines would also have applied to other government departments about which we have heard nothing.
I must admit to the House that I have found it most difficult to gain any information on this subject. I am relieved to know that the Minister is in the same quandary. Can the noble Lord help us to take the matter forward by giving us further information on the baseline from which the targets were originally worked out? In that way, the House will be aware of the ground, if you like, that the Government are standing on in relation to their own housing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord the statistics that he requires. He is correct to say that I do not have knowledge of the total picture. However, I have given the figures for the two largest government departments in terms of empty property—namely, the Ministry of Defence and the Highways Agency. The improvement in relation to the Ministry of Defence Housing Executive is to dispose of 2,000 properties and its figure currently stands at approximately 13, 500. Therefore, if one works backwards, one can work out the figures.

433
As regards the Highways Agency, about which I clearly know more, last year's vacancy level was 25 per cent and, as I said, we are aiming to get that down to 18 per cent. Indeed, in net terms, we have improved the position by 200 houses over the course of the past year. If other departments are doing as well with smaller amounts of housing, that will give the noble Lord a general indication of the picture. However, most other government departments will have relatively few empty houses.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the Minister referred to targets. He then went on to refer to the Highways Agency and the situation where road schemes are planned but not necessarily built. However, if housing is blighted by possible road schemes, it is perfectly possible for local authorities to use the housing in the meantime. Therefore, ought that not to be the rule?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as a result of the policy introduced by this Government, both the Highways Agency and government departments have been requested to look at the possible use of their housing for short-term social housing, pending the introduction of further schemes. Indeed, there has been some success on that front. However, many of the properties are not available for long-term social housing.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any effort is being made to channel these houses when they are sold into the market for those who cannot afford the market price; in other words, cut-price housing for those who cannot afford the full price?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords; in the sense that I have just indicated. Those concerned are looking for social landlords who will provide exactly that kind of housing. But only a limited amount of property is suitable for such use.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the total number of empty houses in this country is far greater than that in the public sector and that, if a determined effort were made to bring those back into use, the need for extra building on greenfield sites would be much reduced?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, There is always bound to be some degree of empty housing in the private sector and, indeed, in the social housing sector. However, there is also a responsibility on the private sector to ensure that the turnover and use of those houses is faster than at present.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister have any idea whether people are being moved out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is certainly blighting the south-east corner of Kent, into such empty properties as quickly as possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is some movement in that respect, but it is fairly small because, by and large,
434
the housing is not in the right areas to meet the serious problem of having to provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Moreover, if I may revert to the previous question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, there are in total over 600,000 empty properties within the private sector whereas in the central government public sector we are only talking about 19,000 in total.

Japanese Knotweed
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to curb the spread of Japanese knotweed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Japanese knotweed is a large, vigorous weed. It is a non-native introduction which appears to have no natural enemies in Britain. The Government recognise the potential harm that its presence can cause to other species. Under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is an offence to plant Japanese knotweed, or cause it to grow, in the wild.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that the increasing menace of this nine-foot plant is variously described as a marriage of super weeds swamping the countryside and also as a rash of sexual activity leading to a triffid-like invasion of the country, gardens, river banks etc.? It will also grow through concrete. Will the Minister increase the funding to the Environment Agency and other agencies which are trying to deal with this terrible problem?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Environment Agency has undertaken research and has produced an extremely important and valuable leaflet which includes details of other pervasive species that are damaging watercourses such as giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam. I commend the work done by the city and county of Swansea which has worked closely with the Environment Agency for Wales. I also commend the work of Pembrokeshire County Council which is working in partnership with the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. The problem does not appear to be one of additional funding but of targeting the activities of those agencies which have power to act in this regard.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, do the Government have a list of the total number of this country's endangered species which are being threatened by alien species? Is the Minister aware of the recent so-called "X-files" order instituted by President Clinton in the United States which seeks to enable the Government there to deal with alien species which threaten up to 50 per cent of the endangered species of the United States?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in its news release of 14th December 1998 entitled Doomsday

435
for Wildlife the World Wide Fund for Nature claimed that there is a whole range of species under threat. The work that has been carried out does not appear to suggest that Japanese knotweed is killing natural habitats where it is brought under control. We hope that that work and the work that is being done on biodiversity projects will help to combat the problem the noble Baroness has mentioned.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are we to be told when this knotweed is not a weed?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I know not.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I cannot even attempt to top that! Is the Minister aware of the difficulty of controlling this weed, particularly with regard to watercourses where chemical sprays have been found to be one of the few methods of controlling it? When it gets a hold, I believe it grows through concrete. However, it is the watercourses that constitute a particular worry in this regard.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the watercourses are a worry. The Environment Agency has issued guidance on control of Japanese knotweed, including the use of specialised and limited chemical agents. A colleague who is not in the Box at present advised me when I was briefed on this subject that she has a real problem with Japanese knotweed in her London garden. She has discovered that the roots go down 17 feet. It is a major scourge.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister convey to the agencies that will target this problem that if they wish to target the Japanese knotweed that I have in my garden in Wales they will be welcome to do so?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords.

Yugoslavia: Oil Embargo
3.14 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the legal basis in international and maritime law for interrupting the supply of oil to Yugoslavia by sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, proposals for a maritime operation are still in the planning stages. We would of course take account of the legal implications of any planned NATO operation before agreeing to it. Any action taken will be in accordance with the law.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her usual clear and explicit Answer. However, I ask for a little more reassurance. Can she assure the House that the embargoes that are proposed will not damage Montenegro or undermine its
436
government; that all friendly states in whose territorial waters these actions may take place have given unequivocal support and agreement; and, finally, that this embargo strategy will not force the Russians into breaking the embargo, with serious consequences?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the law in this area is of course complex. There is customary law, treaties and international conventions. I assure the noble Lord that all of these areas will be considered not only by NATO but also by legal advisers here. We have to make any embargo as effective as we can. NATO is working out military options. We shall take into account any rules of engagement as well as international law. The noble Lord referred specifically to Montenegro. He also mentioned Russia which is not the only supplier. and nor indeed is the sea the only route. We shall seek to make any embargo as effective as possible and as consistent as possible. However, we shall of course take into account the needs of Montenegro in the way the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as the spokesman of a party which has consistently supported the Government on the Kosovo crisis, and indeed pressed for an international protectorate at an early stage, will the Minister consider carefully whether the present planning by NATO, particularly of its proposed naval blockade but also of its bombing, takes fully into account some of the political repercussions? Will the Minister consider the vocal pleas made by Montenegro today; namely, that the effect of the severe bombing of Bar, its major port, and of its capital, Podgorica, is destabilising them and is an invitation to Milosevic to intervene in that country? That is a serious matter. Will the Minister consider carefully whether that situation can be avoided?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are in regular contact with Montenegro. EU Foreign Ministers decided on a package of economic support for those hit by the crisis, bearing in mind the particular needs of Montenegro. Mr. Djukanovic is in no doubt of our support for his political and economic reforms. We and our allies have also warned Mr. Milosevic—as I think I have already mentioned to the House on previous occasions, but I do so again because I realise how important this point is—not to move against Montenegro. If he does so, there will be grave consequences.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Government take every care and precaution not to allow this undesirable and possibly illegal war to spread any further either by land or by sea?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that this is an illegal war. The action that we are taking is legal. It is justified as an exceptional measure to halt the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe that we have seen played out and which we sadly continue to see being played out.

437
I give the noble Lord the assurance that not only is the action that we have taken legal but that any future action will be legal.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how a sea blockade will stop oil going overland from Romania?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have already indicated, NATO military planners will not be looking solely at a sea blockade; they will be looking at a number of issues. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday when answering questions on a similar subject, we understand that there are many different routes by which such oil may be taken. All such eventualities are being looked at.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that she assured the House last week that there had been no failure by NATO leaders, including the Prime Minister, to think far enough ahead about the matter of Kosovo. Why is it that the complex matter of an oil blockade is being considered now rather than weeks ago?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord last week, as situations develop so does the planning. That is inevitably so. Naturally, when NATO leaders were together last weekend they looked very carefully at the question of an oil embargo. As the noble Lord will know, there is also an EU oil embargo. Your Lordships discussed that matter last week and it was discussed again on 23rd April. There has been no failure of planning. The planning has been carefully undertaken both within the EU and NATO.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if the Government proceed with the oil embargo, will they have regard to the lessons of the sanctions busting carried out in Rhodesia, where the international oil companies—not least our own oil companies—showed themselves remarkably adept at evading all the laws that man could prescribe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, not only will military planners be looking at that issue but strategic planners as well. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, should look carefully not only at the NATO planning but at the EU oil embargo to which I have referred. That was agreed on 23rd April and comes into force on 30th April. EU applicants, including some of Serbia's neighbours and Cyprus, are already associating themselves with it. So it is not only the current members of the EU but those who are hoping to join the EU which support the embargo. The noble Lord may be reassured to know that, contrary to some press reports, the United States is also implementing a comprehensive ban on oil.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the amount of oil coming into Montenegro through Bar is perhaps almost irrelevant and that the
438
land routes for delivering oil to Serbia are highly relevant? The main road is very narrow—in some places tankers will have to slow down to two miles an hour—and there are numerous bridges and viaducts. Does the Minister agree that the land routes would be very tempting targets and that disrupting those routes would be a logical way of solving the problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made clear in my answers to the questions of other noble Lords on this point that it is not solely an issue of being one route or, indeed, one supplier. Her Majesty's Government are very much alive to that fact. My right honourable friend, when he was answering questions on this matter in the other place yesterday, made a point of stressing the issue of other routes and the importance of dealing with them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be great concern among many people about widening the scope of the war. Is she further aware that if action is taken which is deemed to be illegal and without the support of the United Nations, then, far from gaining friends, NATO is likely to lose friends at a time when it needs many more friends?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that any decision to widen the scope of military action will be based on international law and consistent with the rules of engagement. I have given an explicit assurance to the House on that point. I should also say to the House that, as noble Lords would expect, any such decision will be consistent with the political objectives for pursuing this campaign which my right honourable friend in another place, I and my noble friends here have spelt out on a number of occasions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no problems with an oil embargo although, like my noble friend Lord Blaker, I wonder why it was not started weeks ago. The noble Baroness has not yet mentioned Russia. Have the Russians been involved in discussions about the oil embargo? Have they agreed? Will we stop a Russian tanker if one attempts to take oil in? Have we worked out the consequences of such action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a fair and proper point. Of course we have no wish whatsoever to become involved in a confrontation with Russia. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the lines of communication are open between him and his Russian counterparts. We are still looking and hoping to work with the Russians on a sustainable solution for Kosovo. NATO heads of state and the Government made clear at the weekend that we still wish to pursue a constructive path with Russia. There have been a

439
number of interchanges since last weekend between Russian politicians and politicians not only from this country but throughout NATO.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the oil being imported into Serbia at the moment is in the form of crude oil? Can the noble Baroness say whether, assuming that the bombing campaign against refineries is successful, that would not he a preferable way of knocking out the supply of fuel to Serbia's military machine?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is asking. Is he asking me whether we should be bombing supplies outside Kosovo?
Lord Avebury: Refineries, my Lords.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I am sure that a number of different options will be looked at in the planning that NATO is undertaking at the moment. Indeed, a number of different options have been raised by your Lordships. The important point that we must bear in mind is that any such action must be not only legal but consistent with the political objectives already articulated by NATO in regard to the military action.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, who in the NATO Alliance was responsible for determining the original strategy for the economic prosecution of this conflict, including legallly restricting fuel and power supplies? When did UK Ministers approve the original strategy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the strategies have been developing throughout the action and, indeed, before the action started. There has been interchange between all the leaders of NATO. As I have reminded the House on a number occasions, such action can only he taken by consensus within NATO. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary speaks on an almost daily basis to the US Secretary of State and to a number of other key NATO counterparts, as has my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As the noble Lord knows, there was an opportunity for all the NATO partners to discuss these matters in depth at the weekend. The noble Lord should not think that all of these matters suddenly sprang up last weekend. There was careful planning before the action started and throughout the action there have been discussions between all key partners.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will remember that last weekend the Prime Minister laid heavy stress on this being a "just" war. One of the principles of a just war is that force should be used proportionately and moderately. Can we be assured that the imposition of the oil embargo and any further expansion in the bombing campaign—it seems to some of us that most of the suitable and justifiable targets are now being hit— will be in line with the Prime Minister's understanding of justice in war?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that any prosecution of a just war must
440
be consistent with the objectives of that war. That is the fundamental issue put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that the noble Lord agrees—as does his party, I believe—that the political objectives that Her Majesty's Government and our NATO partners have articulated can be supported. Her Majesty's Government and all our NATO partners very much regret any civilian casualties in this war. Sadly, it is one of the awful truths that war cannot be prosecuted with any certainty that such casualties will not occur. When they do occur it is very much to be regretted. I remind the noble Lord of the appalling carnage which is being wreaked among the Kosovo Albanians by the Serbian forces. I also remind him that we are attempting to be moderate and that such an injunction is more properly addressed to Mr. Milosevic.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me if I suggested to her that, far from extending the war, the successful and legal interruption of oil supplies to Yugoslavia is a necessary and imperative component of the strategy to bring it to a successful conclusion?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is because Her Majesty's Government and our NATO partners are in agreement that the decision was taken at the weekend to look at the planning that would make such bombing possible. I stress to my noble friend also that it is important that any such bombing is carried out on a legal basis and in a way that is entirely consistent with the objectives that we have set. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out to us only last week, it is not sensible on the one hand to risk our servicemen's lives over Serbia on a regular basis and on the other hand to leave open ways in which oil can get into Serbia when we could possibly prevent such an eventuality.

Whitsun Recess
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess at the end of business on Thursday, 27th May. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. The House will return from the Whitsun Recess on Monday, 7th June.

House of Lords Bill
3.30 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Exclusion of hereditary peers]:
The Earl of Drogheda The Earl of Drogheda moved Amendment No.23A:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("except if, on the day this section comes into force, he is such a member and he has attained the age of 75 years")
The noble Earl said: This amendment is an extremely moderate one and my reasons for putting it forward are threefold. First, your Lordships' House is not a place where age, by its very nature, is a drawback. We have been conditioned to the idea of a retirement age. Sixty-five is generally considered the norm. For people whose jobs are largely physical or repetitious, that makes sense. However, for those whose work is stimulating, a statutory retirement age is not essential. Although such an argument may be put forward in areas where mental quickness and agility are of the essence, such as at the Bar or performing in the other place, they are not prerequisites in your Lordships' House.
It may be an advantage and it is certainly a pleasure to observe the swift exchanges of wit which frequently adorn this Chamber. However, there is another area where opinions based on mature consideration and reflection may be of more lasting value, and for such opinions time and experience are a help. Age also brings with it a healthy degree of scepticism, which is surely one of the necessary ingredients of a revising Chamber. Your Lordships' House is an ideal place for such contributions to be of use. I hope that my arguments suffice in convincing your Lordships that there is no inherent drawback to age in your Lordships' House and that it may well bring its advantages.
My second reason might be described as an aesthetic one, and although I realise that such an argument tends to be anathema in this country—and I use it with some caution—I do believe it is a valid one. We are privileged to sit not just in any large room but in this magnificent Chamber where a sense of history and continuity was achieved by the genius of Barry and Pugin, all the more remarkable when we reflect that this building is less than 150 years old. It is largely thanks to their art that our proceedings achieve a convincing gravitas. As we are all aware, the most dramatic change is about to take place here. The retention of those hereditary Peers proposed in my amendment would undoubtedly soften this change and I cannot but believe that the Government would prefer the physical landscape to change more gradually than the constitutional one.
Thirdly, and finally, I make my appeal on the grounds of humanity. Why, purely for the sake of an ideology, inflict the undoubted distress and humiliation that this Bill will cause, particularly on those for whom attendance in your Lordships' House has become of such central importance to their lives and where their long experience of life can be of such value? I beg to move.
The Earl of Longford: For fairly obvious reasons, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment but I cannot support it. We oldies are difficult to please. If
442
someone gives you a hand across the street, you rather resent it, particularly if it is given by someone of your own age group. Oldies are impossible to please.
I speak at the moment without an interest so I suppose I must declare one for the future. I happen to have been given a hereditary peerage many years ago and now I have been given a life peerage. I can think of only one other colleague who is in that bracket. It is a limited application. We oldies are very lucky if we are treated as well as anyone else. To be treated better than anyone else is something we have never thought of.
I sympathise with the view that you get wiser as you get older, until you lose your marbles. The point about this House is that when you lose your marbles someone persuades you not to come again. I am reminded of a very close friend of mine—I will not say who he was. His wife used to watch him sitting just below the Bar. One day he said to his wife (I will call her Angela but she was not called Angela) "By the way, Angela, you have to vote". I knew that his time had come. The time does come when you have to go.
I am all for old people being treated equally to everyone else. Although I find the amendment almost patronising, I respect entirely the motives of the noble Earl in moving it.
Lord Middleton: Were it necessary to declare an interest, which I do not think is the case, I would have to say that I will be 78 at the end of this week. I thought that the noble Earl might have had his tongue in his cheek in proposing the amendment, but he has proposed it with such charm and so persuasively that I take it at its face value. Taking it at its face value, I have to say that I do not support the amendment. The only premise under which the Government could possibly accept it would be that the over-75s were dotty and would pose no threat from these Benches. Looking back over the years, it is quite obvious that the opposite is the case. Noble Lords will call to mind as many names as I can. Indeed, some of the most effective debaters in this House have been over 85 years of age.
The tragedy about the Bill is that so much talent will be lost from all age groups. That might be mitigated by the Weatherill amendment. But if I were to pick an age group to be retained, it would be the under 35s. No. I would not wish to be here because I was in my dotage and only an ornament. That is the only conceivable reason for the Government accepting it.
In fact another reason occurs to me. The Government might accept it to demonstrate to the world that hereditary Peers were just a bunch of senile old men. I cannot support the noble Earl.
Lord Monkswell: As a relatively junior Member of your Lordships' House, with only 14 years experience on these Benches, I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and while I cannot support the amendment, I wholeheartedly support the reasoning behind it.
I speak in support of the sentiment behind the amendment as a precursor to Amendment No.31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. If that

443
amendment is accepted, it will be necessary to determine the selection procedure for the 90 hereditary Peers who will remain when the Bill reaches the statute book. It is presumed that the only mechanism would be election. I suggest that there are two far more significant selection mechanisms: one on grounds of age, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda; the other based on seniority in terms of membership of this House. Either would be sensible, and both need to be considered.
During the limited time that I have been a Member of this House, I have heard contributions from Members with immense age, wisdom and experience. Perhaps I may give two examples. A few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke on the subject of the First World War. The noble Lord said: "I was alive during the First World War". In what other Parliament around the world would there be a member with that experience who could contribute sensibly to parliamentary debate? Perhaps I may—
Lord Acton: I believe that Strom Thurmond of the United States Senate is rather older than the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Monkswell: I stand corrected; but that adds to the strength of the argument.
Another example is that of Lord Cairncross, who was able to contribute on the basis of having been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. That brought an extra dimension to our debate. I am only sad that our colleagues in the other place did not listen to the points that he and others made about the Bill during its passage through this place.
My point is that an essential and positive feature of this House is that we do not discriminate on the basis of age. In fact, we positively welcome contributions from our more mature and senior colleagues. I hope that this debate will stress that important dimension in our parliamentary deliberations.
Lord Hacking: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may correct him on one point. Lord Shawcross was the noble and learned Lord who appeared at the Nuremberg trials. "Lord" Caincross—more accurately, Sir Alec Cairncross—was the well known economist. Perhaps the confusion demonstrated by my noble friend illustrates why we should not remain in this House beyond the age of 60.
Lord Monkswell: I am glad to be corrected. But that is not a signal that older Members should go. Perhaps it is the younger Members who should go.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not realise that this amendment was quite so important as it has turned out to be. It has provided an opportunity for the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell, Lord Hacking and Lord Acton, to go on the hustings, as it were, and present their credentials to their colleagues, who may well have to decide for whom to vote.
444
The amendment has introduced, albeit narrowly, an interesting point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has added. At the risk of damaging his future career, I agreed with much of what he said.
To link this matter to previous debates. the amendment, if accepted by the Government, would remove one of the arguments used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, against his noble friend Lord Randall and a number of other Members who have argued that we should admit no more hereditary Peers but that those who are already here ought to be allowed gently to "die away"—not quite in an asymptotic curve. because such a curve never comes to an end; it moves into infinity. I doubt whether even the longevity of Members of this place will reach into infinity!
It would help, actuarially, to make sure that the hereditary Members of this House who remain d, to use a rather vulgar reference, die out reasonably quickly, in something like 15 years, as I was informed by the actuary, instead of 60. When I came here, I discovered that I was joining a sub-group of the population who lived much longer than anyone else. I Find that encouraging.
Many of our hereditary colleagues, and indeed life Peers, who are over 75 are very distinguished. We have just heard the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, as he rightly says, does not now come into the category that requires saving because he has been saved by the life-belt of a life peerage coming downstream from Downing Street. I am sure that the whole House is delighted. But there are others in this House who have played, and still play, an important and interesting role. Perhaps I may give just a few examples. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his place; the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is also very active in matters of the House; and my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Aldington are examples of over-75s who are extremely active. Examples on the Cross-Benches are the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. So there is an argument for retaining those of your Lordships who are over 75 and who bring the experience not merely of age but of having lived through events in this century from which we should still be trying to learn.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the idea of drawing arbitrary retirement ages. My first proposition, based on my observations of your Lordships, is that dottiness is not necessarily a factor of age. If anyone asks me to prove it, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to plead the Fifth Amendment on my behalf. Given the assent that I hear from all sides, I do not require to prove it.
Equally, many noble Lords who are over 75, both life and hereditary Peers, still play an important part in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who is not in his place today, is always hugely interesting in his observations, based as they are on his great experience. My noble friend Lord Renton is another Member to whom noble Lords always listen with great interest. I see the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in his place. I have made a quick check, and I see that the guillotine would just go down on him. We cannot have that,

445
because the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is the only person who understands the famous Barnett formula. One of my noble friends shouts out, "Does he?". I simply say: "I hope he does", because it will become germane to debate in the near future when the Scottish Parliament gets started and wants some more money and people in the south perhaps want to give it less money.
There is a serious point here, although I cannot go along with the narrow angle that only 75 year-olds should be saved. If we are to save any hereditaries, those with a contribution to make are the ones who should be saved. However, it provides me with the opportunity to say a few words about retirement age.
The Earl of Drogheda: When I made reference to 75 year-olds I did not intend that to be exclusive.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I appreciate that his amendment is quite narrowly targeted. It is probable that many noble Lords take my view of retirement age: that it will always be two years ahead of the age at which I am now.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving this amendment in such a moderate and elegant way. We cannot accept it, for a number of reasons. Underlying this Bill is the principle that a person should not be a legislator simply on the basis of heredity. This particular amendment suggests that there should be two processes, both genetic to an extent, to determine whether someone can be a legislator: first, parentage; and, secondly, the ability to survive. That does not seem to us to be a sensible basis on which people should be selected to play a role in the legislative Chamber. First, it would lead to the preservation of a number of hereditary Peers for perhaps as long as between 10 and 15 years, on the basis of actuarial tables. (I apologise for mentioning such a sensitive subject.) Secondly, the amendment is not put forward on the basis that this arrangement awaits the second stage but that it should continue in perpetuity.
In May 1998 there were approximately 113 hereditary Peers over the age of 75. I fully accept that in many, many cases age brings great wisdom, but it is also my experience that from time to time that is not so. Although very many people get better as they get older some do not. For all those reasons, unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment.
Perhaps I may refer to the eminent Peers whose names have been mentioned as an indication of the brilliance of age. My noble friend Lord Callaghan will survive because he is a life Peer rather than for other reasons. The noble Lords, Lord Shawcross and Lord Renton, will also survive because they are life Peers. As for "Lord Cairncross", I do not believe that he exists and, therefore, on any basis he will not survive.
The Earl of Drogheda: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.24:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert (", but any person who is excluded from membership of the House of Lords by virtue of this Act shall retain the right to correspond with Ministers of the Crown as if he remained a member of that House")
The noble Lord said: At this stage Amendment No.24 is merely a probing amendment. This is part of a series of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Its prime objective is to discover what the Government have in mind for the future, in particular the interim House. I am also convinced that the public would like to know that.
Experience has taught me that the ability to write to Ministers is as good, or better, a means of getting a sensible answer from government and civil servants as chattering away in your Lordships' House, of which yesterday was perhaps an example. This has become very obvious in the case of the Bill: Ministers do not answer questions and appear not to care what happens to this House in future. I regard such an attitude as either thoughtless or irresponsible. It is probably both.
If the Committee accepts that argument, noble Lords may well ask why this amendment retains the ability for those who are to leave the House to obtain a reply from a Minister. I assure my noble friend Lord Mackay that I am not going on any husting. The reason is simple. Time and time again we have been told—and probably flattered—by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, and most if not all of her colleagues on the Front Bench, that hereditary Peers are useful citizens. When we do not have to appear in this Chamber we shall be able to devote more time to being better and more useful citizens out in the sticks, where many or most of us have non-paid, voluntary jobs in the community.
I am aware of the so-called privileges. One of the reasons why so often we get the job of president or patron of such organisations is that we have been able to put those bodies' cases direct to government. Sadly, government now have an all-pervading influence on our lives and occupations, particularly charities. This was brought home to me forcefully the other day when I attended the annual general meeting of the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators as patron. That body has a problem in obtaining academic grants—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is aware of this—to train to meet an unsatisfied demand. I was asked what I could do. My reply was that I would write to the Government and, if the response was unsatisfactory, table a parliamentary Question. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get replies from the Government and they are inclined to be much delayed. At this stage I do not seek the right to ask a parliamentary Question, but this amendment would give those of us who leave the House the right to write and get a reply from a Minister during the interim period.
I am trying to persuade others to take on the odd job that I still have, not least because I am always being made aware of my age. I hope that future Members of the second Chamber will feel obliged to do so in due course. However, there is a snag in that those who remain, or are appointed, as interim Peers will have to be full-time, not part-time backwoodsmen like me and

447
many other noble Lords. Therefore, they will not have the time, inclination or—perhaps more importantly—involvement with such organisations for a long period of time which I believe is essential before taking on such jobs.
If the Minister has been listening and managed to follow my argument—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to respond—he may now realise that this is one of the arguments that he is bound to lose. If the noble Lord replies with the normal monosyllabic "no" it will mean that we have the duty to resign from the type of jobs that I have mentioned, whereas if he accepts the amendment it will be the first and probably last time that the Government have ever considered accepting something. I believe that it is a case of heads I win, tails the noble Lord loses. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is very brave of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley today to move an amendment of any kind given the difficult position in which he placed the Government yesterday. I suggest to him that the only letter he is likely to receive from the Government is one ordering his instant execution. My noble friend makes the point that no one in this Chamber, including the Government Front Bench, disputes that a good number of hereditary colleagues play a valuable part in many organisations in the community, including local authorities and charitable bodies. One, but only one, of the qualities that they bring to those organisations is their ability to help them when it comes to a problem with government by corresponding directly with Ministers. It would be a pity to lose that important link, which must be helpful to government as well as those organisations, when the hereditary Peers finally left the Chamber.
I am not entirely sure that this needs to go on the face of the Bill. However, it would be a nice gesture if the Government stated that they and their successors intended that Members of the House who had to depart after the Bill became law, if it became law—I say that in case someone picks me up later—would be able to correspond with and get replies from Ministers as quickly as they do now. I would not ask for it to be more swiftly. I think that acceptance of the amendment would be a nice gesture on the part of the Government and a recognition of the service the hereditary Peers have given not only to this House and the country, but also to many organisations in the part of the country in which they live.
4 p.m.
Lord Annan: Throughout the country individuals who are not Members of this House do superb voluntary work. They write to Ministers and may receive a reply. Why should there be a privilege of this kind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I sometimes wonder whether the noble Lord lives in the real world. Ordinary members of the public who write to Ministers do not receive replies from Ministers.
Lord Carter: Amendment No.24 seeks to provide for hereditary Peers who are no longer Members of the
448
House of Lords to correspond with Ministers on the same basis as when they were Members of the House. Throughout Whitehall it is the custom that Members of the House of Lords who write to Ministers will receive a reply from the Minister. The amendment would confer a right to receive a ministerial reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, always asks helpful questions. He made the point that hereditary Peers are useful citizens. Of course they are. So are life Peers. So are the thousands of people who hold neither a hereditary nor life peerage and who give valuable service to the organisations in which they are involved.
The noble Lord referred to the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators. It took me back a long way. I was one of those involved in the foundation of that institute many years ago. I did not understand the noble Lord's remark about his duty to resign from all the voluntary organisations with which he is connected. I find that extraordinary. Is the only reason he is involved with those voluntary organisations that he has "Lord" in front of his name? I am sure not.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said it all in his brief intervention.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Does the Minister accept that it might not be the simple fact that he has "Lord" in front of his name but because of the influence that he might bring to bear in your Lordships' Chamber?
Lord Carter: I understand that entirely. Plenty of life Peers will be able to bring influence to bear in your Lordships' Chamber—in fact, over 500 of them.
As I am sure that noble Lords are now fully aware, the purpose of the Bill is to end membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. lf, after he has left this House, a hereditary Peer wishes to write to a Minister on a particular matter, he can of course do so. It is his democratic right, as it is for all other members of the public. The reply may come from the Minister or from an official. In both cases, the department concerned will endeavour to reply within its stipulated time-scale and as helpfully as possible. No provision is needed to preserve the right of a Peer, or of anyone else, to write to a Minister.
However, it would be wrong to enshrine in legislation the right of a noble Lord who is no longer a Member of your Lordships' House to receive a ministerial reply to his correspondence. To do so would require a creation of duty on Ministers. Why should hereditary Peers receive different treatment from other individuals who are not part of the legislature? Former Members of another place do not receive ministerial replies as of right; nor would they expect to receive one. I fail to see why former Members of this place should do so.
I should point out that throughout Whitehall it is the convention that Cabinet Ministers will always reply to Privy Counsellors irrespective of whether or not they are in the legislature. The Bill will not change that practice.
The Bill is about ending membership of your Lordships' House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. All rights and customs attaching to membership will come to an end. However, should a Minister wish to respond

449
personally to a letter from a hereditary Peer, that is his or her prerogative. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If I may say so, that was an uncustomarily insensitive reply from the Government Chief Whip. The noble Lord was asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government could say something a little sympathetic on the subject. I believe that the Government Chief Whip well knows the role that our hereditary colleagues play in voluntary organisations, and why they are there. It is partly, of course, because of their access to government through membership of this House; but it is also because they are who they are, with the experience and reputation of service that hereditary Peers have had throughout the years.
I hope that the Government will stop doing this. It absolutely disgusts me to hear the Government talk like this about people who have given distinguished service through the years. It continues to happen and it makes me quite angry. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Will the hereditary Peers who are Privy Counsellors and who write to Ministers about business receive the same priority as life Peers who will continue to be Members of this House and who are Privy Counsellors?
Lord Carter: As regards the last question, I said, and I repeat, that throughout Whitehall it is the convention that Cabinet Ministers will reply to Privy Counsellors irrespective of whether or not they are in the legislature. This Bill will not change that practice.
I am amazed by what the noble Baroness says. I said nothing insensitive. I said that we are all aware of the immense service given to voluntary organisations by hereditary Peers. However, your Lordships have to realise that when a hereditary Peer's membership of this House ends, so will the customs, privileges and rights that go with it. That is entirely fair. That is not insensitive. It is a statement of fact. I am the last person to attack the vast amount of work that has been done over the years by hereditary Peers. But as regards their attachment to voluntary organisations because they are hereditary Peers and can therefore automatically receive letters of reply from Ministers, I hope that they are on the committees, or whatever, of the voluntary organisations because of the undoubted service they give.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that reply. When he departs from his brief he becomes his own courteous, sympathetic self. It is the government brief that is the trouble.
The Earl of Radnor: The Minister made a comparison between retiring Members of another place and those who will retire from here. He pointed out, frankly and correctly, that those in another place are in a way relieved of the duty of writing to Ministers and
450
receiving a special reply. But they are happy to be allowed to use the Bars and Dining Rooms of the House and to take other privileges of that nature.
Lord Carter: So far as I am aware, it is only the former Members of another place who come to this House who can use the Bars in the House of Commons.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may make a purely practical point. Most of the hereditary Peers of whom we speak, with some exceptions, will be within only two or three years of the end of their time of service with whatever charities or public duties they are involved. It does not seem sensible to waste that investment (if I may put it that way) for the country. Why should it not be possible for them to continue until they cease to operate in that way? It is a practical point. They are involved in most of the organisations for which they work not only because of their sense of duty and service, but also because they can render a practical service to the organisation. Would it be so very difficult to allow that access to Ministers to expire with the end of their public service life?
Lord Carter: If we did so, we would have the invidious problem of the younger hereditary Peers who take an active part in voluntary organisations and who could be there for a very long time indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that he did not think that the matter was suitable to be placed on the face of the Bill. I am sure that those hereditary Peers who have had contacts with departments and Ministers will continue to provide extremely effective service for the organisations with which they are connected. But we are not prepared to place a duty on Ministers to reply in the way suggested by the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in taking up the batting from the Government Front Bench. It is always nice to have a new batsman and we welcome his fielding of the replies.
I hope that between now and another stage he can give a little more thought to the amendment. Having been a backwoodsman, having started life on the Cross Benches and having taken a leave of absence, I believe that there is a great deal to be said for retaining this right for former hereditary Members of the House to correspond with Ministers. When I was a Minister, I found that a number of charities, voluntary organisations and others benefited hugely. That is the substance of the issue: charities and voluntary organisations benefit; not the Peer himself. Organisations benefit from a hereditary Peer having the right of access by letter to a Minister of the Crown and receiving a reply from a Minister. Recently, my experience has been that some replies, not from Ministers, have not been as forthcoming as a ministerial reply. I hope that the noble Lord will think again.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the convention that he mentioned which pertains throughout Whitehall. I must declare an interest as a Privy Counsellor. I have not always had a reply from a Cabinet Minister. I hope that

451
I shall in future. That is a particular privilege to which I shall be entitled. On the more general question, I hope that the noble Lord will at least take this away and think about it.
The Earl of Erroll: I may be able to help. As we notice a steady move towards a partyless system, perhaps people are worried about the delinking of an MP or a representative at Westminster from the general public. Perhaps this amendment is an attempt to preserve one of the last channels between the executive and the general public.
Lord Richard: May I suggest to the Committee that we are making heavy weather of a point which can be expressed, and was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in a relatively small compass?
What is wrong with the amendment is that it demands a right. It demands a right for people who have ceased to he Members of Parliament. I do not believe that the Government can legitimately concede that as a matter of right.
On the other hand, it seems to me that a Peer who has been active in a charity and who ceases to be a Member of this House because his peerage was hereditary and who subsequently writes to a Minister will not be treated any differently in future from the way in which he has been treated in the past. This is one of those issues, which so often arise, where there is a difference between the legal entitlement, which cannot be conceded, and the way in which people will operate in practice. The fears of the noble Lord who moved the amendment are, in this regard, frankly, somewhat illusory. I do not think that the Government can concede that as a matter of right. I should be very surprised indeed, if, as a matter of practice, there is any great change.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I want to make the point straightaway that this cannot go into the Bill as an amendment. This sort of right, which is not a statutory right—it is a conventional right—cannot be enshrined in the Bill. I am not seeking that.
Yes, we are making heavy weather. I suppose it is because we are desperately seeking a humane, reasonable approach—a "gesture", as it has been called—from the Benches opposite so that it is recognised that this is not, so to speak, an individual request. It is a request on behalf of a body of people who have rendered great and valuable service to this country and who are willing and who wish to be able to continue to do so. Yes, that is heavy weather, but it could be made a very light affair by the kind of gesture that we are seeking. If we can never achieve a gesture, I believe there will be heavier weather.
Lord Brookman: I have listened carefully to the debate and I can speak from personal experience. When I left the House of Commons in 1969 or 1970 I was out of politics for five years. During that period I was able to write to Ministers and receive replies perfectly satisfactorily without the prestige of being a Member of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons. In
452
other words, when you write to Ministers, they treat you according to the eminence of the job that you have at that time and in relation to the case that you present to them. I am sure that that will continue. There is no reason why it should not. I entirely accept the assurances of my noble friend on the Front Bench on that point.
Before I sit down, perhaps I can say to the noble Baroness who was offensive to my noble friend on the Front Bench that her remark was unnecessarily offensive. In no way did my noble friend try to belittle the work that hereditary Peers carry out in voluntary organisations. Indeed, he gave special credit to them. I think that the noble Baroness must have misheard him. In no way did he intimate that such Peers would be disregarded in the future. I believe that the attack on this issue has gone on long enough and that we ought now to reach a decision.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: Unlike my noble friend Lord Caithness, I do not understand how any noble Lord on this side of the House can think that replies from Ministers in this Government are worth 20p, let alone 26p.
Lord Carter: I shall take up some of the points which have been mentioned. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, welcomed me to the Front Bench on this Bill. If he had been here at 12.20 a.m. on Wednesday he would have heard me reply to an amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam.
On this amendment, we have heard only about the voluntary organisations. What about all the commercial organisations with which noble Lords are connected? Will they have the same right or expect the same duty to apply to a Minister to reply if they are well paid directors of commercial organisations? In fact, the head of an important organisation, whether or not a Peer, would receive a ministerial reply in any event, when appropriate. There is no need for such people to be Members of your Lordships' House for them to be taken seriously.
My noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Northfield, with their experience as former Members of the other place and now as Members of this Chamber, explained very well what will happen in practice. Some hereditary Peers very rarely attend, but are very active in voluntary organisations. Should they have the same right?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carter, say that because I was about to ask whether he would reinforce the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I thought the noble Lord's remark summarised my amendment as I would wish it to be summarised. Of course, I see the problems. Not for the first time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. On many occasions I have not agreed with him, but I am delighted that he tried to encapsulate what I was trying to say.
One or two other points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I have fond memories of battles with him a few years ago. One point is whether the cart

453
comes first or the horse. Many of us are appointed to such jobs because we have the ability to use our influence on behalf of a charity. Strangely enough, it is difficult to get people to do such jobs. It will become even more difficult when everybody is professional.
Not for the first time, what has been said by Members of the Committee has made me think. I believe that the answer was summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, my noble friend Lord Pearson and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. They all hit the nail on the head. I may wish to return to this on Report, but I am happier having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No: 25:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) But subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for—

(a) the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years, or

(b) new restrictions on the constitutional powers of the Crown. ")

The noble Lord said: I approach this amendment with a considerable sense of modesty as I have never moved an amendment in your Lordships' House before and I do not pretend to be a great constitutional expert. I do not believe that in a fairly long parliamentary life in the other place I ever made a speech about the length of a parliament or the constitutional duties and powers of the Crown.
I was, however, moved to table this amendment. I am delighted to see that a similar declaratory amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has been grouped with it. History reminds me that the length of a parliament is a subject that was discussed by our predecessors between 1907 and 1911 at the time of the Parliament Act 1911. But the subject has not been touched on in our debates about the reform of the House of Lords.
The issue is not only about the duration of a parliament, but the duration of a government. How long can or should a particular government remain in office without being required to approach the electorate and have its democratic role renewed by their decision? There is no minimum period for governments in this country. However, a Bill was introduced on a number of occasions way back in the 1890s which would have provided that no general election should take place within six months of an election previously held. Our predecessors were then worried about a government getting the result they did not want and immediately going back to the country without good reason to try to obtain a more satisfactory result.
I accept that it is a little time since a parliament lasted 17 years, but that was the length of the second Parliament of Charles II. Many of us forget—why should we remember?—that the Parliament of 1935 lasted for 10 years. It was renewed yearly by Herbert Morrison as
454
Home Secretary until 1945 because of the exigencies of war. I am sure that no one blamed the coalition government for that; it was accepted. However, against that historic background I considered that the question of the length of a parliament, and associated with it the constitutional powers of the Crown, should at least be touched upon in debate in your Lordships' House.
All of us would have been reminded that the 1911 Parliament Act was specific and that Clause 7 states:
"Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act of 1715".
The previous Clause 2(1) dealing with vetoes in this House specifically provides that:
"the absolute veto of the House of Lords shall not apply to any Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years".
Doubtless many in this House or outside will ask, "Why is he bothering? It is in the Parliament Act 1911. That is not being changed. Why worry about it?". The reason why I worry about it is because the composition of the upper House is being substantially changed by the measure now before your Lordships.
We must consider carefully whether the enactment in the Parliament Act 1911 is sufficiently valid within the context of an upper House whose membership is being substantially changed. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if in that context I quote briefly from the words of Campbell-Bannerman, at that time Liberal Leader, when he moved a Motion on the veto of the House of Lords in a three-day debate in 1907. In that, he made the reduction from seven years of Parliament an absolute and necessary part of the scheme to increase the powers of the House of Commons. He stated:
"We consider that the undoubted danger that the House of Commons with the increase of power which we claim for it"—
as the Liberals did—
"might for some years of its life have its genuine representative character impaired can best be guarded against by a more frequent reference to the electorate. This is, as is known, no new proposal. Most of us on this Bench have voted for quinquennial Parliaments and we believe that the reduction of the period of parliamentary existence to five years will add vigour, freshness and life to our parliamentary system".
The reduction from seven to five years went through in the 1911 Act with almost no discussion. Since then there have been occasional movements in the lower House further to reduce the term of a parliament. Austin Mitchell and Tony Benn, both Labour MPs, in the Reform Bill of May 1985 sought to reduce the maximum life of Parliament to four years.
Why is there such pressure for reduction? They were Back-Benchers, or Opposition Leaders, who were worried about the dangers of over-mighty government who were increasingly out of touch with the electorate and did not want any check on their legislative programme in a more or less independent upper House. In these days of focus groups and opinion polls such a government might find themselves seriously down in the eyes of the electorate and then say, "What we really need is 10 years to finish the job". I confess to having heard that said when I was a Minister in recent

455
Conservative governments. They might say, "We need 10 years to finish the job, so why not extend the life of Parliament to give us that further term?".
One should also add that there is a new volatility in voting which can make governments believe that if only they can hang on for a little longer everything will come right. They might be 20 per cent down in the polls but that might change over the next year. We arrive at the question of whether leaving the 1911 Act as it stands is adequate for the very much reformed upper House which we shall have.
In my judgment, all that turns on the remaining powers of the reformed upper House and of its constitution. Like many other Members, I wish that we had discussed those aspects before we came to the constitution of membership; but we did not and that is behind us. The key question, which I hope Ministers on the Treasury Bench will consider in the apolitical and serious manner in which I am attempting to approach it, is how independent of the House of Commons the second Chamber will be. There is no point in having an absolute right of veto in this House, which under the 1911 Act is given on any Bill to extend the life of the Parliament beyond five years, if this House is to be the poodle of the Prime Minister of the day.
It could he said that after reform has taken place this upper House will always have a majority by virtue of the Parliament of the day. If it is not of independent membership, and if it is in some sense the servant of the Lower House, one is then led to the question of whether there is an argument for a fixed term of Parliament of four years; a fixed term that is outwith the control of the Lower House. I would appreciate the views of the Treasury Minister when he replies to that.
The second part of my amendment touches on the relative question of the constitutional powers of the Crown. I had that in mind in the context of the duration of Parliament. It is true that the Crown is involved in the lengths of Parliaments and in the question of who shall be Prime Minister. All Prime Ministers are formally appointed by the Crown; but my own experience does not go back as far as the Crown preference for Bonar-Law over Austen Chamberlain in 1922 or for Baldwin rather than Curzon in 1923. However, I remember very well that when I entered the House of Commons in March 1974 Ted Heath was not then the leader of the largest party, but we thought that for some time he was looking into the possibility of forming a coalition with the Liberal Party which would enable him to continue as Prime Minister. It is obvious that if he had been able to make that coalition with the Liberals and promised them a certain number of Cabinet seats that would have put the Crown under considerable constitutional strain, because one assumes that the leader of the largest party, Harold Wilson, would have said that he, and not Ted Heath, should clearly be Prime Minister.
More recently, I remember as Government Chief Whip in 1990 having very serious discussions as to what advice we should give the Queen if the Prime Minister lost on the first vote in the party leadership ballot and wished then to give up her seals of office immediately, before the further elections had taken place to decide who was to be her successor.
These are real problems that face the Crown. They are added to by the greater volatility in voting that I have mentioned, and perhaps also by the adoption of proportional representation, which is likely to lead to more cases in the Commons of no major party having an outright majority and therefore to one party seeking to form a coalition—I have just quoted the example of Ted Heath in 1974—and then to be able to form a government that can apparently command a majority. This will put a strain on the Crown in deciding whether to accept the leader of that coalition as Prime Minister.
As Peter Riddell, that very wise political commentator in The Times, remarked a few years ago,
"The monarch's role as umpire only works if it is above controversy. "
In the scenarios that I have just put forward there is a possibility of more controversy surrounding these constitutional powers.
It has been suggested, against this background, that the power to appoint the Prime Minister should be removed from the Crown and put out to a commission of the great and the good, or to the Speaker of the House of Commons. But at the end of the day who appoints the Speaker? Notionally it is done on an all-party basis. In fact, at the end of the day the appointment lies with the majority party in the House of Commons. Equally, who appoints a commission of the great and the good?
It seems to me that we all realise that there is a need for a bulwark of independent senators with whom would rest such final but very difficult decisions. That sounds very much like Athens of the 5th century BC, a son of Platonic ideal that is not possible these days.
Of course, I think of the Privy Council. I declare an interest; I am a Privy Counsellor myself. The Privy Council is all-party, it is independent and it is secret—it keeps matters to itself. Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, have representatives on it. Canada has a nominated Senate, and could therefore feed in to our discussions about what sort of upper House we should have in this country. There are judges on the Privy Council; the judiciary is very strongly represented, not only from this country but from elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
What does the Privy Council do these days?—virtually nothing. Yet I remember that practically the first Starred Question that I asked when I came to the House of Lords was whether the Leader of the House anticipated the Privy Council having any part to play in consideration of reform of the House. I received a one-word answer from the then Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Benches opposite: "No. " That is a pity, because the Privy Council might have had some useful thoughts from independent senators.
I put the amendment before the Committee in the belief that there could be a potential problem, one that needs to be thought about and discussed. If Ministers tell me, "Don't worry. What you're concerned about will never happen", I shall say "Splendid. If that is the case, there is no problem at all in accepting my amendment. " I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: I fear that what I have to say will not be quite so agreeable as my last speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, moved his amendment, which he said was apolitical and reasonable, in his usual charming way. But this is a Bill about composition. It is not a Bill about powers. Everything that the noble Lord said may be germane to a measure dealing with the powers of the House of Lords, but there is no proposal before the Committee that there should be any diminution of the powers of the House of Lords in relation to the extension of Parliament beyond five years, nor that there should be any diminution in the powers of the House of Lords in relation to a diminution in the power of the prerogative. That is not before the Committee. The Bill deals solely with composition.
In tying the two together, the noble Lord's amendment, moved in a charming, rational and apolitical way, is grossly offensive to those of us who sit on this side of the Chamber. The essence of what he is saying—and how dare he say it?—is that the only people capable of dealing with these great constitutional issues and preserving the constitution are the hereditary Peers who are being ejected by the Bill. That is an astonishing proposition, which I totally reject, not only on behalf of the rest of us who are not hereditary Peers, but very strongly on my own behalf.
I have just as much constitutional concern as any Member sitting on the opposite Benches. The idea is ludicrous that in order to preserve five-year Parliaments the hereditary peerage must be kept in abeyance, sitting outside the Chamber so that if a Bill to extend the length of a parliament beyond five years is introduced they can all come trooping in as the guardians of the constitution.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord, who on most matters is very sensible, rational, apolitical and reasonable, really intended to be quite so offensive as the amendment implies. I cannot accept, nor do I believe, that the Committee can accept a situation where it is solemnly alleged that the only group of people who can be trusted with the British constitution are the hereditary Peers.
The noble Lord talked about the life Peers being in thrall to the Government. For the past century we have had a predominance of Conservative hereditary Peers in the House of Lords. The danger is not that Labour governments will produce a Bill to extend Parliament beyond five years. If the situation had been reversed and a Conservative government had proposed the extension of Parliament beyond five years, they would have started with a massive majority in favour. The presumption would have been that the Bill would be passed. The constitutional dangers are greater if the hereditary peerage stays than if it goes.
I apologise for speaking with some heat, but as the noble Lord went on, in his rational, apolitical and moderate way, I found myself becoming angrier and angrier at the implications of what he was saying. I hope
458
that in all the circumstances, when the noble Lord considers this in a calmer manner, he will seek to withdraw his amendment—and do it quickly.
The Earl of Radnor: Would we not be much happier about the future and not be worried, as is the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who moved the amendment, forgetting how he wanted to solve the matter, if we knew what the House of Lords was going to be like?
Lord Richard: The noble Earl might be happier, but that is not the issue before the Committee. The issue is whether hereditary Peers should be deprived of the right to sit and vote. The strategy of the Labour Government on reforming the House of Lords is well known. We have been round this course many times. It is a two-stage process, of which this is the first stage. All that I am saying is that to tie the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the argument about the removal of hereditary Peers from the House is illogical, does not make sense, and is deeply offensive to the other parties who are not Conservative.
Lord Crickhowell: I am flabbergasted by the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on this occasion, in suggesting that anything said by my noble friend Lord Renton was grossly offensive. It seems to me, on the contrary, that my noble friend raised a valid and important constitutional issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the Bill was about composition and not power. But if we are dealing with a constitutional matter the two things are intimately related, and must be. That is so because there is no safeguard in the arrangements for the temporary House to prevent the Prime Minister of the day fixing the nominations.
The nature of the appointments commission that is proposed by the Government, which is to be set up by the Prime Minister and the Government—that is to be dealt with on a later amendment—is concerned only with the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers. Indeed, the Government's White Paper says specifically that the Prime Minister will decide the overall number of nominations to be made by the Queen.
I know that we have had a number of undertakings. I am sure that those are intended and well meant. However, I should point out that we have had undertakings from the Government, which have been quickly overturned. Indeed, we had an example of that yesterday. Undertakings were given in this House about beef on the bone which were overturned 10 months later by a Minister in another place.
Although this legislation is intended to last for only a short time, it may last for very much longer. There may be a different Prime Minister in position by then. It is important that there should be a constitutional safeguard which is effective in any circumstances. A Prime Minister who was tempted to go to Parliament and the House of Commons and seek an extension of the life of Parliament from five to seven years would be precisely the kind of Prime Minister who may be tempted to attack this House. Indeed, if he thought there were

459
legitimate grounds for extending the life of Parliament, no doubt he would find powerful arguments for dealing with this House.
Therefore, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, no constitutional safeguard is provided under the Bill as it stands at present. Surely that is a sufficiently important issue for it to be discussed in this Committee without arousing the fury of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is an important constitutional issue which deserves serious consideration.
My noble friend is right, too, to link the issue of the duration of Parliament to that of the constitutional position of the monarch. He drew attention to a number of important considerations regarding the appointment of the Prime Minister and the tensions which may arise in a variety of situations. But it is true also that questions are being asked at this very moment about the use of the Royal Prerogative. That is being raised by Members in another place. Therefore, the question of the role of the monarchy is currently being debated legitimately—I do not object to it—by Members of the party opposite.
Therefore, dealing with the most fundamental role of this House, which is a role of constitutional protection, we should understand precisely what we are doing, as should the country. I am sorry if any Member of the Committee opposite finds that grossly offensive but I hope that my noble friend and others will continue to debate the matter as it certainly deserves to be debated.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The proposition which we are asked to consider was dealt with head on by my noble friend Lord Richard. However kind and sensible the proposition, it is perfectly clear that in the mind of the mover of the amendment, if not every Member opposite, is the thought that there is a need for the House to retain the intelligence and the national interest which resides in the hearts and minds of hereditary Peers.
What is the difference between life Peers and hereditary Peers either in their loyalty to the Crown or the observations of conventions and the constitution? There should be no difference at all and, in my view, there is not. I accept and understand that the hereditary Peers are faced with what, to them, is an extremely important event; that is, the exclusion from sitting and voting in this House. That is all.
On Second Reading we had a very lengthy debate in which many hereditary Peers, supported by their friends who are life Peers, put forward the case that hereditary Peers serve a useful purpose because they are motivated by service, loyalty, duty or pride. Life Peers are motivated by all of those feelings. What is the difference?
One element was left out of their argument; that is, the political element. Hereditary Peers told us that they come here because they are proud to continue the line of service offered by their families. I respect that. They felt that they had a duty to be here.1 respect that. But there was not one word about their allegiance to one party—the Conservative Party. In that debate, noble
460
Lords opposite spoke about many things but not about the party that dare not speak its name, the Conservative Party.
You can dress up the reasons why you do not want hereditary Peers to be deprived of the right to sit and vote. For my part, it is primarily a political issue. I sat on the Labour Benches and I was the Chief Whip. Therefore, I know, beyond doubt, that whenever there was a major vote there was no influx of life Peers; there was an influx of hereditary Peers. They came in out of a sense of duty, loyalty and service to their political party.
I am puzzled as to why noble Lords opposite persist in, first, denying their political heritage; and, secondly, using the time of the House to bring forward what are interesting debating points, but they are not the issue which is before this House. The issue on the Bill, the clause and the amendment is whether we are in favour of taking away the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House; and I am.
The Earl of Perth: I rise because my Amendment No.106 has been grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount. Harry.
I start by saying that we should not become too heated in this debate. We are discussing a Bill which may last for 50 or 100 years, a long period. Whatever the government of the day may say, the abolition of hereditary Peers will cause a fundamental change. I have lived for a long time and so the fact that I shall disappear does not cause me any concern. It is about time I did retire. It is extremely important to realise that this Bill proposes something which may well last—I hope it does—for a long time.
As I said, my amendment is grouped with Amendment No.25 which we are considering at present, and I do not quarrel with that. The sidenote to my amendment states: "Declaratory (No.2)". I looked up "Declaratory (No.1)". It concerns Amendment No.97, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley which covers very much the same ground. It states:
"Nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Lords"."
That is really what the Government are saying. I do not quarrel with that; I am delighted to hear it. However, when we debate that amendment let us remember that the purpose is abolition of the hereditary Peers; nothing else.
I remember being told, 40 or more years ago, that the only thing that counts in a Bill is what is actually in it. Ministers may give every kind of assurance—and generally we believe them—but when it comes to the crunch, to an interpretation, all that the law does is to look at what is in the Bill. That is of vital importance and that is why I tabled my amendment. Although there are all sorts of obstacles to this Parliament being lengthened, none of them is certain except the power of veto of this House, in whatever form, over the other place trying to extend its life or to extend the life of a parliament.

461
That being so, I very much hope that in one form or another—Amendment No.25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Amendment No.97, or my Amendment No.106—this is accepted by the Government.
I had the pleasure of discussing the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He wrote me a helpful and thoughtful letter on the subject. I wonder whether he would either reply, quoting his letter to me because it is so valuable, or consider placing it in the Library. It states:
"I do hope what he [Lord Carter] said will put your mind at rest. "
I am afraid it does not. It is not that I doubt his intention in any way, or that of the Government. I would like to recall what I have always been told; that is, nothing counts except what is in a Bill in words. I appeal to the Government to consider the point and see whether they can help. The noble Lord, Lord Carter said he would do all he could to make it clear and give as many assurances as necessary. I absolutely accept that. However, as I have tried to show, assurances count for nothing when it comes to the crunch; that is, when we have to decide what a Bill says.
I therefore beg Members of the Committee not to think of this as being derogatory of the Government's intention but to think seriously of the worries many noble Lords have on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: By introducing the amendment my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has done a good service. Perhaps I may say that he introduced it in an inoffensive, intellectual, and scholastic way. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, became more and more angered by it. He said that the Bill concerns only one issue; that is, getting rid of hereditary Peers. He must see that it goes a good deal further than that. He shakes his head. He seems to have tunnel vision. One cannot remove 600 or 750 people from Parliament and say that it has no outside or alternative effect.
Lord Richard: I am not saying that. Of course I know that it has an effect. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that the only way of preserving these constitutional prerogatives, and the only way of ensuring that no government extends the life of a parliament, is by bringing the hereditary peerage back into this House for the purposes of considering the Bill. I reject that on my own grounds. With respect, I am just as capable of looking after the constitutional position in this country as the noble Lord.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is far more capable of doing that than I am. However, he knows perfectly well that when one tables an amendment it is often a probing amendment. The noble Lord shakes his head again. That is another example of tunnel vision. It is unlikely that any future government or event would have the effect that all the Peers who had been ejected would suddenly come running back in. The point made by my noble friend is that this concerns a serious constitutional matter.
462
Perhaps I may say, with the greatest respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made the same mistake in stating that all the Bill does is to get rid of hereditary Peers. He asked why all hereditary Peers belong to the Conservative Party. I can tell him one of the reasons. Before 1958 a number of Peers were, quite correctly, created on the Labour Party Benches. Curiously, the majority of their sons became Conservatives. That was the reason for the introduction of the Life Peerages Act: to encourage more Peers on to the Labour Benches.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter will not reject this totally. It is a serious point but not an inflammatory one. If the Bill is passed as it stands, all hereditary Peers will go and we would be left with an appointed Chamber. We do not know what will happen about the Weatherill amendment, which is another matter entirely. That is what the Bill states and what the Government intend to do. That would totally alter the balance of powers and responsibilities between the two Houses and may well produce a constitutional problem. That is the reason why my noble friend quite correctly highlighted this point.
We do not know what the second Chamber will comprise or who will make the appointments. We do not know whether there will be 100 hereditary Peers. Because of the way the Government have introduced the Bill, the future is unknown. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is no good him saying, "Oh, well, this is only about getting rid of hereditary Peers. It doesn't matter. " This affects the constitution hugely and my noble friend is quite right to draw attention to the matter.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Graham, that as a hereditary Peer I would be very comfortable if I thought that they would be in a position to make the decisions in future. Under those circumstances, I would be happy to go. However, alas, neither the noble Lord, Lord Richard, nor the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has the power to deliver. We do not know what this Chamber will be like when we, and possibly they, have gone.
5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: We have no objection to Amendment No.106 which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but it is completely unnecessary because there is nothing in the Bill that alters the powers conferred on your Lordships' Chamber or reserved to your Lordships' Chamber by the Parliament Act 1911.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, is another matter altogether. That is not acceptable to us because it retains the votes of the hereditary Peers for special circumstances. It is seriously defective in its drafting. There is nothing in it which prevents a Bill to extend the life of Parliament being moved by a government Back-Bencher with government support.
As for new restrictions on the constitutional powers of the Crown, those powers are now mostly exercised by the Government as part of the Royal Prerogative; for

463
example, the power to sign and ratify treaties or to declare war. Most of us would welcome a government who introduced a Bill to restrict their own powers to exercise the Royal Prerogative by, for example, allowing Parliament to have a voice in the ratification of treaties. But we do not see the need to have any special votes on such a Bill.
To get away from the defects in the drafting, the principle behind the amendment is equally unacceptable; indeed, more so. I do not believe that there is any prospect of any party seeking to exercise the power to prolong the life of a parliament in any circumstances, except the kind of grave national crisis which led to the extension of the lives of the Parliaments elected in 1910 and 1935. But if any party did seek to do so, the life Peers of all parties would have the independence and courage to resist the attempt. I do not believe that the life Peers on the Conservative Benches feel themselves less independent than do their hereditary friends. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, whether he feels less capable of exercising an independent judgment than his noble friend Lord Ferrers. I do not believe that he does.
If a Conservative government tried to extend the life of a parliament and the Conservative Peers believed that they were wrong in doing so, would they vote against their own party? I believe that they would. If they would not do so, the whole argument that your Lordships' House is a bulwark in its present form against the power to extend the life of a parliament must fail. But if it is true that the Conservative Peers would be prepared to vote against their own party if they believed it was acting wrongly in seeking to extend the life of a parliament, that must equally be true of the Peers of other parties. whether they are life or hereditary Peers.
I may have expressed my views less provocatively than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but in essence my views are exactly the same as the views expressed by both him and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I do not believe that the amendment is justified.
Baroness Young: This is one of the most important amendments tabled to this Bill and I hope that the Government will look at it very seriously. It may not be correctly drafted, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said., but that is not the point at issue.
The important constitutional point at issue here is whether or not the House of Lords would have the power to prevent the life of a government being extended. The amendment, moved in a balanced and moderate way by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, linked with that of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, makes that important point.
It would be extremely unfortunate if the debate descended into a kind of wrangle as to whether hereditary or life Peers are more independently minded and act more responsibly. That is not what this is about. The truth is that when we determine a constitution, like any legal document, we look at the opportunities for doing things which none of us sitting in this Chamber today would think are right. But one cannot possibly
464
know what a future Chamber might consider to be right. That is why I feel that the final argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does not stand up.
In making these judgments one has to consider what a future Chamber might think it right to do. Those of us who have been in politics for a long time know that there are situations in which temptations and arguments are put up which are quite wrong; and one likes to feel that one is independently minded enough to stand up against them. I believe that I can say that I am independent minded and have stood up against arguments which I felt were wrong. In constitution-making, we have always to prepare for the worst and make the assumption that such things are possible. I can accept that these amendments may not: be correctly drafted, but this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and I hope that the Government will address it.
The Earl of Errol: Perhaps I may say quickly from these Benches that I am a little tired of hearing how all hereditary Peers sit on the Conservative Benches. They do not. A significant number of us sit on the Cross Benches and if one other party joined with the Cross Benches, we could defeat the Conservatives. That is a straight fact. They do not have an overall majority in this Chamber.
Having dealt with that matter, the real problem here—. the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was very ingenuous—is that this country does not have a constitutional court. We have no final long-stop. If the executive can gain control over everything, that is it. At the moment, for many members of the public and Members of your Lordships' Chamber, the only long-stop left is the hereditary Peers, inadequate as that may seem to many. If another Bill before Parliament: gave a different constitutional, irrevocable long-stop, I am sure that we would have no problem with the Bill going through at the moment. We are therefore attempting to put in other long-stops.
The 1949 Act has shown how it is possible to revoke certain provisions in other Acts. The 1911 Act contained certain protections. The 1949 Act shows that those protections can be overturned. In fact, the 1949 Act, as an example, could overturn Clause 7—the quinquennial Act provision—to reserve powers to the Lords under the 1911 Act. It therefore concerns me that whatever we pass now can actually be revoked. It does not matter what constitutional protections we put in; it can be revoked by a government and pushed through. That is what worries me.
As I said in my Second Reading speech, I am worried about who governs my grandchildren. I am not worried about going on sitting here; I am worried about the future. I find it very difficult when I listen to people of great and good intention who are honest, sincere and would do their duty—like the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Graham of Edmonton, whom I respect greatly; I know I can put great faith in them—who believe that they can trust a successor of either political colour. No one can guarantee that this interim House will not last for another 100 years. So these provisions will go on and we should try to think how we are going to put in

465
some constitutional safeguards and stop rejecting them out of hand. The only constitutional safeguards we have at the moment are the hereditary Peers unless we provide for a constitutional court in this Bill. If the Government wish to do that, let them come forward with it; I am sure we would all vote for it.
Viscount Cranborne: I am sure Members of the Committee will agree with me that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for putting forward, in the one case, his declaratory amendment, and in the other, his probing amendment.
The whole House seems to feel that the noble Earl merely reflects a statement of the case as it is. But we owe him a debt of gratitude because it is often forgotten—and had been forgotten until the reform of your Lordships' Chamber once again floated over the political horizon—that one of the most important and, we hope, permanently dormant—politically at least—powers of your Lordships' Chamber is its power under the 1911 Act to preserve the provisions of the quinquennial Act. For that reason, it seems to me that the declaratory amendment proposed by the noble Earl is a useful reminder, whether or not it is eventually incorporated into the Bill.
As far as concerns the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I also think that we ought to be grateful. During the course of my noble friend's extraordinarily interesting analysis of his amendment I believe he made it clear that, if the provisions of the Quinquennial Act are to be preserved, the quality which matters most for your Lordships' House after the passage of the Bill is independence. It matters for virtually every other issue that this Chamber concerns itself with, such as the revision of legislation and its more day-to-day functions. However, by definition, this long-stop function matters more than anything else. Indeed, that independence is the crux of the argument which has flowed backwards and forwards across the Chamber this afternoon.
I believe it was my noble friend Lady Young who, wisely, observed during the course of her remarks that we should not legislate on the assumption that people of good will interpret the legislation. She said that we should legislate on the assumption that governments in particular will be tempted to act in certain ways. From my limited experience of governments, of all persuasions, I do not think that it is necessarily always ill will that tempts them; it is expediency. Above all, it is the feeling, which is perhaps natural in any government, that they are the embodiment of the instrument of doing what is right. They feel that there is a sort of moral obligation which enables them to become a little less scrupulous, especially after long periods in power, than perhaps a number of us would like to see. I hasten to add at this point that I am not referring to governments of any complexion in that remark.
However, I also think that it is especially important to consider now the question of the effect of legislation on governments who are driven, for whatever reason, to become unscrupulous. After all, we are not only living
466
in a period of very great constitutional change as far as concerns our own country; we are also living at a time when the existence of the nation state as the basic political building block within our planet is under challenge. As a conservative with a small -c"—and, of course, with a big "C"; but particularly with a small "c"—that is not a view to which I subscribe. But it is increasingly asserted that the day of the nation state is gone.
We must assume in this House and in the consideration of legislation that the nation state is something which will endure for the purposes of this Bill; and that safeguards affecting the nation state should continue to be incorporated. But if, for example, this view, which I deplore, were to become more prevalent I suspect that it would be increasingly easy to argue, if only for reasons of expediency, that constitutional safeguards which guarantee the continuance of the nation state, in the form that we understand it, should be undermined. Indeed, not only that they should be undermined but, also, in the modern global world in which we all live, that they represent something which does not particularly matter. After all, in international organisations there are great platonic guardians who know what is good for us better than we do.
Therefore, for all those reasons, I think it is extremely sensible for us to ensure that the preservation of the provisions of the Quinquennial Act is kept as the cornerstone of the functions of your Lordships' House, whether reformed or unreformed. As I said, I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry did us a service by drawing our attention to this so early in our proceedings. However, with the greatest respect, where I begin to part company with my noble friend is on the issue as to how sensible it is to imply that any group of people outside the membership of either House of Parliament should have a reserved constitutional role which acts as a sort of guardian for Parliament. Some people may say that, in due course, judges may have a say in that role. Again, this may betray my conservatism in every sense of the word, but I actually think that this is the sort of question which properly belongs in Parliament, especially in the upper House.
I believe that I have made clear during the past few weeks my reluctant conclusion that the day of the hereditary Peer is over, but I shall not rehearse those arguments again and risk boring noble Lords more than I usually do. Nevertheless, however much I may or may not deplore the departure of the hereditary peerage, I find it constitutionally odd that Parliament itself should not be trusted to perform one of its central functions in its control of government; and that Members of Parliament alone—particularly, in this instance, Members of your Lordships' House, whether reformed or unreformed—should not be trusted to maintain the provisions of the Quinquennial Act.
Having said that, that does not mean to say that I do not greatly sympathise with the very real problem identified by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. For reasons that I have tried to explain, I fear that we would be wise in this House to doubt the reliability of governments of any colour when put under enormous pressure and when they may feel that it is

467
expedient, for example, to change the provisions of the Quinquennial Act. One of the difficulties that any government would have with your Lordships' House in the form as at present proposed would be the sheer mechanics of flooding this Chamber with enough people to win a vote. With a very large number of Peers allowed to sit and vote, the number of peerages which would have to be created in order to overcome an inbuilt majority against the Government for a Motion of the kind that we are envisaging would present difficult mechanical problems, especially if it had to be accomplished in a hurry. But that, in itself, is a safeguard.
I suspect that that safeguard will, by definition, be somewhat eroded with the very much smaller House that we will see, even though the Government have told us that they intend to maintain broad parity with the Conservative Party alone and not seek an overall majority in your Lordships' House. Under the very severe circumstances which might lead to a proposal for the overturning of the Quinquennial Act, I suspect that a government would not be too inhibited by that undertaking.
I should tell my noble friend that I do have a difficulty with the solution that he proposes to the problem that he has identified. However, that does not mean to say that I do not think that he is absolutely right in his view that the problem does exist. If the Government agree with me that the way my noble friend has suggested for dealing with this problem is perhaps not the ideal one, I wonder whether they could give us an reassurance that perhaps some thought might be given as to how his difficulty might be addressed. One way he suggested was a fixed Parliament. If I may say so with the greatest respect to him, that is one of the oldest chestnuts in British constitutional history. That is one possibility.
Another one, which may be more easily achieved during the passage of the present Bill, is a maximum number for the membership of your Lordships' House, which, again, would help a little to ease the difficulty of swamping your Lordships with new creations. That is another thought that I leave in the Committee's mind as a possibility.
However, whichever way we jump, we are presented with a difficulty throughout this Bill. My noble friend Lord Waddington, who is not present, has identified that difficulty with increasing passion as our debates have progressed; namely, that we are presented with a Bill which is only half a reform. Time and again we come back to the practical difficulty; namely, that as much as we love and admire and believe the Government, in the end we are forced to take on trust the fact that they will proceed to stage two, which will incorporate all the guarantees that we all want and which, by definition, are being eroded in this present Bill.
I recognise—as your Lordships have perhaps criticised me for recognising in the past—that the Government are in an extremely powerful position and that the compromise which we shall debate in a couple of weeks' time is perhaps the least bad option. However, it would be some comfort at least for those of us who
468
agree with the old French saw that, "ce n'est rien que le provisoire qui dure" to know that some of the guarantees—in particular the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry this afternoon—might be incorporated in this Bill in case the temporary lasts longer than some of us would like.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the noble Viscount sits down I wish to ask him one question. He said that it was the role of Parliament to decide these matters. Why was it then that the British Parliament in deciding the bicameral constitutions of the Dominions still reserved the right that constitutional change had to be ratified by this House?
Viscount Cranborne: I realise that the noble Earl is a great deal more knowledgeable than I about the history of the constitutions of Commonwealth Parliaments. My sense of the development of the Commonwealth in the past few decades is that increasingly Commonwealth countries have taken from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and indeed from the British Parliament. powers which they have drawn into the bosom of their own Parliaments. I suspect from some of the newspaper reports that I have read in the past few clays—I believe I read something of the kind in connection with Trinidad this morning—that the remaining vestiges of the connections may indeed be on the way out. I suspect—I refer to those of us who believe that the nation state will endure—that those of us who distrust the reliability of international organisations will find this a rather reassuring development.
Viscount Bledisloe: Even assuming that there is the theoretical problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I find the solution proposed by his amendment remarkable. Let us assume that stage two does not come upon us very quickly, if at all, and that in, say, seven years' time a Minister of the Crown introduces a Bill and it is suggested that that restricts the powers of the Crown—let us say, to select the Prime Minister. Is it really contemplated that upon that day seven years hence, all those then qualified for hereditary Peerage, the heirs of many of the persons presently in your Lordships' House—some of whom will by definition never have been here—all 700 of them, shall then be entitled to apply for 'Writs of Summons, shall queue up to take their oath, shall make their maiden speeches (all 700 of them) before they can take part in proceedings on the Bill? That is riot just a matter of dusting down elderly Peers who have been put out to grass for seven years; it is a question of unwrapping from their nappies their successors who have never been to this place and who have no idea how it works, and suddenly conferring upon them a power to take part in the activities of one Bill, because it is an important Bill, and then sending them back either to their dusty shelves or to their nappies. It is an amazing solution.
Lord Eden of Winton: One of the great assets and great strengths of the Chamber which many Members of the Committee have commented upon, most notably my noble friend Lord Cranborne, is the independence

469
of judgment exercised by individual Members. Since I have been here I have had the opportunity to witness that on many occasions. I must admit that when I was a Member of the other place it was much more difficult to exercise that degree of independence of mind, thought and action. However, in this place it has been easy to do so. I shall exercise my independence of judgment this afternoon, should either of the noble Lords who have moved amendments press them in any shape or form to a Division. However, I would not feel able to support that of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I say that with great regret because I have the greatest regard for him.
Nonetheless, I would find it most valuable to have something like the declaratory amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, included on the face of the Bill. That would be a safeguard and a reassurance. I emphasise the word "reassurance" and in doing so I look straight at the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and say to him that I understand perfectly well why he felt a little upset. I do not think he was "steamed up" because in the past I have seen him get steamed up and I know what happens when he does. He certainly was not steamed up this afternoon. Nonetheless he made a perfectly valid point; namely, that there is nothing to choose, when it is a matter of independence of judgment and of a willingness and readiness to protect the constitution, between hereditary Peers and life, appointed Peers. I fully accept that.
However, what this Bill is about—as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, took the opportunity to emphasise—is the composition of the Chamber. We are engaged in a process which will lead to a changed House of Lords. It will not be the same as it is now. By changing the composition you inevitably change the nature of the Chamber. I suspect—but I do not know this any more than any other noble Lord does at present—that the nature of the Chamber will change by virtue of the appointments that will be made to make up its number. It will become a different place. It will become largely peopled by new-entry Members who owe their allegiance to the source of that appointment. Inevitably there will be an erosion of the degree of independence of judgment which, by virtue of the mix of hereditary and life Peers that we have at the present time, this Chamber has been able to enjoy, and which it has honoured. Therefore I believe that we are in danger of having a less independent, judgmental forum in the future than that which we have today.
I ally that possibility in my mind with the reality of another place with a substantial majority, and with a government determined to exercise their power and who have already shown that they have comparatively little regard for parliamentary institutions. Therefore, I think it is all the more important that we do everything we can to safeguard those elements of the constitution which may in future be under attack by an over-mighty government with an over-large majority in the other place when this Chamber has changed its composition altogether. For that reason I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
470
I hope that I am right in feeling encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has evidently written a very fulsome letter to the noble Earl, will be able to give firm reassurances from the Dispatch Box and, more importantly, that he will seek to enshrine words to the effect of the declaratory Motion, if not in the Bill then in any future legislation affecting the powers of the House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Acton: Before the noble Lord sits down, surely he does not believe that the 120 Cross-Bench life Peers owe their allegiance to whichever Prime Minister was responsible for them coming here?
Lord Eden of Winton: The noble Lord is quite correct, I do not.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not believe that it will unduly grieve or shock my noble friends sitting in front of me when I say that it is quite a long time since I would have admitted to the description of being an ardent party politician. Indeed, my regard for political parties generally has diminished sharply over recent years. I hasten to add that that does not alter or diminish the respect I have for my noble friends who are sitting in front of me.
The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, from the Cross Benches gave me particular pleasure. I regard the Cross Benches of your Lordships' House as unique. Noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches come here without any party ties at all. That is not repeated anywhere in the world. I hope that whatever replaces your Lordships' House will somehow perform the miracle of preserving a collection of people who are uncontaminated by party allegiance.
I quite understand the difficulty and the hostility that the Labour Party has felt for many years at finding itself facing a permanently entrenched majority of Conservatives in the House. I find it exceedingly difficult that we somehow get blamed—as we were by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—for wishing to compare the respective merits of hereditary and life Peers. That is totally irrelevant to the issue. Everyone wants to have good people in the House who will look after the interests of the nation. To indulge in that kind of comparison is very unhelpful indeed.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Richard. No one can be more fairly attributed the characteristic of Olympian calm. The noble Lord achieved a unique performance. He always speaks entertainingly and interestingly, but on this occasion he somehow managed to couple his usual Olympian calm with words of anger. The words did not seem to be coming from someone who felt that emotion. Although the noble Lord was very impressive in one way, I think he had a very odd combination of manner and substance.
My noble friend Lord Renton will correct me if I am wrong, but I never heard him say that the only way in which to defend the constitution was the preservation for ever of hereditary Peers. If I am not right, my noble friend will doubtless interrupt me. That was the basis of the charge. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is going to

471
doubt people because of what appears on the Marshalled List, that will lead to some very odd conclusions. No one knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who, after all, has been Leader of the House.
The difficulty throughout the Bill has been that we are discussing a one-legged affair; it hops along; it does not progress in an orderly fashion. I am irritated when I look at the Front Bench opposite and again and again one sees the unreceptive faces of noble Lords who cannot understand any point of view other than their own. I did not come here to make those kind of remarks. I was in a happy, calm mood. It is amazing the power that people on Front Benches have to upset me. They must practise; they have such skill. I see no sign of them even trying to understand what we mean or our real concern that we do not know what the future holds. I am a very reluctant believer in the goodness and common sense of governments. My experience of nearly half a century is that governments do not deserve any tribute of that kind. Goodness is very far from them and common sense often flies away from them.
I hope that the Government Front Bench will at least listen with respect to noble Lords who are not trying to filibuster or to put only the point of view of their party, but who feel very worried indeed about not knowing what will replace your Lordships' House. They are worried that we could end up with a House which, far from being permanent, will be a storm centre for many years to come.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think I detected a wave of sympathy from the Government Front Bench when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke to his declaratory amendment. I was very glad to hear that because I think a declaratory amendment will help. But I, for one, do not feel that a declaratory amendment alone will do the trick on this issue.
I echo the words of other noble Lords who have said that perhaps the solution to the problem enunciated by my noble friend Lord Renton is the right one. He enunciated a very important problem—a problem which exists because we do not know how the House will be constituted as time goes on. We do not know how many Cross-Benchers there will be; we do not know what the House will look like as time goes on if stage one lasts for a long time. When the Government Chief Whip replies I hope that he will be able to give us an assurance that the Government are looking at the problem enunciated in Amendment No.25. If he does not do so, I am sure that other noble Lords will seek to ensure that an amendment will be made to the Bill to confront this problem.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to begin by agreeing entirely with my noble friend Lady Young who said that this is one of the most important issues that we have had to address during the course of the passage of the Bill. Not only is it important, but it also deals with one of the most sensitive areas of the constitution.
I am interested in finding the solution to the problem raised by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. The Parliament Acts have restricted the delaying power of the House of Lords over government Bills, but they
472
have, however, specifically and deliberately left untouched the absolute power of the House of Lords to reject outright any Bill to extend the life of Parliament. It is widely known that many dictatorships have been democratically elected and then entrench themselves by altering the constitution, and the 20th century has a number of disturbing examples. That is not in question in our country at this time. Although it is easy to reject the proposition as fanciful—I think it probably is—it has happened in the past in England, as my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry reminded us, in the 17th century, at a time of constitutional crisis and civil strife. It has happened in many other countries. That is why the constitutional protection is there—not because of what we think will happen but because of what is unlikely but could nevertheless happen in theory.
A sound constitution will provide against these dangers. In recent centuries, ours has most certainly done so. So what will happen after the Bill goes through without an amendment of this kind? We will have a second Chamber with the formal powers still to veto the extension of a Parliament, but the Prime Minister of the day will have the power to nominate a majority in that Chamber and the same Government could therefore present a Bill to extend its life and ensure a majority for the Bill's passage in the Lords. That is the. fundamental point.
We have been told many times that the Bill is about removing the hereditary Peers. That is only part of the. purpose of the Bill. The other part is that the Bill creates an interim House. So we should consider how that interim House will operate. The composition of this House will be decided by another place, most notably by the Prime Minister.
My noble friend has put forward a proposal which allows the hereditary Peers to be brought: back in, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, described, from their dotage or from their nappies in order to deal with this issue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne that that is almost certainly not the best way of dealing with this problem. I should like to put this point to the Government: do they accept that there is an issue here and a problem that needs to be resolved? This is not an issue that needs to be resolved just because a Labour Government are in place. But do they accept that, for the long term consequences of the Bill, some kind of new safeguard needs to be introduced in this House to deal with the issue that was raised by my noble friend?
We are told by the Government—we have to accept it—that this is a stand alone Bill. There are no guarantees that we will go forward to a stage two. Noble Lords opposite have set up a Royal Commission to look at the future, but there are no guarantees that the Royal Commission's recommendations will be accepted; nor do I think there could be. So we have to deal on the basis that what is proposed in the Bill could stay with us for a very long time.
A number of other suggestions have been made by noble Lords today. There is the possibility of introducing a maximum number of Peers in this House. There is also another option. It is an option which the Government have found for themselves in relation to the

473
Scotland Act passed last Session. In the Scotland Act the Government took the decision that there should be a qualified majority on constitutional issues. The Government obviously considered that option for the Scotland Act and decided to put it into place. I just wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us whether that would be an acceptable solution to this problem.
As I said, I am not convinced that my noble friend has proposed the best way of maintaining the guarantee that currently exists and I very much hope that his amendment is not pressed today. But he has offered one solution. A voting threshold or a maximum number of Peers in the House are other ways. What we cannot have is no way of dealing with this problem. I look to the Government to impress us with their thinking and to give firm assurances that they will either join us or come forward with their own amendments at a later stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rises to reply, I think I should point out that the situation is a little more serious than was outlined by my noble friends Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Lord Eden, Lord Strathclyde, and others. I say that because it is very unlike them, but the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Graham of Edmonton, appear to have forgotten the Labour manifesto. Indeed, no noble Lord has mentioned the Labour manifesto. I suppose we can forgive the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for not being entirely familiar with that document, but I am very surprised at noble Lords opposite who have opposed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton.
I say that because the Labour manifesto clearly said that the Government would in future appoint Peers to reflect more closely the proportion of votes cast in the previous general election. That must mean that if that part of the manifesto, to which we notice the Government are very committed, is carried through, a future House of Lords will be more sympathetic to and reflective of the government of the day. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply to the amendment would deal with that very real problem.
Lord Carter: We have certainly had a very interesting debate and an interesting historical and constitutional journey. In replying to Amendment No.25, I shall speak also to Amendment No.106 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The purpose of the amendments is to give hereditary Peers a continuing role as guardians of the constitution against the executive. That is a paraphrase. The clause has the effect of allowing the hereditary Peers to speak and vote on any public Bill which would extend the life of a Parliament or any public Bill which would restrict the constitutional powers of the Crown. Although hereditary Peers would cease to be members of the House of Lords, they would apparently be eligible to return to take part in proceedings on those two types of measure. There is no indication in the clause as to whether Writs of Summons would be needed for that
474
purpose or whether they could simply turn up. The clause also contains no indication of the type of legislation to which paragraph (b) refers.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, seeks to allow the hereditary Peers to return to the House to vote in two circumstances. One is clearly defined and one is extremely vague. As I understand the noble Lord's amendment, it stems from two anxieties. The first is that this or a future government intend to subvert the constitution of this country; the second is that life Peers are not to be trusted to stop them. I have to tell the Committee that neither proposition has any basis in fact.
When I listen to these fears being expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Crickhowell, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others, I just wonder whether noble Lords raised such concerns about the power of the executive and so on when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister with a very substantial majority in the other House. Perhaps they did. Indeed, at that time, despite the in-built majority of hereditary Peers, that Conservative government created twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour life Peers. I just wonder whether there was any protest at the time and whether any concern was expressed about the constitutional dangers that might come about.
Perhaps I may deal immediately with the point about the intentions of the Labour Government. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like hearing quotations from our manifesto. We have stated that,
"We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords".
We have also said that in a transitional House we wish to seek only broad parity with the Conservative Opposition and a substantial presence of independent and Cross-Bench Peers. That could not be clearer. What is interesting—
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord when he is in full flow. What makes the noble Lord think that it would be possible for this Government's statement of intention, not even expressed in legislation, to bind subsequent governments?
Lord Carter: No Parliament can bind its successor. I shall return to that point; it is central to the argument.
On the general point, the proposals for reform of the House of Lords have produced a veritable upsurge and an interest in constitutional change and in novel constitutional ideas: fixed term Parliaments; constitutional safeguards; the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for reform of the other place. As I said in an earlier debate on this subject, the thought process of the Conservative Party in this area owes rather more to Rip van Winkel than to Socrates.
The constitutional safeguard that we have now is not the presence of hereditary Peers in this House. It is the Septennial Act as amended by the Parliament Act. I shall return to that point in replying to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.

475
There could be a valuable role for a reformed House of Lords in relation to constitutional issues. I shall not be in the least surprised if a large proportion of the evidence given to the Royal Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, does not make suggestions on the role that a reformed House could play in constitutional issues. This Bill does not deal with that point. It is one to which I shall return.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is always introducing us to new ideas. He had a new theory. He seemed to say that the majority of Conservative hereditary Peers had Labour hereditary Peers as their fathers. That is an extraordinary tribute to the fertility of the previous Labour generation, given the number of Conservative Peers in this House.
The noble Earl referred to the idea that the new House will be an appointed Chamber. This House is an appointed Chamber. It is appointed by eight successive Prime Ministers in the case of life Peers; and in the case of hereditary Peers, by their genes. It is also implied that Conservative hereditary Peers are the only people available to safeguard the constitution. We do not accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart referred to defects in the drafting of the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord: I believe it was all hereditary Peers, not merely Conservatives. There are a large number of us on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Carter: I accept the correction.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that the presence of all hereditary Peers represents the only longstop. He wanted some form of safeguard which could not be changed in the future.
It is the heart of our constitution that no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament. That is absolutely central.
The Earl of Erroll: I said that it was an inadequate safeguard for the present. I suggested that an irrevocable constitutional court might be better.
Lord Carter: That is an alternative. The constitution as it presently stands is absolutely clear that no Parliament can bind its successor.
Turning to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, we shall provide all the assurances that we can regarding the intentions of the Government as regards the Septennial Act.
The Government have made it clear that in the transitional House no party should seek a majority in the reformed House. We have committed ourselves to seek only broad parity with the main Opposition party. There will still be a substantial Cross-Bench presence. The majority of Members at any time will not have been appointed by the present government. Existing life Peers have been appointed by eight Prime Ministers over 40 years. So the fears expressed by noble Lords are unfounded.
476
The idea of fixed term Parliaments is one that has been advanced over many years. It would be a major change to move to fixed term Parliaments at Westminster. Our parliamentary system depends on the executive commanding the confidence of Parliament in the other place and at the discretion, in appropriate circumstances, of the Prime Minister to seek the dissolution of Parliament for a general election. There are possible arguments for changing that, but they do not arise from the Bill. It does not change the powers and privileges of the executive, the Commons or the Lords. I should also point out that an Act introducing a fixed term Parliament could be overturned by the same elective dictatorship which it is feared will remove the safeguards of the quinquennial Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to fear that in future that we should be in the hands of a dictatorship. The noble Lord said that "only at this time' was he happy about the situation. He also agreed that to bring back the hereditary Peers as the constitutional safeguard was not the best way to deal with the issues that have been raised.
The noble Lord said that there is no guarantee in regard to stage two. There is a safeguard. We have made clear that, if this House accepts the Weatherill amendment, stage two is required to fulfil our manifesto commitment to remove the hereditary peerage. We have made that absolutely clear. The noble Lord referred to the possibility of a blocking majority on constitutional issues. I cannot accept it on behalf of the Government on the hoof in debate, but it is certainly an interesting idea and one that could possibly be put to the Roy al Commission in relation to the final stage of a reformed House.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may intervene. The problem that we are talking about will riot be resolved by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission will be examining proposals to take this House from its interim stage to full reform. The problem that will arise immediately this Bill is on the statute book relates to the interim House. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point.
Lord Carter: We have explained that in the interim House no one party will have an overall majority.
Lord Strathclyde: If that is the case, will the noble Lord accept an amendment to the Bill that makes that clear?
Lord Carter: It is not necessary. We have already said so.
The Earl of Erroll: How can the noble Lord bind a successor Parliament with that assurance?
Lord Carter: I cannot; nor does the Bill—or indeed any Bill. No Parliament can bind its successor. 'We have made the position absolutely clear. If noble Lords do not believe us, we can only give our word and the word of the Prime Minister.
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for yet again interrupting the noble Lord. Will he not accept that an

477
assurance, even from him—and this House has learnt from the beginning of the noble Lord's career to accept his assurances as carrying great authority, given in total good faith—would be less easy to overturn if it were embodied in legislation for a subsequent Parliament?
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: The assurance is not only from me; it comes from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made our intention absolutely clear. It is to seek—unlike what we could seek based on the results of the last election—only broad parity with the major Opposition party in the transitional House and perhaps also in the finally reformed House; that the Government will never command a majority in this House. It is a familiar situation for Labour Chief Whips. That is what we have said, and we intend to stand by our word.
Turning to the substance of sub-paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's amendment, I assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of bringing forward legislation to alter the maximum life of a Parliament. We are quite prepared to face the electorate on our record at the end of this present Parliament; as, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in 1987, when his party commanded a massive majority in both Houses. We never dreamed of accusing Members opposite of wishing to take advantage of that majority to subvert the constitution. If anxieties on that score lie at the heart of the noble Lord's amendment, they are unfounded.
I am not at all clear as to the aim of sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment, dealing with the powers of the Crown. I assume that it relates to any attempt to reduce the powers of the monarchy. But it is by no means certain that it can be construed as narrowly as that. For example, would a Bill that attempted to reduce the powers of the executive also fall within the ambit of this sub-paragraph because of the Royal Prerogative. It offers scope for endless argument as to whether or not the provision of the sub-paragraph has been triggered.
I am not sure whether we are intended to take seriously the second proposition that apparently lies behind the noble Lord's proposals; namely, that life Peers are not to be trusted with the constitution of this country. As a life Peer himself, I am sure that the noble Lord believes himself to be eminently trustworthy in that respect. Why should he or we think any less of our fellow life Peers? Yet that appears to be the burden of his remarks. No doubt he assumes that this Bill will last much longer than we intend. We have heard the fears expressed that apparently there will be ample time for the present Prime Minister, who in the meantime will have won several elections without the help of suspension of the Septennial Act, to pack this House with poodles—to quote one expression we have heard—before he moves in for the kill. At that point, 20 to 25 years hence, the hereditary Peers will be asked to ride to the rescue. Presumably, by that time several hundred hereditary Peers will never have been Members of this House.
478
The noble Lords opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they believe that this Government can remain in power for many years without cheating or that the present Prime Minister, or a future one, in defiance of everything that has been said about not seeking a majority in this House, will immediately add some 500 life Peers to it. Or perhaps they believe that the present Members of your Lordships' House—the life Peers—are not to be trusted. I shall be delighted if he is right in the first proposition that there will be a Labour government for 25 years. I and my noble friends are rather insulted by the last two propositions regarding life Peers.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I assure the Committee that the Bill has no impact on the provision whereby the Septennial Act, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, is excluded from the operation of the latter. Amendments to the Septennial Act will therefore continue to need the consent of this House. I have already written to the noble Earl to explain this to him. We cannot amend that provision by sleight of hand; we would have to do it openly. We have not done so; nor do we have any such intention. I am happy to take this further opportunity to put that on record by quoting from the letter that I wrote to the noble Earl, a copy of which I shall place in the Library:
"You asked me to confirm whether the House of Lords Bill was watertight in leaving intact the powers of this House to block any move by another place to extend the life of a Parliament. I am pleased to confirm that this is the case".
I then quote the words of the Act. The letter goes on:
"In order to apply the Parliament Acts to a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament, and thus to take away the important constitutional right which this House has, it would he necessary for the House of Lords Bill, or some other legislation. to amend section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911. It is clear from the text of the House of Lords Bill that no such amendment is envisaged. I do hope that this will set your mind at rest. My colleagues on the Front Bench and I would, however, be willing to give as many assurances as are necessary to this effect on the Floor of the House so that the Government's intentions in this area are quite clear".
I pick up one other point raised by the noble Earl about the wording of an Act. Since the judgment in Pepper v. Hart it is open to the courts to consider what is said in Parliament as evidence of intention. What I have just said is evidence of the fact that the Government have no intention of changing the Septennial Act.
As to the more general question of the effect of this Bill on the powers of this House, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Richard, we debated this matter last week in the context of an amendment moved by the Official Opposition. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn made it clear that there is nothing in the Bill that affects the powers of this House; nor is there any intention to do so. He explained then with his usual eloquence why amendments to say that the Bill did not do what it did not do, and was never intended to do, were irrelevant. The noble Earl was concerned about a particular issue. I hope that I have answered the point and that he and other noble Lords who have raised concerns will not feel it necessary to pursue either the general or particular matter any further.

479
We have had an interesting debate in which I have tried to make the Government's position entirely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does not appear to believe that. Is that the case?
Lord Strathclyde: I found the case made by the noble Lord strangely unconvincing. The problem is not the assurances of the current Government on the Septennial or quinquennial Acts, which I wholly accept. The point is that we are creating an interim House, the composition of which is in the hands of the Prime Minister. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, shakes his head. Therefore, I would be delighted if he accepted an amendment tabled by us to ensure that that was not so. To return to the point, the composition of the interim House will be in the hands of the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister, on whose behalf the Government Chief Whip has given certain assurances, may not last for very long. It is possible that he will last for a very long time, but the Bill may last for longer. We ask that an amendment be made to the Bill to deal with a problem. My preferred solution is that there be a qualified majority of this House. In that way the House of Commons cannot override the wishes of this House by a simple majority here because they have packed the House with their own cronies, to use common parlance.
Lord Carter: There is an extremely simple answer to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The Prime Minister has given an assurance which the noble Lord says he accepts. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Prime Minister lasts at least until the end of this Parliament. If we amended the Bill any successor Parliament could change it. Therefore, one has an assurance. In practical terms we all know what will happen if the Bill becomes law at the end of this Session, as we hope: there will be a transitional House. The sole intention is to achieve broad parity with the Opposition.
This Prime Minister has taken fewer powers than any previous one by handing over the choice of independent Members to an independent appointments commission. Noble Lords opposite are aware of the Government's proposals about the creation of an independent appointments commission to handle the appointment of independent Peers. This Prime Minister, unlike previous Conservative and even Labour ones, has reduced the power of patronage. We cannot say any more than that when the Bill becomes law—I am aware that I am repeating myself—we seek no more than broad parity with the main Opposition party. All of us can work out the figures. We believe that the Government in this House will never command a majority. It will require an overwhelming majority in this House of all the parties together—the Cross-Benchers, the Conservative Opposition and the Liberals—to defeat the Government. That is the only way that a change can be achieved.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Earlier he said that no government or Parliament could bind their successor. He has just said that the guarantee (if I may put it that way) of the independence of this House in future will lie in the
480
decision of the Prime Minister to forgo his own power of appointment to this House in favour of an appointments commission. Who will appoint that body?
Lord Carter: They are the usual arrangements, all of which have been discussed already. I hope that I am not being offensive if I say that noble Lords opposite are extremely slow learners. We debated this matter for 40 hours before we had the two-day debate on Second Reading. All of this has been explored many times and we have clearly spelt out our intentions. I do not believe that any government could have spelt out more clearly our intentions in relation to this House. The proposal is that in the transitional House there will be an independent appointments commission appointed in the same way as an independent non-departmental public body. Noble Lords must start to believe, first, that we mean what we say and, secondly, that we are telling the truth.
Earl Ferrers: With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, cannot get away with that. He stated that we had to believe everything that had been said. The Prime Minister had said this and the Government had said that and therefore it would happen. Whether or not one likes it, the Government are altering the constitution. They may be altering it for the better or the worse. You cannot get hold of the constitution and shake it like a Christmas tree and not expect something to fall off. It is perfectly possible for something to go wrong. It is perfectly possible for things to happen which no one expects.
Perhaps I may have the Minister's attention, even when he is being advised by such a learned person as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I am sure that the noble Lord will have benefited greatly from the advice he has received, if he is able to remember what it was. I was asking whether the Minister will be good enough to listen to what I am saying, even though he was being interrupted, I am sure quite rightly.
The Minister said that we have to believe what the Prime Minister said. I am sure that the Prime Minister may mean that. But Prime Ministers come and go--sometimes unexpectedly. If one is altering the constitution one must take care of every eventuality. One could have a situation where the House of Lords is an appointed Chamber—that is what it will be—and the House of Commons has a certain majority and therefore pushes its view through both the appointed Chamber and the elected Chamber. In order to ensure that such an eventuality does not happen, we ask for some safeguards.
What worries me, and probably worries my noble friends, is that the Government may wish to provide for that but they have the blank look of not being prepared to listen and to consider that there might be a scintilla of argument. I am sure that their brief is, probably from the Prime Minister too, that there shall be no amendments to the Bill, whatever the argument. But there is an argument. There is a matter of concern. It is not a question of hereditary Peers versus life Peers. I just wish that all four noble Lords on the Government Front Bench would admit sometimes that there might be an argument to be addressed.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: I am a little confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, meant when he said that the Government seek broad parity. I understand that we shall go through stage one. Does he mean that they would then seek broad parity in the intermediate House? If so, we have grounds for fear. We would have no control whatsoever over the Government's definition of parity. Would it mean parity with another place—with numbers on Government and Opposition Benches in another place—or in this House?
Lord Carter: I am trying to put the issue as simply as I can. If there are 100 Conservatives in the transitional House, we would seek 100 Labour Peers. That is broad parity. It means equality with the official Opposition. Is that clear? If there were 200 Conservatives, the figure would be 200. It is broad parity. If noble Lords want the figures, as Chief Whip I have them in my head. At present we do not have broad parity with life Peers. We are still about 15 short. I leave that point with Members of the Committee. If the Weatherill amendment were accepted the Conservatives would still have more Peers than Labour. Over time we should see broad parity: that is, equality with the number of Conservative Peers.
Lord Rotherwick: That is the whole point about seeking broad parity. If the noble Lord told us now that all the Government seek is to have 100 Peers on the Government side and 100 Peers on the Opposition side, why cannot there be an amendment to give us comfort that that is what will happen?
All the noble Lord gives us is a deep suspicion that when the time comes the Government will not do what he suggests they will. As with the debate yesterday on Welsh beef on the bone, the Government had good intent last year but when it comes to the crunch things change. Why cannot the Government give us the assurance, the comfort, which would allow us to go away happy?
Lord Carter: We intend noble Lords to go away, but whether or not happy is another matter.
I make the point clear. We have made our intentions entirely clear. I do not think that we could have made them clearer. Either noble Lords believe us or they do not. I would willingly give way to any noble Lord opposite who had raised any of these fears with previous Conservative Prime Ministers who could have flooded this House. Mr. Blair can flood this House with Labour Peers today. He chose not to do so.
We have brought forward a constitutional Bill. We have given assurances. I have repeated them. Either noble Lords accept them or they do not. If they do not do so, I can do nothing about it.
Viscount Torrington: Can the noble Lord explain what would happen in a coalition? It has been known before in British politics. If there is, for some reason or another, an alliance between the Tory Party and
482
the Liberal Democrat Party, will the Government immediately seek a large number of additional Peers? Perhaps he will explain the process.
Lord Carter: This gets more and more like the "Monty Python Show".
Broad parity with the Official Opposition means that the Government (the Labour Party) in this House over time will see the same number of Peers as the Official Opposition. There will be an Official Opposition in this House even in the case of a coalition. That is all we seek.
I do not think that I can put it any more clearly. I do not think that there is much point in continuing the debate on this issue. I have made it absolutely clear. I repeat: I shall give way to any noble Lord opposite who once raised these fears with any Conservative Prime Minister who could have flooded this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, certainly tried to do so, with twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour life Peers despite the substantial number of Conservative hereditary Peers. Did anyone on the Benches opposite ever express concern? No.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I seek to get away from trying to flood the House with anything.
Perhaps I may respectfully ask two questions. I am sure the noble Lord realises that there is a problem. How to deal with it is, frankly, not so easy. However, as he approaches the problem, will the noble Lord make two assumptions: first, that the so-called Weatherill amendment is not carried in this House; and, secondly, that we do not go to stage two? I do not say what will happen on either. I ask the noble Lord to make those assumptions when dealing with the problem which he realises exists.
I realise that it is a difficult problem. I should be grateful if he could deal with the question on those assumptions.
Lord Carter: With all his years of experience in this Chamber, the noble Lord will know that Ministers do not answer hypothetical questions.
If the Weatherill amendment is not carried, this House will consist of a Chamber of life Peers without the 92 hereditary Peers. As I said, we are already 15 short in terms of life Peers. I cannot give the noble Lord any more assurance than that.
Lord Eden of Winton: I hope that I am not interrupting the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I believe that he had finished. I wished to be assured of that. Nonetheless, I hope that he will be tempted to rise again to his feet.
I wish to press one point. I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the assurances he gave to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I am equally certain that all noble Lords will recognise the generosity and sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed those views.

483
Equally, I accept the point he made that although these matters may not be enshrined on the face of the Act, in the event of any dispute or question arising on the matter, the observations of the Minister on behalf of the Government made formally and officially at the Dispatch Box will be taken into account and carry weight. I accept all those matters fully from what he said. I ask only that he returns to the small point I made to which I attach some importance. I believe that the declaratory amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, should be the subject of an undertaking by the Government now. I know the noble Lord explained that the Government cannot bind any future, successor government. However, a marker should be put down now so that the present Government, when they bring forward legislation for stage two, as I assume they will, will incude a reference to the declaratory statement on the face of whatever Bill is put forward at that time.
Taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that Bill will certainly deal with the powers of this place. Therefore, in the light of this debate, which the two noble Lords who tabled amendments have made possible, I repeat that a firm marker should be put down by the government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Carter: If I can find it, I shall quote from the letter. It says,
"the government has no intention of amending the Septennial Act".
I believe that everybody understands that. There is no intention to amend the Septennial Act.
A number of noble Lords have commented on the Government binding a successor government. It is a Parliament that binds a successor Parliament. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that in this Parliament this Government have no intention of bringing forward amendments to amend the Septennial Act. That is the only assurance that any Minister can give in this Parliament. That is absolutely correct.
Equally, I can be confident that in the future there will be no intention to try to amend the Septennial Act to extend the life of Parliament. That is my view. The only assurance that I can give your Lordships as a Minister is that this Government, in this Parliament—it is the only one with which we are concerned—will not bring forward an amendment to the Septennial Act to extend the life of Parliament.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The Government Chief Whip has used some honest words: that he can give no assurance that a future government will not attempt to amend the Septennial Act. That lies at the heart of our problem.
Lord Carter: Any successor Parliament. Noble Lords keep saying "successor government". It is any successor Parliament.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The Minister is playing with words at the moment.
Lord Carter: The distinction is enormously important. This refers to the powers of the Government
484
and the powers of Parliament in the second House—in the transitional House—where the Government do not have a majority.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on saying that because he has pointed to the heart of the difficulty of this debate. I am delighted that my amendment has provoked such a lengthy and serious conversation about constitutional safeguards. The words used by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell are, I believe, at the heart of the matter. It is not a question of wishing, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, to dust off hereditary Peers and bring them out of the cupboard, which was an amusing but facetious remark on his part.
The question is: how can we find a constitutional safeguard in the interim stage, when, as the Government Chief Whip says, he can bind only this Government in this Parliament? The interim solution will disappear in the next Parliament. How can we writ e in a constitutional safeguard that has some chance of lasting longer than that? After all, an amendment to abolish only 16 words from the Parliament Act 1911 would mean that the absolute veto on Bills to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years would disappear. It is extremely easy to do.
I believe that the Government Chief Whip was wrong when he said, in winding up, that we in some way wish to accuse the Government of subverting the constitution. That is not right. The constitution changes all the time. However, that is why we wish to see whether a constitutional safeguard that is satisfactory to all sides can be written in.
I was particularly pleased by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on this subject, sitting as he does on the Cross Benches. He made the point about what other means can be found to find a safeguard if that in my amendment is not considered satisfactory.
I am grateful for the lengthy debate that we have had. I shall consider the wording of my amendment. Telling me that it is incorrectly drafted is, of course, the oldest trick in the world. However, I shall go away and consider it carefully with a view to redrafting. I hope that we shall be able to return to the matter on Report.
Perhaps I may say, without sounding pompous, that at that stage I hope that the Leader of the House herself will consider answering the debate. It touches on serious constitutional matters. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde spoke from the Front Bench on this side, I believe it deserves the attention of the Leader of the House herself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No.28:
Page I, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) This section does not apply to any person who was on 31st July 1963 the holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland only and who on that day became eligible to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, and to sit and vote in that House. ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.28, grouped with Amendment No.67, which is consequential upon it.
We now move from major constitutional matters to the quieter backwaters of detail. In the course of debates we have spoken of hereditary Peers, life Peers, Peers of first creation and Peers by acceleration. My amendment concerns a group of Peers who hold hereditary titles but clearly do not fit the category in Clause 1 of the Bill because they were never entitled to be Members of this House by virtue of hereditary peerages. In consequence, they are still not so entitled, although they sit here.
The Peers in question are those Peers of Scotland identified in my amendment. My research suggests that nowadays there are 11 in the group, of whom nine have taken their seats. I am one and so is my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton, as is the noble Earl, Lord Perth. We are Peers of Scotland only who held our titles prior to 31st July 1963, the day on which the Peerage Act of that year came into force. Prior to that day, as explained in the course of yesterday's debates on the Act of Union, we could only sit here—one Parliament at a time—if elected as one of Scotland's 16 representative Peers. After that day we were all entitled to come here.
Indisputably, we never had hereditary entitlement. What was the nature of our entitlement? By virtue of what were we admitted? Perhaps the answer lies in the entry in the Journal of the House on the first occasion after 31st July 1963 when any one of us took our seat, an entry that read:
"Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963".
The answer to the question of entitlement must, therefore, be by virtue of an Act of Parliament. Does that place us in any of the categories of Peers in the Bill? I see that one of our number, my noble friend Lord Reay, has just joined us. Each of us is a hereditary Peer but each of us is the first of his or her line to sit here by right. Does that place us in the category of first creation? If so, perhaps we will each receive a letter from the Prime Minister. We shall wait and see. On the other hand, are we life Peers for the purposes of this Bill?
The Government, if they are determined to be rid of us, must answer those questions and decide how they will do so, or accept my amendment for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Newby: It seems to me that the answer to the question came from the noble Lord's own mouth when he said, "Each of us is a hereditary Peer". That being so, the only argument in which we can engage in terms of special pleading for the small category of Peers of which the noble Lord is a member was debated at great length earlier in our discussions about special provisions for Peers from Scotland.
I do not want to re-enter that debate, except to say that we all agree that there should be adequate representation for Scotland, and every other nation and
486
region of the UK. As there will be adequate representation for Scotland in the interim House, there is no need for the amendment to be supported.
Lord Gray: Perhaps I may deal with that point. The noble Lord said that I condemned myself out of my own mouth. He missed the point. I said that we never had sat here by right of the hereditary peerage; we came here by Act of Parliament. If we never had a hereditary right to be here, we did not get it from that Act. We were allowed to have a Writ of Summons as a consequence of that Act and certainly not as a consequence of our hereditary right.
The Earl of Caithness: Will my noble friend clarify my position? Being one of those who would qualify to be elected in Scotland, and I did not take my peerage until 1965, when my father died, am I within the ambit of his amendment?
Lord Gray: I can answer my noble friend Lord Caithness quickly. I am afraid that he lies without the ambit because he did not hold his title before 31st July 1963.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Newby, some advice. He would be better leaving the Government's reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because he has just entered some difficult territory in the peerages of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Caithness illustrated the point. He has a Scottish peerage, but he is here by heredity because he succeeded his father after 1963. However, my noble friend Lord Gray is not here by heredity because of the 1963 Act.
When my noble friend Lord Gray inherited his peerage in 1946, he could not come here, even if he were a UK Peer, because he was too young. But in 1952 he became old enough to do so. He was a hereditary Peer, but he could not come to this House because he was not one of the 16 who were elected. As he explained, he failed to be elected—and I know that he was pretty determined not to be elected at that time. My noble friend came after 1963 only because of the passage of the Act.
It is a narrow point and because I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, well enough I know what he will say. But that is not the answer which the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches tried to give on behalf of the Government. Interestingly enough—
Lord Newby: I should have known better than to intervene in the arcane nature of Scottish matters. Is the noble Lord from the Official Opposition Bench seeking to argue that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is in this House for a reason other than being the possessor of a hereditary peerage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am arguing that if it were not for the 1963 Act, and assuming that my noble friend had continued to fail to be elected as one

487
of the 16, he could not come here, despite the fact that he was a hereditary Peer of Scotland with an ancient title.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lords, Lord Napier and Ettrick, Lord Belhaven and Stenton and Lord Polwarth, are in that category, too. I have obviously disturbed the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Avebury: I was in the other place when the 1963 Act was passed and I remember it well. Is the noble Lord saying that because a person came here by virtue of an Act of Parliament, and he is a hereditary Peer and therefore the holder of a hereditary peerage, Clause 1 does not apply to him?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to illustrate the question which my noble friend Lord Gray has put, because he is not here because he is a hereditary Peer. I tried to explain that if there had not been a 1963 Act, and if my noble friend had failed to be elected, he would not have been able to come here. However, he would still be a hereditary Peer and hold the title Lord Gray. There is no question about that. It is a matter about which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is well equipped to answer and give sound legal advice.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may add to that because other amendments have been rejected on the ground that hereditary Peers may sit here after being elected, nominated or whatever; they are not disbarred from being members of the future interim House by virtue of hereditary peerage.
However, if in this case it is argued that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, cannot sit here by virtue of the 1963 Act, but his hereditary peerage overrules that, presumably a hereditary peerage also overrules other situations in which we might be able to stand for election or be nominated to an interim House. It would appear that being a hereditary Peer is our most terrible defect. I believe that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, first, that the 1963 Act does not overrule the hereditary peerage and, secondly, that something else does. I am very interested in this issue.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What an interesting debate it has been. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. It is that those of us who were Scottish Peers before 31st July 1963, and who had not been elected as representative Peers, became Members of this House not by virtue of being hereditary Peers but by virtue of the statute. That is ingenious, but wrong for the following reasons.
The position before 31st July 1963 was that only those Scottish hereditary Peers who had been elected could become Members of this House. That restriction was removed by the 1963 Act. As a result, on that date all Scottish Peers were entitled to become Members of this House. Does the noble Lord, Lord Gray, by way of example on those facts, become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage? Yes, he does. The restriction which had previously prevented him
488
becoming a Member by virtue of a hereditary peerage—namely, the Act of Union—had been removed by the 1963 Act. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I do not believe that there would be any difficulty in a court reaching that conclusion.
That is as a matter of construction. As a matter of intention of the Act, and with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and those of his fellows who came into the House on 31st July 1963, can one think of any reason why they and they alone should be protected from what is the plain intent and effect of the provision? I am afraid not. Therefore, although the argument was put incredibly eloquently and incredibly well, and even misled the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for a moment, it is in my respectful submission entirely wrong and entirely without merit.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the interests of the arcaneness which has characterised this part of the debate, may I ask him this? He talked about removal of a restriction by means of the 1963 Act. When was that restriction imposed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In 1707.
Lord Gray: The debate has been very interesting. I am grateful to all who have spoken, including the noble and learned Lord who replied. But I do not agree with him. This is amazing temerity on my part, since I am nothing approaching a lawyer; I am barely educated.
But I feel that my case is supported by the words in the 1963 Act in Section 4. It provides further back-up for what I have been arguing. I shall read it out for the benefit of the Committee:
"The holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland shall have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, and to sit and vote in that House. as the holder of a peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom".
There are a few more words that do not concern us here because they refer merely to repeal of enactments.
I should like to make the following points. First, one can have the same right as someone else but for different reasons. What is the right that is granted? It is the right to a Writ of Summons, not the right to sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
The right given by Section 4 is identified. I have just quoted it, and I shall paraphrase it now. It is the same right as that of the holder of a peerage of the United Kingdom. Peers of the United Kingdom include life Peers, as is clear from their Letters Patent. This seems to reinforce my view expressed earlier that perhaps Peers in this peculiar category are in fact life Peers for the purposes of the Bill. There is no mention of heredity in Section 4 of the 1963 Act.
I have not been seeking to argue that we should come here when all our hereditary fellows go. No, I am drawing the Government's attention to a point where I think they have missed a trick. The draftsman could have written "England" instead of "United Kingdom-, since the peerages all predate the Union. But he did not.

489
We have to go by the words on the face of the Act, not by presumed intention, and I think that the words equate us with life Peers.
At this point I should like to make, rather churlishly perhaps, a complaint about the Explanatory Notes issued with the Bill by the Cabinet Office. Paragraph 24 refers to Section 4 of the 1963 Act, saying:
"Section 4 of the 1963 Act allows all Scottish hereditary peers to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House on the same basis as a UK hereditary peer. As no peer will by virtue of a hereditary peerage be entitled to membership of the House of Lords, section 4 can be repealed".
There is no mention of "heredity" in Section 4 of the 1963 Act. This is misleading and should be corrected.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to revert to the issue of removal of a restriction. I know that it is a small point, but I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord to review his reply, because I begin to wonder whether he is correct in saying that the 1707 Act imposed a restriction on Scottish Peers. I do not believe that Scottish Peers ever had the right to sit in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, may in fact be correct in his basic interpretation of the history of this point. I would ask the Minister to look at that outside the Committee.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think my basic position changes one jot. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has indicated, there is a second point—that the effect of Section 4 is that Scottish hereditary Peers are treated exactly the same as United Kingdom hereditary Peers by the 1963 Act. The effect is that whether the point is wrong or right in the way that I put it, they are to be treated in every respect as if they are United Kingdom hereditary Peers, which they are obviously.
Does the restriction in Clause 1 of the Bill, which says that one cannot sit and vote in the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage, apply to somebody who, first, is a hereditary Peer, and, secondly, is described in the 1963 Act as someone who is to be treated for all purposes as a UK hereditary Peer? I would have thought, speaking for myself and for the Government, that that question allows of only one answer.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble and learned Lord almost tripped up over his own words. It seems to me that there is some doubt about this matter. My noble friend Lord Gray has raised a very good point. I accept that the noble and learned Lord happens to think otherwise, but it is not clear beyond a peradventure. There is respectable opinion, respectable legal opinion, for the view contrary to that held by the noble and learned Lord, and that respectable opinion should be taken into account.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made clear on an earlier amendment, there is respectable legal opinion on other matters in connection with the Bill as well. It is a sad fact that there are a number of profound
490
legal questions about various aspects of the Bill, all of which I hope we shall explore during the Committee stage.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I should like to make it absolutely clear that I regard the noble Lord, Lord Gray, as absolutely respectable. However, the argument advanced here is utterly hopeless, and there is absolutely no purpose in giving the Committee any expectation that we shall reconsider the matter.
Lord Trefgarne: That is not entirely a question for the noble and learned Lord himself. In the end, it is a matter for the courts.
Lord Gray: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and others. I had better not prolong this debate, but I was a little upset that the noble and learned Lord repeated what I complained about, in that he equated us with UK hereditary Peers, a matter which is not in Section 4 of the 1963 Act. I still maintain that the words,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
are the ones we should be looking at in terms of my arguments, not my possession of a hereditary peerage.
We have had a good discussion. I shall not threaten to come back but, on advice, I may come back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.29 not moved.]
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No.30:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) This section does not apply to any member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage who was on the day on which this Act is passed a member of the Privy Council. ")
The noble Lord said: I hope that in moving this amendment I may receive slightly more sympathy from the Government than anyone has received so far.
My amendment would exclude from the provisions of Clause 1 privy counsellors who also hold hereditary peerages. They have had conferred upon them a distinction at least as great as—some of us would say greater than—a life peerage. They were in each case selected for this appointment by the democratically elected government of the day. It is therefore similar to the way in which life Peers and hereditary Peers of the first creation have been appointed.
It is that selection, presumably on merit, which the Labour Party uses to differentiate hereditary Peers, whom the Bill seeks to exclude from Parliament, from the life Peers, who are to remain ad interim.
I emphasise that I have paid the closest attention—and who would not?—to the Labour manifesto in attempting to produce an amendment which should be acceptable to the Government as not violating their manifesto.
One may perhaps add that while, from time to time, it has been suggested that some life Peers may have been appointed in return for favours, whether financial, personal or for party, as far as I am aware, no such aspersions have been made, at least in living memory,

491
in respect of those appointed to the Privy Council, and most certainly not in respect of those who would be covered by my amendment.
At present, there are 495 members of the Privy Council. Of those, 195—40 per cent—are Members of your Lordships' House. Of the 195, 174 are life Peers or Peers of first creation. They will remain in any event. There are only 21 who first entered the House as hereditary Peers but who now have the distinction of being Privy Counsellors. That is 21 out of 750 hereditary Peers.
The great majority of those 21 would not have had open to them the opportunity of using the House of Commons as the route to distinguished public service. The 21 does not include those who entered the House as Peers before succeeding later to an hereditary peerage, of whom there are two or three; nor those hereditary Peers of first creation who have received a letter from the Prime Minister offering them a life peerage. I recognise that it would be open to the Prime Minister to meet the purpose of my amendment by sending a similar letter offering a life peerage to those 21 privy counsellors who happen to be hereditary Peers. However, as it is not within the power of the Committee to do anything about that, it seems reasonable to raise the issue as an amendment to the Bill at this stage.
Before I develop my argument, I feel that I should read to your Lordships the names of those who, if my amendment were to be accepted, would remain here on the same basis as life Peers. They are my noble friend Lord Aberdare, the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, my noble friends Lord Cranborne, Lord Carrington, Lord Denham, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Gowrie, Lord Hesketh and Lord Jellicoe, the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord 'Trefgarne, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
It may be convenient also to mention that 13 of the 21 are Conservatives, six are Cross-Benchers and one is Labour. Over half of them—12 to be precise—are regular attenders which I define as having attended on at least one-third of the days in the last Session. Of the 12, nine attended on at least 60 per cent of the sitting days and five on more than 80 per cent of the sitting days.
Perhaps I may explain briefly why I believe that the Privy Council is so important in our national life and thus, why those who are members of it are set apart from the rest of us. As Dicey put it, in his famous 1860 essay on the Privy Council:
"Our Parliament and our Law Courts are but the outgrowth of our Council".
It is certainly true that its origins are very ancient. In 1237, Henry III appointed a council of 12, the members of which took an oath to furnish faithful advice and—which, in a way. is more interesting—the king took an oath to follow that. Following Magna Carta some 25 years before, surely that was a crucial stepping stone
492
on the route to the constitutional monarchy which we have today. Those who were not nobles were simply given the title "counsellor" and according to one authority that,
"gave him greater weight than the proudest baron".
By the time of Edward I, the Privy Council was a permanent body of Royal advisers qualified to render the Crown custodian of the subjects' safety. That is another reflection of the earlier Magna Carta.
Indeed, the jealousy of the Barons of the powers of the council was a recurring theme in that early history. By 1340, there were signs that the appointment of commoners to the council represented the early intrusion of the democratic element into the seats of the mighty. Thereafter, it gradually became to some extent an alternative to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. In Tudor times its role was formalised. From 1540 onwards it became much more structured, becoming not only the effective Cabinet under the reforms of Thomas Cromwell but also, especially under Henry VIII, as we so often remember in our legislation, an important instrument of government which was, to some extent, an alternative to Parliament.
For the 150 years that followed the Battle of Bosworth, it began to be composed more and more from measures of merit rather than standards of nobility. Thus, there was a separating out of selection by ability rather than by right of birth. It is a process which I contend has continued to this day.
Therefore, if the basic principle of this Government is that legislators should be selected either by the people through elections or by a government on merit, I hope that they will not feel that my amendment violates that principle. I contend it is far less contrary both to the spirit and the letter of the Labour Party manifesto than the Weatherill amendment, to which I understand they have agreed on quite different grounds from those on which I argue today.
Of course, it would be open to the 21 to put themselves forward under the terms of the Weatherill amendment, if that becomes part of the Bill, and some may well do so. Others among them, whose counsel we should value as much as any, would almost certainly not do so.
In conclusion, I contend that at least until a stage two emerges, the House of Lords should retain the 21 as that part of the collection of talent, wisdom and experience in public service for which the Bill already provides. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: From the Government's point of view, it is understandable that they should resist vigorously many of the amendments moved so far. But this amendment, explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is surely in quite a different category.
The Government have stated on more than one occasion during the past few weeks that they want people to sit in this House on their own merits and not

493
on the merits of their forebears. This amendment fulfils the Government's wishes in that respect. So how can they resist it?
Lord Hughes: No one was appointed to the Privy Council because he was a Member of the House of Lords. He will not cease to be a member of the Privy Council if he ceases to be a Member of the House of Lords. There is no logic at all in the amendment. Its only merit is that it has given us a history of the Privy Council.
Lord Vivian: I do not wish to become involved in a debate on the composition of the interim Chamber, but I foresee a void of wisdom, experience and counsel in the number of Peers who may be proposed for the interim stage. For that reason, I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: I begin by offering my apologies for my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who was to respond to this debate, but he has had to return to Scotland for the elections, and I wish him well there.
I am glad to see that it appears that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will respond to this amendment. I suspect that that is some indication of the importance which she attaches to the amendment. I think there were many in the Chamber who were somewhat surprised that she did not respond to the earlier amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry; but there it is. She is to respond to this amendment. As I said, I believe it is one of the strongest arguments we have heard for retaining certain categories of hereditary Peers in the interim House. The presence of the noble Baroness on this occasion seems to give some support to that argument.
As my noble friend Lord Marlesford made clear, privy councillorship is a rare and high honour and reflects real achievement. It certainly meets the criterion that has been repeatedly cited by the Government that hereditary peerages are past rights whereas life peerages—as I believe I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Richard, say on occasion—reflect present and genuine merit. Some might say they represent friendship or patronage, but that is another point.
As my noble friend made clear, there are some 29 hereditary Peers who have the honour of being Members of the Privy Council. As he stressed, the amendment would only bring in some 20 as others already have rights to remain here, in that they are life Peers or members of the Royal Family and are therefore not covered. Those 20 or so certainly have an honour that reflects their present merit. In addition to that, because of their hereditary peerages, they have had a seat in Parliament and a place in public service for many long years, even before they reached that high honour.
What rational Parliament in the world would expel those very Members who carry one of the highest honours in the land, all of whom were honoured for their achievements in public service? As I said, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be responding to this amendment. Is she saying that we will solemnly expel all those former hereditary Leaders of the House
494
who are privy counsellors? I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on her own Benches; my noble friends Lord Jellicoe, Lord Cranborne, Lord Belstead and Lord Carrington—privy councillors, Cabinet Ministers, former Leaders of the House or Leaders of the Opposition.
Are we really to expel former Ministers or Chief Whips of such calibre as my noble friend Lord Denham, at whose feet I can say I learnt what few skills I have as Chief Whip, or my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has offered much valuable advice to me over the years and continues to do so to the House during the course of this Bill? Are we to do that simply because of their crime of being the children of their fathers, hereditary Peers, despite the fact that they have also earns the honour of being privy councillors?
There has to be some way round this. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will give serious attention to the amendment. I am grateful that it is the noble Baroness who is to respond to this debate and to respond to my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very pleased indeed to respond to the extremely interesting idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Perhaps I may say from the outset that of course the Government agree that noble Lords who are Members of the Privy Council are distinguished public servants. As the noble Lord made clear in introducing the amendment, the Privy Council plays an extremely important part in our national life.
Perhaps I may assure the Committee, once more, that nothing in the Bill prevents a distinguished hereditary Peer from becoming a Member of Your Lordships' House as a life Peer. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford reminded us, that is the basis on which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister invited Peers of first creation to accept life peerages; that is, that life peerages would probably have been given to them in the first instance had that been their choice and had that been the method of their reaching this House that had been agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was honest enough to describe the party affiliations of the majority of those who fall into the category of the group he is trying to preserve by means of the amendment. It is open to the leadership of the Conservative Party to suggest precisely those Members of the hereditary peerage who may leave your Lordships' House who are privy councillors and should return as life Peers. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to preclude that. I am happy to take the opportunity to make that clear once more.
We should also be clear about the fact that most of the current Members of your Lordships' House who also enjoy the honour of being members of the Privy Council are former Ministers. Some received that honour for government service while being Members of this House and some for their service in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in introducing his amendment, described the contribution of a number of noble Lords whose names he gave and stated that some had been very regular attenders. My information is that

495
several of those distinguished people, who we all agree are distinguished public servants, have not attended. I believe that five of those named attended less than a total of 10 times during the 1997–1998 Session. I am sure there were good reasons for that arid have no doubt that they were engaged on other public service. However, it indicates that there is no guarantee that being a member of the Privy Council is relevant to active membership of your Lordships' House and, therefore, should not necessarily be valued in that context.
I also believe that the number involved—that is, 21—will not commend itself to those who see the desirability of a significant number of hereditary Peers remaining, perhaps under the amendment that we have before us in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and which we shall shortly discuss.
I must also say to the noble Lord, and those who support him, that I understand the reasons behind the amendment. I hope I have answered it fully and have explained the background to the relevance of Privy Council membership. However, the Government are not tempted by this approach. In a sense, it is precisely the problem we have discussed on so many amendments; that is, that we do not wish to retain any automatic relationship between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of your Lordships' House. As I stated at the beginning of my response, there are other ways in which distinguished public servants may become Members of your Lordships' House which are open to former Members who have been here until now on the basis of their hereditary peerage and who are also privy counsellors.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether she could answer one question. I apologise in advance if this has already been answered at an earlier stage. Will those hereditary Peers who are made life Peers be obliged to go through a ceremony of introduction?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That has been the subject of some discussion. I believe that in response to another amendment we referred to the correspondence which has taken place between one noble Lord who is a Peer of first creation and is considering whether to take a life peerage. That was in relation to his title. The question of introduction has also been considered. However, as I do not have his permission to quote from that correspondence, whereas I did in relation to the name of his title, I would prefer to write to the noble Lord, once permission has been obtained from the Peer concerned.
Lord Marlesford: I am, in a sense, rather grateful for the relatively positive attitude taken by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House towards what I am attempting to do.
As I stated, I would be perfectly happy to see the mechanism of a life peerage used to retain the services of these particular individuals. It is, of course, a totally self-limiting list. By definition this will not occur again in any way.
496
With the greatest respect, I must correct the noble Baroness on what she said as regards the numbers. I have checked and found that only three of the 21 had attended less than 10 times; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. The attendance of the rest was remarkably strong. I did not make a comparison with the rest of the House but my guess is that they were, in general, more regular attenders than the great majority of life Peers.
The noble Baroness says that it will be up to the Opposition, the Conservative Party, to put forward names. If that means that instead of the Prime Minister writing to the seven hereditary Peers of first creation, as he has done, offering them a life Peerage, the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, could write a similar letter, then that would meet my point perfectly.
I am not sure whether that is what the noble Baroness was suggesting would be possible. As I understand it, ultimately the Prime Minister of the day, even under the new rules, still has some responsibility for deciding how many from each party, even though not distinguishing between the names, should be allowed. But on that basis I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment for now and perhaps bring it back and discuss it further on Report.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps it would save the noble Lord time if I say that I was perhaps being excessively generous with a form of patronage which is certainly not within my power. I apologise for that. All I was suggesting was that there was no way in which a future, present or, given the discussion earlier this afternoon, any Leader of the Conservative Party would not be able to suggest and nominate life Peers in precisely the same way that they do at the moment.
Lord Marlesford: Provided the generosity— I regarded it as characteristic rather than excessive—of the noble Baroness is in due course able to be translated, that would probably meet the case. At any rate. I have no doubt there can be further discussions on the matter in the next few weeks and, if necessary, we can come back to it on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No.30A:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) The personal and property rights to enter, sit and speak in the House of Lords as granted by Letters Patent and existing in customary and common laws, shall not be changed by this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No.30A in order to refute some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the Minister. I have read Hansard with great diligence and would like to set the record straight.
In the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, responding to mine on 27th April, he challenged the entire concept and the practicality of hereditary Peers having rights of property in this House. He relied on the

497
grant of Letters Patent as the sole source of those property rights. He explained that hereditary Peers' rights of property could not exist once hereditary Peers were no longer in receipt of a Writ of Summons and thus unable to swear the Oath of Allegiance. He therefore claimed that my amendment was flawed.
I believe the noble Lord ignored the argument which I brought forward, with good supporting authority, concerning property rights in the House acquired by hereditary Peers under customary and common laws. Thus property rights in this House are acquired by both Letters Patent and by common law. They are separate causes for which there are well recognised, established legal precedents.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that his argument cannot possibly lead to the conclusion that my amendment was flawed. He ignores the fundamental fact of rights in property acquired by usage. This Bill removes those rights.
The noble Lord also stated that Amendment No.30A was flawed because it did not include all hereditary Peers. Again, I have to correct that view. All peerages, whether created by writ, charter, Letters Patent or according to the Life Peerages Act, have a claim to property rights in this House. The common law right to enter these premises applies to all Peers. In the case of hereditary Peers, their property rights are to be removed.
I refer the noble Lord to the fact that the descent of peerage in England is, and from time immemorial has been, governed by the common law rules of inheritance. This is a principle of the peerage law in England. A peerage, with rights created prior to 1397, as was the noble Lord's opposite, has the same hereditary rights in this House as all those created by Letters Patent. In that sense there are not two classes of peerage. Those prior to 1397 were created by writ, some by oral grant of the sovereign, some by Act of Parliament and some by charter. In all cases, rights were granted which have been and are passed on according to the common laws of inheritance.
It is settled law that if a Writ of Summons is issued and the summoned person takes his seat in the House of Lords, he has thereby acquired a hereditary peerage with the right to sit in the House. Creation by writ is ancient and, to quote Lord Coke,
"A man shall gain an inheritance by writ…but the writ has no operation until he sit in Parliament".
Once a Peer exercises the right to sit, it is passed on by common law. It is not my amendment which seeks to circumvent the Bill, as the noble Lord clearly stated; it is the Bill which not merely circumvents the customary laws of property, but seeks to destroy them.
Perhaps I may express my concern at an unfortunate comparison made by the Minister—who is not present this afternoon—in his response to my amendment on 27th April. He referred to Peers who were deprived of their rights under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 if they supported the enemy in the Great War. It seems from his remark that the noble Lord considers that hereditary Peers, especially those who fought our enemies in wars, are also to be deprived and thus to be classed with those
498
who were traitors in 1917. I hope the noble Lord was not, albeit unintentionally, revealing the attitude of the Government concerning hereditary Peers. Perhaps the noble Baroness will ask the Minister to withdraw that comparison which he made.
Finally, in response to the Minister's remarks about Letters Patent, I have acknowledged in my several speeches to the Bill that Letters Patent can be changed by statute. However, the principle does not provide any authorisation from the electorate to remove property rights acquired by custom under common law. That effect was never even hinted at in the Labour Party's political manifesto.
The Minister stated in his remarks that I made a claim to personal property rights in this House, under provisions in the statute of Westminster. I did not. I stated that the statute required the Government to obtain the consent of all Commonwealth Parliaments, since the Bill touches upon the sovereign's inherited titles. I believe the Minister was confused. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has clearly had another go. It is not usual to speak again on a consequential amendment, though there was another occasion the other day.
I do not understand his speech. I did not understand it last time and I do not understand it now. He seems to argue that a Peer has property rights transcending anything else and the sovereignty of Parliament. It seems to me to smack of the ancien régime and I do not believe it has any validity at all.
The noble Lord also says that peerages by writ were created by the sovereign. They are not created; they stem from the fact that their ancestors sat in Parliament and signed the Parliament roll. That gradually became a peerage. They were not necessarily always peerages for life. They could be taken away by the King if he did not summons them to a subsequent Parliament, and they were not always hereditary. That evolved over the centuries.
As I said, I do not agree with the noble Lord. His argument is specious. It assumes that Parliament is not sovereign and that the nobility have rights over and above Parliament. That may have happened in the 18th century in France, but it does not happen in 20th century Britain.
Viscount Torrington: In refuting what the noble Lord said, surely Parliament is in fact a collection of those who received a writ to attend. It is not the bricks and mortar of this building.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I can hardly improve on what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said, but perhaps I can make two preliminary points.
My understanding as a complete novice in this House is that when people agree to a grouping, although they clearly have a right to come back, there is not much point if they just ignore the grouping when we discussed

499
all the issues on the first occasion. Having said that, I shall deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
First, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is not here. Knowing him as I do, I know perfectly well that he would never have intended, nor did he say anything which could possibly suggest, that he was comparing the present hereditary Peers to traitors of the country. That was made absolutely clear. If and in so far as anybody could possibly have got that impression, it was never intended. I know that my noble friend would never have intended that.
I shall now deal with the substance of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. At its heart it has two propositions which, with the greatest respect, seem to me to be greatly misconceived. The first is the nature of a hereditary Peer's right to sit in this House; but, uniquely. it is not subject to the sovereignty of Parliament. Whereas every other single right, whether property or not, can be changed, the noble Lord argues that the right to sit in this House by a hereditary Peer can never be changed. That is absurd; indeed, the moment one states the proposition one can see that it must be wrong. The fact that it is wrong is demonstrated by the fact that both the Committee for Privileges and this House have treated it as wrong in the past.
The Committee for Privileges treated that proposition as wrong in the Viscountess Rhondda case in 1922, and the legislative House treated it as wrong in Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963 when it allowed Letters Patent to be changed to allow Peeresses to take their seats. Quite separately from the legal connotations which those two points indicate, the idea that of all rights in all the world that of an hereditary Peer to sit in this House is the only one that can never be changed is absurd.
The second point is what underlies the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie; namely, that a right to sit in a Chamber of Parliament is a right of property. Is it the only right of property that cannot be sold? Indeed, every other right of property can be sold on the open market. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that a hereditary peerage comes into that category as far as concerns the right to sit here? Again, merely stating the proposition seems to me to suggest its absurdity. Although I respect the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, I believe that his propositions are founded on completely absurd and misconceived notions.
Lord Norrie: I am most grateful for the full replies that I have received this evening; indeed, my speech certainly generated some steam in the Chamber. I am interested only in the legal connotations. That is my sole concern. If those on the opposite side of the Chamber are satisfied that all this is within the law, then that is fine by me. Perhaps I am trying to be Devil's advocate so as to bring out a few points which I feel are not covered in the legislation. However, provided that the other side is satisfied, I am satisfied. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to break for
500
dinner. I therefore beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.23 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits
7.22 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further action they propose to increase the take-up of social security benefits.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have joined me to address a problem of deep importance to many of the most needful people in Britain today. That time has been found for this debate, interrupting as it does our proceedings on the House of Lords Bill, is testimony to the abiding concern of this House for the problems of others as well as its own.
As my noble friend the Minster is aware, my perspective is that of a parliamentarian and former Minister principally involved in legislating for the basic elements of the special financial and other help now available to chronically sick and disabled people. For help to which they are entitled not to be reaching some 50 per cent of those eligible, involving the loss to them of £6 billion in disability living allowance alone, is plainly unacceptable. It is not only hurtful to needful people, but an affront to those in all parties who have striven over three decades to protect them from the social exclusion that poverty inflicts They include notably my good and noble friend Lord Ashley and. of course, my noble friend Lady Castle, who has phoned me to say how sorry she is that she cannot be here tonight.
This debate is a response to the mounting concern among organisations of disabled people not only about the £6 billion lost in DLA but also the billions more in other unclaimed benefits. It is difficult for them, as for older people, to understand why, when the Government can target a cruise missile at a telephone booth in another country, they cannot successfully deliver cash benefits to severely disabled and other needful people in this country.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 10th November last, I was told:
"My noble friend is right that the amount unclaimed could well exceed £6 billion. We estimate that half those who may he entitled to DLA do not claim it".
My noble friend Lady Hollis had told me, replying to an earlier Parliamentary Question on 2nd June last, that the Government were investigating why the estimated 50 per cent of eligible disabled people had not applied for the allowance; but I know of no ministerial statement since then on the outcome of their investigation.
The latest ministerial statement I have seen on take-up was that made to the right honourable Dafydd Wigley by my honourable friend Hugh Bayley in another place on 4th March. After saying that the DSS was working

501
with the Disability Benefits Forum to identify ways of improving information and advice about disability benefits, the reply stated:
"We are determined to improve the administration of these benefits to ensure that decisions about entitlement are right at the outset and that they remain correct. These are necessary steps which must be taken before decisions can be made about the need for a take-up campaign".
To this suggestion that it is too soon for a take-up campaign, the disability organisations reply that in fact, when the Government themselves estimate that disabled people miss out on £6 billion in DLA alone, it is already woefully late. They say that figure shouts the urgency of the need for a government-led national campaign.
Moreover, while Whitehall waits, town and country halls show what can be done. It's a right… not a lottery— giving information on the Local Government Association's Benefit Take-up Initiative—abounds in examples of imaginative ways of reaching people who are failing to claim help that is due to them. Suffolk County Council includes a benefits check on all county care assessments. Last year there were over 5,000 such assessments, and today just under 90 per cent of people receiving home care in Suffolk receive the attendance allowance. Elsewhere the figure is between 60 per cent and 70 per cent.
Some councils which pay housing benefit tell people if they should be receiving other help when their computer picks up details of low income. Newcastle City Council now takes this further in a rolling programme of take-up work, aimed at identifying unclaimed help, while Somerset's Welfare Rights Unit has raised over £5 million in four years by concentrating on claims for people with physical and sensory disabilities.
Last week I had the pleasure of presenting the National Information Forum's annual "Getting the Message Across" awards, one of which went to Bristol City Council's Money Advice Service for a hugely successful disability benefits take-up campaign. With limited resources, the campaign had secured over £4 million a year for more than 2,000 disabled people, most of whom had existed for years on less than their correct entitlement. Important factors in Bristol's success were a telephone service on five days a week and a casework service based on home visits, a key element in reaching disabled people. It was heartening also to be able to present an award to the Benefits Agency for restructuring and simplifying its leaflets and to reflect on how much more it could achieve if the Government prioritised take-up by launching a major national campaign.
It must be hoped that none of the initiatives by local authorities will be restrained by the parliamentary reply given to Dafydd Wigley on 4th March. Improving administration is unquestionably important, as the reply to him says, but so too is timely prevention of preventable hardship among frail elderly and disabled people, as I am sure all DSS Ministers will agree. Local councils often see more clearly than Whitehall that all too many vulnerable people are at high risk when, for
502
whatever reason, help Parliament intended for them is delayed, and that for them help delayed is often help tragically denied.
Hopefully we shall hear tonight how the Government intend to tackle the £6 billion loss to disabled people in DLA. Meanwhile we should all reflect on the sheer scale of the sum involved. For example it is treble the annual cost of everybody's TV licence fee in this country. As I was reminded today by Chrissie Maher of the Plain English Campaign, it should also be compared with the pensions mis-selling scandal. When that was discovered, the Government acted with exemplary speed to overhaul the law. But when the problem of unclaimed disability benefits is raised, the answer is that Whitehall's administration must first be improved,
"before decisions can be made about the need for a take-up campaign".
My noble friend has long been respected by disability organisations for her readiness to help and she will know how disquieted they are by the decision to delay a national take-up campaign. They find it extremely worrying too that the consultation paper A New Contract for Welfare—which paved the way for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—made no reference to take-up notwithstanding the enormous scale of underclaiming. Nor is failure to claim their entitlements a problem only for disabled people. It affects 700,000 older people who do not receive their entitlement to income support. Age Concern asks why,
"it is taking so long to conclude the obvious: namely, that many older people are too proud to claim what they perceive as a handout despite the fact that the money comes from the same DSS budget as their state pension; the forms are too long and complicated; and the rules unnecessarily harsh".
I honour the work of organisations like Age Concern whose benefit advice services and annual Your Rights Week, together with its guide to money benefits entitled Your Rights, constitute a model of what the voluntary sector can do to inform and help older people. Sally Greengross said recently on its behalf,
"At £75 a week, income support is £8.25 more than the basic state pension. It is scandalous that so many of Britain's poorest older people are unaware of their entitlement. £2 billion a year goes unclaimed by them. A successful claim for even a few pence of income support could mean extra help with housing costs, the council tax and glasses and dental work".
Sally expresses her concern also that far fewer people will be receiving in SERPS what they thought they would. What makes this even worse is that since 1986 the DSS has singularly failed to let widows and widowers know that the amount of SERPS they will inherit is halved on 6th April 2000. My noble friend has told the House that the total cost is £5.5 billion. That is money older people were expecting to receive. Now they are told it will go to the Treasury. I know my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will also be addressing this other scandal as the debate proceeds and that he will do so with all his customary skill and sincerity.
I conclude, as Agnes Fletcher, to whom I am most grateful, did in a recent paper for RADAR, by summarising the reasons why even people in compelling need often fail to claim their entitlements. Many do not know they are eligible. A vicious circle of poverty creating isolation and social exclusion makes people less

503
aware of their rights and how to claim. Again, many feel that there is a stigma attached to claiming, based on generalised allegations of fraud in some parts of the media.
Our principal responsibility as parliamentarians to disabled people, indeed our bounden duty, is to do all we can to reduce the handicapping effects of their disabilities. Failure to ensure that they receive the statutory help to which they are entitled increases the handicapping effects of their disabilities. That is why this question is so very important to Britain's 8 million disabled people.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. Indeed I must salute the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for once again raising these matters. I welcome his reference to benefits for the disabled. He has soldiered away in this particular trench for far longer than I care to remember.
This is the kind of debate where one can feel the Government machine getting a little uneasy because we are calling on the Government to say that they will spend more money. That may involve departments "having a go" at each other. One wonders whether the Treasury is totally happy with the idea of paying out what it has promised to pay out. I mention that as an aside.
The real point I wish to make is that the system for obtaining benefits increasingly requires pieces of paper to be filled in correctly. Over the past few years it has been established that many people in our society have tremendous difficulty with the written word. I approach this matter as a dyslexic who is involved with various dyslexia organisations. However, I am not just talking about dyslexics in this regard. I refer to people who are educational failures and who consequently usually have tremendous problems in the workplace. Therefore, they are most in need of benefits. The system is designed to help such people. Those people will always experience difficulties when presented with pieces of paper.
When the new single gateway system is introduced will there he enough staff who are trained in dealing with adults who have literacy problems? This is not just a matter of saying to someone, "Here is a form. Oh, you can't read, then?" Staff in these situations require tact, subtlety and a degree of knowledge of the kinds of problems that people experience in this regard. Staff need to know how people like to be approached when information is elicited.
I have given notice of the questions that I wish to ask. Can the Minister tell us what assistance has been made available to people who have problems in understanding forms and filling them in? This is not just a matter of filling in the correct answer. We have long moved away from that concept, although that is still occasionally required. However, we have to address the needs of people who have difficulty in understanding forms. Are staff trained in approaching people to ask whether they have literacy problems?
Let us consider the case of a young man in his twenties who has severe problems with writing and whose experience of the educational process is totally
504
negative. Such a person may become nervous merely at the sight of a form. Are staff trained to deal with such people? People with such difficulties are most in need of help. I salute the Government's intention—whether it will be their practice remains to be seen—of tackling this problem. However, will the Government he able adequately to help young people who have extremely negative images of themselves and of the written word? If those people are not helped, many of them will continue not to claim benefits. The knock-on effect of that is that some may be driven to crime. Educational failures tend to become economic failures and they tend to be attracted to crime. Such people may lead miserable lives. The Government have said that they are trying to help such people, but they cannot do that unless they establish a procedure to address this problem of basic understanding that I have described.
I hope that the Minister can give us a positive reply on this matter. If the Government do not address this matter, their policy will have a big hole in it. A sympathetic approach is needed based on expertise. Difficulties will also arise in persuading the people I have mentioned to attend interviews. If they are not on the phone and they have problems with understanding written texts, it will be difficult to contact them to invite them to attend interviews. This problem affects a sizeable minority of the population. I look forward to hearing a sympathetic response from the Minister.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord. Lord Morris of Manchester, for instigating this short—. but vitally important—debate. MENCAP and its sister organisations in the rights lobby are much concerned. that successive governments have seemed more: interested in stopping abuse than encouraging take up and, on this score, I welcome the efforts made by the Government to improve benefit take-up. We all await with keen interest the outcome of the pilot projects investigating why so many older and disabled people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. As the Age Concern campaign, Your Rights, indicates, we are talking about rights, and it is sad that unnecessary complexities and the constant harping on fraud come between people and those rights. The concept of a guaranteed income for elderly and disabled people is welcome. However, the guarantee is of no use to those who are not there to collect it—and a million or so people who should be there, quite frankly, are not., There are good points in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill now being debated in another place, but it also takes away benefit rights from both contributors and non-contributors. I hope that the reduction in rights to widows' benefits, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance will not be seen as enhancing take-up by reducing entitlement.
Unhappily, the point upon which I wish to concentrate is what the Government are doing to ensure that fewer people receive benefits to which they are entitled—or, rather, benefits to which they thought the, / were entitled. Which leads me, with impeccable timing, I hope, to Whitehall's longest running farce—and title—the State Earnings-Related Pensions Scheme.

505
When I was at the Whitehall Theatre I described farce as tragedy with its trousers down, which seems to sum-up the pickle in which the current government now find themselves in regard to SERPS; their trousers are well and truly around their ankles, removed by a previous administration, while many a future widow, and not a few widowers, are faced with the tragedy, or at least the classic unhappy ending, of the reduction in their anticipated pensions when bereavement strikes after 5th April next year.
Edmund Burke coined the phrase "economy of truth". Governments collectively have been very economical with the truth in relation to SERPS. I would love to hear Burke's current "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents" and I am now holding in my hand but a few of the thousands of discontents forcibly expressed in letters which Age Concern and I have received over this whole shoddy business.
The 1975 Social Security Pensions Act created the right for a widow to inherit her late husband's earnings-related pension and was well publicised in leaflets NP33 and NP34, issued by the DHSS in January 1978 and respectively headed, Pay a little more now for a great deal when you retire and A More Secure Future, which promised,
"Widows will be given all their husband's pension rights if they are widowed over 50, or at any age while they have a young family to support".
Hundreds of thousands of people took the Government at their word and stayed in the new state scheme, while many had no option but to stay between 1978 and 1988, for their employers did not run occupational pension schemes. One such person was me as a salaried employee for the first time in my life of MENCAP. I am aware that the leaflets claim that they should not be taken as a statement of the law, but this was the law at the time these leaflets were issued. There was therefore a legitimate expectation that future pensioners' contributions from April 1978 to 1986 constituted a quasi-contractual relationship which was subsequently reneged upon by the 1986 government. I must point out that most other government changes to SERPS have affected only those rights accruing after the date of the change, not those rights already accrued.
What Parliament gives, Parliament can take away, but the government which prompts Parliament so to do surely has the obligation to inform people of the change. In another place, Mrs. Margaret Beckett demanded this in 1986 but, deliberately or stupidly, officials, on behalf of successive governments, have not only failed to tell contributors of the change, they have positively assured them that there has been no change. At no time have I, and thousands like me, received any notification whatever about the cuts. I, and thousands like me, have telephoned and written to the DSS—some as late as March this year—and all received the same bland assurance that our basic pension and our additional pension would go, intact, to our wives when we died. However, it now seems that if I die after 5th April next year my wife will lose more than £1, 200 per annum. I hope she does not take Margaret Beckett's advice in 1986 to put a pillow over my head on 5th April next
506
year. To replace £1, 200 would now cost £20,000 invested in, say, an insurance bond. Many will lose more, costing more to replace. How many pensioners can afford such a large amount of capital? Precious few, I warrant.
A final point. This Government are committed to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is reflected in the Human Rights Act. This stops the Government passing legislation that reduces individuals' property rights. In the context of pensions, property rights are interpreted as accrued rights. Thus the changes to SERPS spouses' benefits, cutting back accrued rights, should not be permissible at the present time under either the Convention or the Act, when that comes into force.
I hope that the Minister can say a little more tonight than she could, or would, on 13th April. The Government could pre-empt the Ombudsman's likely conclusion that the DSS has also been caught with its trousers well and truly down by stating that those who started their contributions at the beginning of SERPS in 1978 will receive their benefits in full, while those who went blithely on after 1986, believing the 1975 Act still applied, will receive their benefits in full for the next 13 years to take account of the period from 1986 to 1999 when the DSS dissembled with such devastating results. By doing this and acting as an honest broker, the Government can ensure that they are, as the Motion suggests, taking action to increase the take up of social benefits. Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth—and if we OAPs are not yet in heaven, we are certainly in the waiting room and deserve a little sympathetic consideration.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris on initiating this very important Question. It is in line with his generous philosophy of fighting for disabled people and I commend him most warmly to the House.
I do not intend to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, except to say that I am very glad that he mentioned the previous government and their responsibilities. It would be a terrible mistake to make this a single-focus attack on the present Government when the previous government were responsible for a great many of the problems.
In the few moments at my disposal I intend to focus on disability benefits, for obvious reasons—partly because disabled people are sensitive to their disabilities and to their "right" to claim. I find it astonishing that £6 billion of disability living allowance should be unclaimed. I am afraid that, in part, the Government are responsible. I readily agree that we need strong action against cheating, but the Government seem obsessed with the issue of fraud. Far too many Ministers seem to be neglecting the constructive, positive aspects of disability and focusing narrowly on fraud. I exclude my noble friend Lady Hollis—she is one of the finest Ministers in the Government—but some Ministers talk far too frequently, far too often, far too publicly, beating their breasts, about how they are attacking cheating.

507
I do not know why they cannot tackle cheating and start stating publicly that people who have the right to benefits should get them. They should change the whole emphasis of their work. They could tackle fraud without a great deal of song and dance, and they could stop creating a very damaging atmosphere for disabled people.
My noble friend Lady Hollis disagreed with me at Question Time when I said that, given the power of the Government's publicity machine, with political will the problem of under-claiming could be solved overnight. Of course it cannot be solved overnight—that was a figure of speech—but it can be solved very quickly if the Government have the political will. We need a sustained campaign and a different theme. The theme of "benefit scroungers" should be changed to "Do claim. It is your right".
When my noble friend rejected my arguments the other day, she listed four difficulties: first, knowledge of eligibility; secondly, assessments; thirdly, the application forms; and, fourthly, understanding what the benefit is about. The third and fourth are interconnected. It is not appropriate for a disabled person to try to assess whether he or she is eligible. If the disability is leading to extra costs, then the person should claim and eligibility should be adjudicated by others. That simple message should be pursued by the Government.
I recognise the complexity of application forms, mainly because disability itself is so fantastically complicated and has even more consequences. Nevertheless, every effort should be made to simplify the application forms as much as possible. I commend that suggestion to my noble friend.
On that same occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, suggested different application forms for physical and mental disabilities and for those with learning difficulties. That is a sensible suggestion. I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically. Perhaps she can tell the House what consideration she has given to that valuable suggestion.
Hand in hand with simplifying application forms as much as possible, the Government should strengthen the advisory service. The most frequently used advice service are the citizens advice bureaux, a first rate organisation which is grossly underfunded. Why cannot my noble friend get hold of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ask him to give the CAB a mere few million pounds—not £100 million or £1 billion but a couple of mill ion pounds—and ask the CAB to give special training and seek local publicity on entitlement to benefits and why disabled people should claim. If my noble friend is able to do that in conjunction with the citizens advice bureaux and with the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we could make a very big difference to the take-up of benefits.
7.52, p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I came into the Chamber just before the beginning of this debate the House was engaged in debating property rights. I will not express an opinion on property rights in a debate which I have not followed but I think one may argue
508
that there is a rather stronger claim for saying that property rights are involved here and, what is more, the property rights of rather more people.
The delivery of social security benefit to those who are entitled to it and the non-delivery of social security benefits to those who are not entitled to it are both a matter of justice. With regard to either of those forms of justice, one should never forget the other. I wish to join the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for initiating this debate and to the Minister for a long-standing and constructive concern with this subject.
I shall not quote figures because I understand that the take-up figures are in the process of being revised and that a new series of take-up figures are to be published next month. So anything I say may be overtaken by events. But it is clear that, generally, the worst problems of take-up tend to be with income support, the worst problems with income support tend to be with pensioners, and the worst problems with pensioners tend to be with female pensioners. To try to change that, one must think about why it is happening.
Sometimes it is pride. One cannot legislate against pride, and one should not, but one should be careful in judging government rhetoric not unnecessarily to rub pride the wrong way. I am not sure that governments always remember that quite as well as they should. There may be difficulties with access, especially in rural areas. I will ask the Minister, not for the first time—the question runs the whole of the way through the debate—to consider whether the change programme is really working as it was intended. It may be a matter of difficulty—my noble friend Lord Addington said a great deal on this subject that needs attention—or it may be a matter of stigma. Here, again, the Government need to be careful of their rhetoric. Phrases like "welfare dependency", or that unfortunate phrase in the Green Paper about property not being cured by cash handouts, when heard by people on benefit, sometimes have an unfortunate effect.
Technically, subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, one way in which this could be tackled is through data matching. I heard the Minister speak with great eloquence on this subject in the previous Parliament. I should like to know how much is being done on that front. I understand that a housing benefit pilot is in progress in Birmingham. That is extremely constructive. Rhetoric needs attention.
I agree with the thrust of all the remarks that have been made so far about the priority given to fraud. In an interview with The Times on 4th March the Secretary of State said:
"The prevention of fraud has to be at the top of everything we do at the DSS".
Granted that it is of vital importance, surely the top priority for the Department of Social Security is the delivery of benefit to keep people alive; and nothing else should allow a Secretary of State to forget that.
I am also concerned about the minimum income guarantee. I do not know whether it is properly described as a guarantee. My honourable friend Mr. Webb has referred that question to the Ombudsman. I shall be interested in his

509
answer. I am concerned about some of the efforts on verification which may tend to delay the delivery of benefit at times when it is quite vital for people to have it, especially the demand for national insurance numbers while the national insurance computer is not yet working. We have in progress some pilot projects on housing benefit where housing benefit is not delivered until a national insurance number is made available.
A Written Answer to my honourable friend Mr. Rendel said that the average time for delivery of a national insurance number is 17 days. If that is accurate, I know a great many unfortunate people. That is perfectly possible and it illustrates the fallacy of statistics. An average time may be a very reasonable figure but with this many people, if 10 per cent. are well above the average there may be a serious problem. A great deal of evidence from local authority sources leads me to suppose that there is, especially in the effect on partners of people with an entitlement who do not get the national insurance number.
I should like to draw attention to one other point. I refer to the number of cases found by the citizens advice bureaux of social fund applications where people are not even allowed to make an application because the Benefits Agency's staff will not give them the papers to make the application. They say, "Oh, you wouldn't get it", so they weed out the application before even the information is available. The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is monitoring that. It believes it to be a widespread problem. If so, I think the Minister might be as eager to deal with it as I am. I look forward to her comments on it.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for initiating this important debate. In one sense one might say that we have rounded up all the usual suspects who are concerned about this issue and I think it is also true to say that we are all on the same side. We all want to improve the level of take-up.
One always speaks with great diffidence on these debates, given the amount of experience on all sides of the House not only with regard to the disabled, a feature which noble Lords have pursued, but also more generally. In a sense, however, my own experience in these matters is not short-lived. Thirty-three years of constituency nights, on Fridays, provided me with quite a good background in this subject. I well remember when I first arrived in Worthing as a constituency MP. Often, elderly ladies in well-cut but well-worn tweed suits would tell me of their difficulties. When I asked what the problem was, they would tell me that they were living on their national insurance pension. I had great difficulty in believing that anyone could live on that amount. I remember saying, almost on bended knee, "Please apply" for what was then termed supplementary benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke of pride in relation to these matters. That is part of the problem. To use the term "stigma"is to underestimate the problem. Certainly, over the years it has been less of a problem. It has been easier to persuade people that they are entitled to such
510
benefits as of right. There are many other areas, not least lone parents, in which one's experience over the years makes one realise that it is sometimes difficult to persuade people to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled. I was surprised at that time to discover that Worthing had the highest illegitimacy rate in the country, which was an odd statistic. So I have a breadth of experience in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, rightly drew attention to the excellent booklet from Age Concern which I received a couple of days ago: Your Rights. It is written in straightforward, simple English. It should help in encouraging the take-up of benefits. I would draw attention to just one point. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It relates to the problem that has arisen as regards SERPS. We all recognise that it is a long-running problem; it has faced governments of both political parties.
It is also something of a mystery how this disaster, as it must be described, for a large number of people has come to pass. It is important that arrangements to deal with it should now be produced by the Government. I know that the noble Baroness is working on that. If this booklet is being circulated, perhaps there is a case for the inclusion of a single-page insert explaining the problem and that it is hoped to deal with it. The matter is referred to on page 18 of the document, but there is no mention that the Government are considering the matter. That is a relevant point.
Turning to the broader question of take-up and to the point made by the noble Earl, there is some doubt about the figures. It was said that, so far as concerns income support, some 1 million people a year are estimated not to be taking up the benefits to which they are entitled. I believe that the figure is now being re-examined and that the latest estimates are significantly smaller: somewhere between 700,000 and 400,000. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that. Revised estimates are expected in May 1999—in a few days' time. I wondered whether in reply to this timely debate the noble Baroness would tell us the extent to which the take-up figures have been revised. I understand that a number of pilot schemes have been set up in an attempt to establish the extent of the problem. Therefore, I wonder whether we shall receive during the course of the statistical review a breakdown as regards the reasons why there is not the level of take-up that all of us would like to see.
Another government publication suggests the problem is partly one of "stigma", partly unawareness of entitlement, and partly difficulty in comprehending the application process, a point made by both noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I hope that if the Government have carried out a full investigation into this problem, we shall receive the breakdown into those three categories. It did not require great investigation to realise that they are the likely categories, but the extent to which each is felt to be responsible for lack of take-up is important.
Another matter that has been raised a number of times during this debate is the question of fraud as against take-up. To some extent there is a conflict between the two. The more stringent the attitude taken, perhaps

511
rightly, with regard to fraud, the more complex, onerous or intimidating the application process becomes. That is apparent in the government document: A new contract for welfare: safeguarding social security, which is primarily driven by the argument in relation to fraud. Page 9 of the document indicates an approach that is very much in terms of: legal obligation to produce identity, the idea that it is easy to forge such documents and income support will not he paid until all the evidence has been recorded, and so on. I fear that to some extent the need to prevent fraud, on the one hand, and the need on the other to ensure that people readily apply is a split between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury, or the other way round. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I have previously expressed concern about the extent to which that is taking place.
Another aspect is the take-up of opportunities for making provision for old age, or whatever the particular problem may be. Alas, I see that the clock is already at the seven-minute limit which we are told we must observe. I shall therefore not go into the matter in greater detail. I merely say that these are real problems. We all seek to solve them and we must hope that in working together we can improve on the figures. At all events, if the Government have almost completed their survey on the causes of low take-up, we must hope that it will provide us with a better basis than hitherto for solving this set of extremely important problems. They are of great significance to many: certainly to the disabled, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, but also those on pensions, income support and so on. This has been a helpful debate. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points raised in this interesting, informative and indeed conciliatory debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Morris for providing the opportunity to raise these points.
As we have heard from all speakers, the subject of the non take-up of benefit is extremely complicated. With some benefits, for instance child benefit and the retirement pension, take-up is thought to be almost universal. The position as regards the take-up of income related benefits is very different. The same benefit is taken up to different degrees by different client groups. Equally, we know that with the more complicated benefits—and, as my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris said, DLA is especially complicated—the take -up is at its lowest.
The department collects routinely the take-up statistics only for income-related benefits. It is worth reflecting on the latest data, published last autumn. As the noble Lord identified, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we need to correct an error concerning pensioner take-up, where a glitch in the system misconstrued some income streams as they were converted from the Family Resource Survey into the department's computers. Nevertheless, the broad push of the figures illustrates the points that have been macle in this debate.
512
For example, while we estimate that with income-related benefit the total amount not taken up could range between £2 billion and £3 billion a year, nearly all couples with children and lone parents take up their cash entitlement of income support and housing benefit, and most take up their entitlement to council lax benefit. That, however, compares with family credit, where only 69 per cent of couples and 79 per cent of lone parents take up their entitlement, although their cash entitlement—the percentage of cash claimed—is somewhat higher. In other words, people tend not to claim when the amounts of money involved are quite small. Even so, this is not a satisfactory picture. However, I am sure that it will improve as we move towards working families' tax credit.
The Cinderella of means-tested benefits is council tax benefit. We believe that take-up by expenditure is between 76 and 82 per cent. We also believe that nearly half of all owner-occupiers who are entitled to council tax benefit do not claim, although the sums involved may be quite small: £2, £3 or £4. The particular difficult]., lies with the take-up of the two benefits addressed this evening by my noble friends: disability benefits and income support for pensioners. I only hope that when talking about disability my response matches the experience in this area of my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley.
As a government, department and individual. Minister we very much want people to take up the benefits to which they are entitled. There is no plot to restrict access o or information about benefits in a subversive way so that the Treasury can exercise control over public expenditure. That is certainly not the case. But benefit rules are complex and people do not always understand where their own needs match the benefits. Not only are the rules complex but they change, and many people do not know what triggers an entitlement. For example, many people may suffer a drop in wages because of a reduction in hours without necessarily realising that they are entitled to family credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Many in low paid work do not realise that they may be entitled to housing benefit.
I take as an example attendance allowance. I now know that my father, in his late seventies, was certainly entitled to attendance allowance. I was then a senior city councillor and did not realise it. If that was the extent of my ignorance how much greater is it in the case of a single elderly person who is isolated at home and without presumed access to knowledge about the system?
We are often pressed as to whether we should be making the system more complex, but the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, identified sensitively the need to ensure that the money goes to those who are entitled to it and that there is take-up. In particular, as one moves into means-tested benefits—we see it with the growth of housing benefit and some disability benefits—the problems of fraud are matched equally by the difficulties of take-up. I have always emphasised—I am glad that my noble friends acknowledge it—that there is virtually no evidence of fraud in DLA. I was always happy lo confirm that in the Benefit Integrity Project any difference in the figures resulted from people's condition changing without claimants necessarily knowing that that altered their entitlement, rather than fraud as that was understood.

513
However, I am sorry to say that there is certainly fraud in housing benefit, usually practised by landlords who invent fake tenants rather than tenants themselves. There can be fraud, intentional or not, when lone parents claim benefits although they are cohabiting or people claim JSA and earn money on the side. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was exactly right. There is no divergence of view between the Treasury and DSS. If people know that others who should not be receiving benefits claim them it rots the general faith in the welfare state. It is not just about money going to the right places. People will claim if they know that the money goes to those who are entitled to it and that it is the decent thing to do. But if some manipulate the system and boast of it and are then labelled by the tabloids as fraudsters it is not surprising that an elderly person who is unsure about a claim will not want to expose himself or herself to that situation. It is a difficult tightrope to tread. At all times we must ensure that not only do we have adequate controls to deal with fraud, because fraud there is, but that we do not use language, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, quite rightly said, to create a disincentive to people who are entitled to claim.
I turn to the main concerns raised by my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris. I believe that the capacity of my noble friend Lord Ashley to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer is infinitely greater than mine and I invite him to take up the crusade on my behalf.
In the case of disability living allowance and attendance allowance, my noble friend Lord Morris was right. We believe that there are perhaps only 30 to 50 per cent of people who claim the care component of DLA who are entitled to it; perhaps 50 to 70 per cent who claim the mobility component; and perhaps 40 to 60 per cent who claim attendance allowance, which is care without mobility. If the take-up rate for DLA and AA increased to 90 per cent—together with my friends I would be cheering if that happened—expenditure on those benefits would rise from about £8 billion to over £13 billion. Therefore, there is an under-claim of £5 to £6 billion by disabled people whose needs entitle them to that level of benefit.
Why is take-up so low? Our research suggests that there is a variety of factors: lack of knowledge about the benefit (for example, my father was in that position) and a disinclination among older people to claim assistance for what they may see as disabilities that they associate, often mistakenly, simply with ageing. For example, many people progressively lose their sight as they get older. Most elderly people have progressive hearing loss as they grow older. Many of them would be entitled to claim as deaf or blind under the regulations but do not do so because they see it as part of the process of ageing. Equally, the benefits themselves, particularly DLA, are complicated. Elderly people in particular remain baffled as to why there is not a simple read-across from the severity of disability to DLA, but we know that DLA uses a care and mobility test as proxy for the additional costs associated with severe disability. But if they can manage perfectly well without the need for care and mobility, however severe their disability they are not entitled to DLA. This baffles people who do not understand why two people with similar disabilities, but whose capacity to
514
manage them and the degree of dependence on care and supervision is different, may end up with very different levels of benefit.
Part of it may be related to claim forms. As my noble friend Lord Ashley suspected, we are working closely with the Disability Benefits Forum to try to simplify forms. The building block of DLA has been a diary of how an individual disabled person sees his or her life and the need for care and support. Such a diary is inevitably reasonably detailed and requires a number of pages on the form. One cannot get the full information needed with very simple forms that require four or five answers. I understand that my noble friend does not suggest that.
I was asked whether we were following up the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to have separate forms for different types of disability, in particular different physical and mental health disabilities or learning difficulties. That is being pursued with the Disability Benefits Forum. We want forms that get the balance right so that we have full information on which we can make an award without such complexity that it deters disabled people from applying. But the particular difficulty of the proposal of the noble Baroness is that very many disabled people suffer from more than one type of disability. Therefore, one would be asking them to repeat the information. But we are looking at this matter and working on it with the DBF to ensure that we get the process right.
It is also right that many of those who claim DLA and AA—perhaps 50 per cent—end up not getting an award. I repeat that that is not because there is any suggestion of impropriety or fraud but because of the complexity of the DLA rules. I stress that if people have been refused DLA this year, because the condition may change next year—the illness may be fluctuating or deteriorating, like MS—they should reapply to ensure that they get the awards to which they are entitled.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the single gateway to work. One million disabled people tell us that they want to work. The 2 million or so people on incapacity benefit have at one time been in jobs, and many tell us that they want to return to work. Under the single gateway we invite all of them to an interview where they first meet a generalist adviser. If it is clear that they have special needs, such as disabilities, learning difficulties, language difficulties, dyslexia and the like, they will be referred to the appropriate specialist adviser.
The 12 pilots started in June, which will be extended in November, are working with voluntary and private assistance precisely so we can ensure that we learn how best sensitively to address those who are not simply the happy-go-lucky 18 to 24 year-olds who hitherto have got away with JSA and we are now encouraging into work but perhaps lone parents with children, disabled people or those with learning or reading difficulties who can get access to help.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the point I sought to make related to the general problems of the section for a person with literacy problems. I appreciate that the noble Baroness was addressing more the disability side.

515
Sensitive handling at the initial interview of an adult with literacy problems would encourage integration into the system. That was the main thrust of what I said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take every point the noble Lord made, including the fact that if we rely on letters for contact we multiply the problems.
I shall ask my officials to write to the noble Lord stating to what extent dyslexic and literacy problems are covered in the specialist training of the advisers after the point of entry into the single gateway. If he is not satisfied perhaps he will come back to me on it.
Over and beyond the problems of disability and its take-up, we also have the problems of income support. Many noble Lords raised the issue today. Perhaps as many as 700,000 pensioners could be entitled to income support but are not claiming it. Perhaps I may say this in response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Numbers have come down partly because of the glitch in information. But we are also finding as we undertake the pilot schemes that one of the biggest single reasons for people below income levels not claiming their income support is the high level of savings. Of 600,000 people not claiming the minimum income guarantee, well over half have savings of over £20,000 and something like 200,000 (a third) have savings of over £50,000. If people are not willing to draw on their savings, they may well be living on income below that of income support.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, one knows only too well from one's constituency experience that the savings issue causes a terrible problem. Having saved all their lives, those people feel that this is their final fall-back position and are reluctant to run it down.
Will the noble Baroness confirm that there are to be new figures out in May on pensioners not taking up the benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am expecting so. But the figures were partly due to a technical problem, and the fact that we were revising downwards. I take the point, but it is a little hard to justify someone with a capital of £50,000 having income-related benefits which are designed for the poor. If they choose not to draw on those they may well have a living standard below that of income support levels and not be entitled to income support top up.
Some pensioners who are failing to claim may be entitled only to a very small amount. However, pensioners, in particular single elderly widows, may be missing out on sums of £15 to £20 per week. As noble Lords have already identified, the pilots are showing a problem of ignorance, complexity, stigma, or the fact that they may have applied for a benefit in the past, been rebuffed, and thought that somehow they had no entitlement in future. We have been working on pilots. The results are not happy ones. We have not vet identified satisfactory ways of getting to elderly people benefits to which they are entitled. We are looking at piggy-backing on the attendance allowance, data matching, and at points at the 70th or 80th birthday. We are working actively in all those areas. We are working
516
with local authorities. However, there is as much reluctance to claim as there is a willingness on our part to encourage people to claim; and we have a long way to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me about widows' benefits. I am sorry; I cannot add anything beyond what I said last time. We inherited the problem from the previous administration. In 1986 the government changed the rights of widows to SERPS and failed to notify anyone about it for the next 10 years. We picked this up last autumn and set about immediately analysing the size of the problem, our legal responsibilities and what they may entail. But I am afraid I cannot add to what I have already said.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the NINO pilot schemes. Those are pilot schemes based on the fraud Act which the previous administration introduced. The local authorities volunteered for this work. We believe that relatively few people are affected by it. Most people claiming council tax benefit are already claiming another benefit which is their passport, or identification, for this benefit. Few need to rely on NINOs alone. The pilot schemes that we are handling with the local authorities are designed to show precisely what problems there may be. If, as the noble Earl suspects, there are deeper problems than we have so far identified, we should be able to pick them up before the scheme is extended nationwide. That is the point of it.
Time is running out. I have done my best to answer questions asked by noble Lords. As I said, there is no hidden Treasury agenda to deny people information about benefits to which they are entitled. We believe that benefits unclaimed are a right that is foregone and we would not wish people to do so. Disabled people in particular, and elderly people on income support, are those losing out most. I hope that your Lordships will join with me in ensuring that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

House of Lords Bill
8.24 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate on many different aspects of Clause 1. I do not propose to go over those again now. although some of my noble friends may have one or two points to raise.
Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill—the very essence of the Bill (if that is the right expression). My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew expressed some anxieties about how the clause may or may not work, and may speak further about that.
I note that under the Explanatory Notes the Bill states that the Baroness Jay of Paddington, referring to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, stated:
"In my view the provisions of the House of Lords Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".

517
I hope that the noble Baroness is right. There is a problem—I hope that it can be resolved quickly—arising from the European Convention on Human Rights. When, or if, the Bill is passed, virtually all hereditary Peers will cease to be Members of this House. Quite rightly, they had no vote at the last general election and will not now be able to vote until the next general election. Therefore, for the period between the coming into force of the Bill and the next general election they will not exist under a government to whose election they have contributed. I am advised that that is doubtfully legal under the European Convention on Human Rights. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Baroness was not a little hasty in attaching the certificate to the Bill. I hope that she will be able to assure us that that is not the position.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, during the course of the Bill I wonder whether I was alone with the sad suspicion that the Government were not listening with much care, if at all, to the arguments addressed to them on this clause. It is clear that I was not alone because we have heard my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Ferrers making much the same point. I feel the position so keenly that I wish to make clear to the noble Baroness and other Ministers that I have been listening to their argument.
That is simply done because the Government have only one argument: it is called the manifesto. I cannot think of any more persuasive way of demonstrating that I, at least, have listened to the Government's argument than to read the manifesto. At the end, I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others will not shout "Hear, hear" because the purpose of my reading it is to show that I have already heard. The material passage is as follows:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: That shows that noble Lords have not been listening to my argument. The right to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute.
If I have described that pledge as the heart of the matter, I reckon that I shall carry with me the agreement of all noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite. When formulating legislation it is important to make the language used relate to the heart of the matter.
I regret that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not here. No doubt he has other pressing business. I indicated to him that I wanted to make some mild criticism of his speech last Tuesday in particular in response to Amendment No.10A, the new clause. I am sorry he is not here because he has made it abundantly clear that it is important for legislation to get to the heart of the matter. As we established last Tuesday, he was kind enough to write a letter to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, indicating that, whereas the parliamentary draftsman had considered a number of alternative
518
approaches to securing the purpose of the Bill, he had selected the language of the Bill because he wanted to get to the heart of the matter.
I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor now in his place. I was saying that on Tuesday we had elicited that the Lord Chancellor sees great virtue in getting to the heart of the matter in the language used in legislation. He convinced us as much in the letter that he kindly wrote to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, explaining why the draftsman opted for the language that we now have before us in Clause 1.
However, on Tuesday I was one of those who enquired, appropriately humbly, why the Bill does not identify the heart of the matter in the same language, when the expressed manifesto pledge of which I have already reminded the Committee—I say that for the benefit of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—was to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords? I asked then and I ask now: would it not have been clearer, would it not have been safer, for the Bill to have done that?
The contributions from this side of the House made it clear that we are not considering the merits of the Government's policy. That is quite a different matter and we spent a long time on that at Second Reading. However, we are looking at the quality of the language and we are seeking reassurance that the language gets to the heart of the matter. Instead of focusing on the right to sit and vote in this House we now know that Clause I refers to the membership of the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage. The clause says that that shall come to an end.
I diffidently enquired, and do so again: would it have been safer and clearer and would it have avoided the prospect of future litigation and considerable expense—to say nothing of trouble—had the Government said, "We shall think about it; we attach no magical meaning to the language of the Bill and we shall see whether, had we employed the language of the manifesto"—to which the Government refer endlessly—"that might have achieved the purpose more closely and more clearly"?
It is worth remembering that the new clause—Amendment No.10A—gets to the heart of the matter by operating upon the Writ of Summons. It says that no hereditary Peer shall receive a Writ of Summons to this House. That was only an idea. It seemed good at the time. After the reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor it seemed an even better idea to me. That idea was simulated by the protean mind of the Lord Chancellor in stating to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that the language had to get to the heart of the matter and that accounted for it.
The idea in my mind burgeoned as I read, as the Lord Chancellor has read, the opinion of Mr. John Lofthouse, Treasury Counsel in peerage matters for the past 10 years and, therefore, no slouch. I now realise that I was a little ungenerous in saying, a moment or two before the Lord Chancellor joined us this evening, that I sadly suspected that he had not listened with much care to any of our arguments because he showed he was listening at that part of the argument when my noble

519
friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish., understandably, asserted that Mr. Lofthouse was a Queen's Counsel. The Lord Chancellor started his reply with a correction of that understandable mistake.
That does not affect the issue one way or the other. I defer to Mr. Lofthouse's expertise in such matters, as I did when I was Attorney-General and had the benefit of his advice when seeking to call out of abeyance the Wharton peerage. I certainly defer to the expertise of Mr. Lofthouse now, even though—I regret to confess—I have been a Queen's Counsel myself for 27 years.
Unhappily, I am not aware that the Lord Chancellor addressed any other aspects of my noble friend Lord Mackay's reply with anything like the same acuity. I was heartened by the intervention, after I had spoken, of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, a distinguished former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. He was kind enough to say that he agreed with me 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". —[Official Report, 27/4/99; col.160.]
I was heartened by that and the more so because the noble and learned Lord cites the words of Lord Chancellor Cranworth in the Wensleydale peerage case. Lord Wensleydale was a Lord of Appeal and had been appointed by a Patent that stipulated that he should have a life peerage only. There was a very long case about it in the Committee of Privileges in this House. He cited the words of Lord Cranworth, a predecessor of the present Lord Chancellor:
"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".
That seemed to me to be significant and persuasive. I was heartened because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, is, as I feel sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, a distinguished expert on peerage matters, particularly in Scotland. Therefore, it was correspondingly disappointing for me that when taxed with the point put by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—a point which the noble and learned Lord, out of mere inadvertence I am sure, had hitherto ignored—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor avoided it (I can find no other word) with the phrase:
"I have no intention of getting involved in arcane questions of peerage law". —[Official Report, 27/4/99; col.170.]
When thinking about that afterwards, I found it very difficult to avoid the word "high-handed" in describing that reply. It is true that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not dismiss the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, as being merely a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, but it seemed to me that it would have been appropriate to have dealt with the merits of the point that the noble and learned Law Lord had made.
In those circumstances, it would not have cost much to take a little time to consider the point afresh, rather than merely assert, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did, that:
"the ordinary man in the street and the judges will have no difficulty in construing",
520
the concept of membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. It would not have taken much time to have said, "Let us think about this a little further". Indeed, I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, is not in his place if that is how he is treated by the head of the judiciary.
The ground for the confidence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seems to he additionally in the fact that the Government have made their intention clear, even if the Government have not, for some unexplained reason, adopted the language of the holy manifesto. Perhaps they feel that because they have made clear their intention and their belief of what the language they have employed achieves that will be that if push comes to shove.
I concede that that may help. In winding up, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor once again took the opportunity to assert his and the Government's intention. But Pepper v.Hart does not provide any government with a wholly reliable "golden pass" conferring upon them immunity in having the language that they got Parliament to use from being construed according to the court's view of its natural and ordinary meaning. It is not a wholly reliable golden pass. The judges will be inclined to hold that the language and not the Lord Chancellor embodies the law.
In conclusion, I submit that to cleave through an unnecessarily unclear and uncertain formulation with the argument that, "In any event, we can work a Pepper v. Hart", is no way to invite this House to legislate. We on this side have argued for the avoidance of doubt, but I fear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has seemed more concerned with the avoidance of any revision of this Bill.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it seems to me that with each passing hour in Committee this Bill becomes ever more extraordinary. It fascinates and confuses me. The Government stand on their conviction that it is a creature of exquisite simplicity. And yet I cannot help feeling that as we have scrutinised it, that simplicity has unravelled before our eyes, not least in the opinion of Mr. Lofthouse.
With all humility and deference—I am not a lawyer—I suggest that notwithstanding the Government's apparent obsession we should not be too concerned with how the courts may or may not construe the Bill as enacted. It should be a matter of what the Bill actually says. We are a Chamber of legislative scrutiny. Our first duty, irrespective of party—and it is especially so because of the operation of the Salisbury convention—is to ensure that legislation is drafted as accurately and clearly as possible.
In Committee in your Lordships' House we should not be overly concerned with the Government's overarching purpose; that is to say, what the Bill means. As the Government and their supporters delight in pointing out, "We all know that anyway"—aside from which that point is readily established by the grant of a Second Reading for the measure, albeit qualified by the acceptance by your Lordships of the amendment of the

521
noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Although manifestly some of us do not like it, this House has embraced the underlying principle of the Bill.
What is therefore at issue in Clause 1 is whether the drafting achieves this underlying principle. I am bound to say that from my admittedly layman's perspective, not only the opinion of Mr. Lofthouse but also a number of concerns expressed by noble Lords, introduce an element of doubt which has yet to be adequately and convincing rebutted by the Government Front Bench. For example, I was intrigued by the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Amendment No.10A. To my mind, it included three distinct interpretations of Clause 4(2), one of which was an accurate reflection of one of the elements of Mr. Lofthouse's opinion. Breaking my own dictum, I wonder how the courts might construe that.
That leads me to another thought. As hereditary Peers, our duty to this Bill is to preside over our own execution at the same time as correcting the terms of our own death warrant. I concede that it is a theatrical metaphor, but that does not make it any less accurate. It is essential therefore that the Government accept their duty in turn to furnish the Committee with substantive and adequate responses to the queries that so many of your Lordships have raised. It saddens me that there are grounds for supposing that thus far that has not entirely been the case.
My exasperation with this has curdled to something more pungent. Like it or not, today we, this whole House, are still a House of this Parliament. Where is our duty to be done if all we are greeted with by the Government Front Bench is the blithe repetition of the revolving prayer wheel mantras: "It is in the manifesto"; "The Bill is solely and exclusively about the hereditary peerage"; "It is a stand-alone measure"? Need I go on?
I accept that such points have a legitimate place in the scheme of things, but the reality is that we are now addressing the detail of the Bill, and that is our right. The Government, while they may disagree and while they may not like it, are being probed on specific points of substance. This autistic reflex does not win arguments. Bluntly, it is irritating. It is simply not good enough. It invites the conjecture that the Government, in their cabal of strategy or tactic meetings—I concede that I am never certain of the distinction between the two—have the perceived wisdom along the lines of, "You don't actually have to bother replying to anything. Just stonewall. Just put up the shutters. That will do the trick". I repeat that it really is not good enough.
The fact of the matter—an awful cliché, but it seems well-beloved of the Government Front Bench—is that bar one or two of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and myself, as revealed by the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, last week, the Clerks have advised all Members of the Committee that the amendments they have tabled are in order; they are germane to the Bill. Some may be of more substance than others, but they all merit proper scrutiny and, crucially, adequate replies from the Government Front Bench, replies that actually address their subject matter, replies that go at least some way towards answering the concerns that Members of the Committee are expressing. To do anything else is to demean the
522
Committee. This is a Bill that shouts out for intellectual rigour, and it gets the argumentative squalor of the nursery.
We on these Benches, like noble Lords opposite and elsewhere in the Committee, are moderately intelligent. We can grasp when we are being sold a pup. I invite noble Lords opposite to dwell on this. If Front Bench Members of these Benches had sought to adopt this sort of approach when we were in office—perhaps they did; I would not know—noble Lords opposite would have been, quite rightly apoplectic, incandescent with rage.
I am bound to say this. I have no intention of maligning noble Lords opposite, but there has been a sense during the passage of the Bill so far that some of the Government's Back-Benchers have derived some perverse satisfaction, some delight, in supposing that the hereditary peerage and these Benches generally may have given the impression of being little more than rabbits caught in the glare of headlights. It is precisely this symptom of reducing the legislative function of the House of Lords to a branch of the "yah-boo" politics of another place—after all, we are led to believe that this is antipathetic to the Prime Minister's "third way"—that causes so many of us such concern. It is a vision of the rubble to which the centuries of history of the House of Lords will be reduced.
The House is nothing if it cannot maintain its traditions of courtesy and its duty of legislative scrutiny. Inevitably, these rely on trust. It is this trust that enables us to be a self-regulating House. But trust is a two-edged sword. It is worthless unless all sides subscribe to it. If all that is to happen when amendments are moved in all seriousness, in all honesty and in a spirit of inquiry and an intention to be helpful—I repeat that the Clerks have accepted the great bulk of those amendments so far tabled—is that the Government will dismiss them with the ritual recital of their rehearsed mantras, that trust is, in effect, withdrawn. We are all—I include noble Lords opposite, because what is certain is that we always reap what we sow—the poorer for that. We are all wasting our time.
I am a mild-mannered individual. I comment thus not in anger but in pained weariness. But the provocation on this issue, and not only in the Bill, has become too great to ignore. At the very least the Government should come clean, and if they cannot address the points raised they should say so. At best—and I acknowledge that in the current climate this may well be wishful thinking—the Government should be prepared to recognise that, in this of all issues, they are servants of the House of Lords.
It may be that we who are hereditary Peers are about to be the road kill which the Government want. But until such time as the Bill is enacted we continue to be Lords of Parliament, with all the rights that that status accords us. We continue to be wholly legitimate Members of the House of Lords.
In my relatively short time here I have come to recognise, in a way that I never could from an outside perspective, that Parliament belongs to its membership. That is especially the case with respect to the House of Lords. After all, advanced as the virtue of

523
"independence", it is something that has permeated so much of our discussions about reform. And, insofar as it remains the case, it means that we deserve substantive replies to the issues we raise, not this whining clockwork from the spin doctor's work-bench. It really is not good enough.
In conclusion, I simply wish to say that it may or may not be that the Lofthouse opinion has substance. The Government have not established the case one way or the other. Rather, our Committee proceedings so far have revealed that the elements of doubt introduced by them, and other matters of substance raised by other noble Lords, some of them very considerable, call into question the construction and formulation of Clause 1.
I do not for a moment say that we should strike Clause 1 from the face of the Bill. The Government still have time and the opportunity to address the concerns that have been expressed in order to deliver their nirvana of legislative clarity. But without that I could be tempted to a view that it would be both irresponsible and beyond the Committee's competence to accept the Bill as drafted. It would be a dereliction of duty to enact a measure where so much doubt exists as to whether or not it is capable of delivering its stated purpose.
Lord Northfield: I hesitate to intervene, because I am not a lawyer, but I am surprised at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. He said first that the Government Front Bench did not listen. Those of us who have sat through the Committee stage so far must give full marks to our Front Bench for listening carefully and replying to a whole lot of amendments which are way outside the Long Title of the Bill and only just squeeze in within the general intention of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord knows from his experience in the other place that in the House of Commons nearly all those amendments would have been ruled out of order, as being way outside the Long Title.
Therefore, all that we have really been having is continuous Second Reading speeches and amendments which do not touch on the real heart of the Bill. To every one of them, to my knowledge as I have sat here this week, our Front Bench has given a very careful, courteous, considered and lengthy reply. The noble and learned Lord has no right to say that the Front Bench has not been listening and has not been replying.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that it was extraordinary that the Government had not considered alternatives. He cannot have listened to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who said quite clearly in my hearing, "We considered all the alternatives. The parliamentary draftsmen considered all the alternatives and came to the conclusion that the way we have taken in Clause 1 is the correct and sensible way. We have considered them all, but we came back to this as the most appropriate. " It is not right for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to say that they were not considered. That was directly contrary to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had carefully told him about what had actually been done.
524
I now come back to the basic statement of the noble and learned Lord and others who say that the most important thing in this matter is the Writ of Summons, and the statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, that the right to sit here depends on receipt of the Writ. The condition antecedent to receiving a Writ is to be a Peer. A Writ cannot be issued to somebody who is not a Peer, either a life Peer or a hereditary Peer. That is the present case; a Writ can be issued only to someone who is a Peer of one kind or another. Receiving a Writ is something that happens by virtue of being a hereditary Peer. As Clause 1 says, we take away that condition antecedent, and the hereditary Peer no longer has the right to receive the Writ and be a Member of the House of Lords.
I cannot understand why a lawyer of the eminence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, could not understand that the procedure starts by being a Peer and not by simply receiving a Writ. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is quite right to say that the simple way is to legislate, in the words of Clause 1 which states,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage",
by what flows from being a hereditary Peer. That is simple, direct and quite clear. I hope that the Committee will realise that the situation is merely being dragged out, yet again, by Members of the Committee opposite in order to make more Second Reading speeches. With very great respect, we have really had enough of them.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest humility, perhaps I may add to the Second Reading speeches. if that is what the noble Lord likes to call them. We are dealing with a highly controversial Bill; of course we are. It is a Bill which affects the constitution. It is quite right for your Lordships' House, as it is for any chamber, to scrutinise it. But whenever we scrutinise it, Members of the Committee opposite say that we are making Second Reading speeches. With respect, that is not so.
Perhaps I may add that if there is a controversial Bill going through your Lordships' House, it would be a great help if there were some happiness, pleasure and smiles on the faces of the Members on the Government Front Bench. On the whole, they have been glum. That does not help the case. They should at least show that they are in favour of the Bill being discussed.
I suggested earlier—and I hesitate to suggest again—that if the Government are altering the constitution, and they are, then it is quite right for the Chamber to consider that and to consider the effects. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said it is quite clear that the object of the Bill is just to get rid of hereditary Peers and that is that. Actually, that is not that because one must look at what is the effect. The effect is sometimes very different from what is expected. It is quite right for the Opposition to say, "Look, this is what we think. What do you, oh Government, think?" I say with great respect that the sad thing about Clause 1 and all that we have discussed so far is that we have not had answers to the questions.

525
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, tried to give an answer. He said that you can receive a Writ only if you are a Peer and therefore, if you get rid of the Peers, there will be no Writ. That may well be the answer, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not say that. I should be grateful if he would address his mind to the point that, as I understand it, we are all here by a Writ of Summons. Whether one is a life Peer or a hereditary Peer, it is the Writ of Summons which brings us here. Once here, the Writ has fulfilled its duty. It summons the person to Parliament and is put on one side. I would like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say how it is that the Government can say to some Peers, "The Writ which brought you here at the beginning of this Parliament can last for the whole length of the Parliament for some Peers but only last for part of the Parliament for other Peers". Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will answer that question.
It seems to me—and I say this with the greatest humility—that it verges on being hybrid if a right is taken from some people but the same right is not taken from all people.
I fear that the diktat which the Government have given to the Government Front Bench is that they must concede no amendments. I can understand that. The noble Baroness seems to be querying that. I am delighted. That is how it looks at the moment. They are told to concede no amendments and to concede no arguments either. If the noble Baroness and her colleagues would say, "Noble Lords opposite have got a point here which we have considered but we think that for this, that and the other reason noble Lords are wrong", we would understand that. But we are merely told, "That is in the manifesto and that is what we are going to do".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl but I have heard this argument several times on the amendments which have debated this afternoon; namely, that the Government are not prepared to accept any amendments. I ask the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee to consider what the position has been for some months, has been during the course of discussion of this Bill on Second Reading and will be when we consider the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, with all its implications, and whether or not that does not suggest that the Government are prepared to accept substantive amendments.
Earl Ferrers: That is one step forward. I wonder why the Government did not accept the amendment in the House of Commons. It was tabled in another place and they did not accept it. Therefore, is the noble Baroness saying that this is not a Bill, as the manifesto says, to get rid of all hereditary Peers but is a Bill to retain 100 hereditary Peers? That is different. At present, the Bill before us seeks to get rid of all hereditary Peers.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hesitate to intervene again. The noble Earl may not be aware, and I should say for other Members of the Committee who are not aware, that it was the Government's proposal that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, should be
526
taken on the first day of Committee so that those matters could be addressed in precisely the way in which the noble Earl expresses them. Unfortunately, that was not agreed between the usual channels and, therefore, I agree that we are not discussing the amendment which could be central to the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: That is a very interesting point of view. But why did the Government not accept that amendment in another place? The fact is that the Bill before us seeks to remove all hereditary Peers. Now the noble Baroness says, "Actually, we made a mistake. We do not want to remove all hereditary Peers. We want to keep 100 of them". It is all very well for Members of the Committee opposite to wag their heads, but that is a very different state of affairs. Either the Government want to get rid of all hereditary Peers, which is what the Bill says and which is what the House of Commons passed, or they retain 100.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl is getting us going! He is doing it very well. I know that he will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that I rise to my feet because I feel that I am about to get going, and I am going to get going.
But he expressed a certain amount of puzzlement about the Bill. I certainly recognise a strong duty to relieve him of any sense of puzzlement that he has. Perhaps I may explain to him, with very great respect—as we lawyers say—simply this. Of course, a Writ of Summons has a certain consequence in law apart from the effect of legislation. I really do invite him to accept, because I am sure that he is as great a respecter of the sovereignty of Parliament as I am, that Parliament can legislate as it chooses in relation to a Writ of Summons which has been issued for this Parliament. It can provide that those who are here by virtue of a Writ of Summons may be excluded pursuant to Clause 1. That is the prerogative of a sovereign parliament.
Under Clause 4(2) a sovereign parliament is entitled to provide that a Writ of Summons which has not been responded to in this Parliament shall be null and void. I suggest to the noble Lord that inadvertently his argument questions the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Kingsland: Before my noble friend responds, has the noble and learned Lord not considered the retrospective effect of Clause 4(2) on those who have received a Writ of Summons? They did not have a vote when they received this Writ of Summons, in return for which they sit here. If Clause 4(2) is passed, in my submission, and with the very greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, its passage will not only contravene the European Convention on Human Rights as retrospective legislation; but it will also, in the great traditions of our own constitution, be unconstitutional.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble and learned Lord responds once more, I am delighted that he said he is getting going. On Tuesday, in answer to my question he said:
"I have no intention of getting involved in arcane questions of peerage law". —[Official Report, 27/4/99; col.170.]

527
It seems to me that this is very much the subject of the Bill, arcane and difficult as it may be. It may be something with which the noble and learned Lord does not want to tangle. However, if he is saying that, is he also saying that peerage law is somehow outside the overall ambit of the Bill? Is it not subject in any case to consideration by the courts and interpretation of its wording, if that is what the noble and learned Lord wants it to be? He cannot really have it both ways. He either wants to get going or he does not want anything to do with it. Which is it to be?
The Lord Chancellor: The short answer to both interventions is that Parliament is sovereign and in this case the Government are carrying into effect the manifest will of the people.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue my speech!
A noble Lord: Start again!
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I would not filibuster, not even at the invitation of noble Lords opposite.
The noble and learned Lord very kindly said that I got him going. If I achieve nothing else. that is a great achievement. To see the smiles on the faces of noble Lords opposite, and even on the face of the noble Baroness—which must be the first time since the Committee stage commenced—is a great achievement.
These are serious points and the Opposition have a right to put them forward. This is an alteration to the constitution. We may not agree with what is being done. There are plenty of people outside who say hereditary Peers should stay and that we should get rid of the life Peers. That is not a view that I necessarily hold. Certainly I would not subscribe to it in this House. However, such view s are held and people are concerned..
Perhaps I may try to persuade the noble and learned Lord that despite all the fuss and brouhaha about life Peers versus hereditary Peers, which is a pretty disagreeable battle, we do want to try to help the Government in so far as ensuring that what gets on to the statute book is right.
I am glad the noble and learned Lord addressed the point regarding the Writ of Summons. He may well be right. We may think he is wrong. It is quite right for us to point it out to him and say, "Look, we actually think you're making a mistake. What a pity it would be if the Government were taken to court and were found to lose. "
The fact is that many people have said, and the noble and learned Lord said this earlier, that everyone knows what the Government intend. I hesitate to say this to such an eminent lawyer when I have never even entered the portals of that profession—much to my regret—but when matters come to court, they are not decided on the big issues: they are decided on the minutiae and the detail. That is why it is right to get the details correct.
The manifesto, as we have heard so often—it has almost become a Holy Grail—spoke of the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. But I pointed out that one of the effects of the Bill is that people of the eminence of,
528
for instance, my noble friend Lord Carrington, who has achieved a great deal for this country, will not be allowed inside these premises. Why? Because he happens to be a Peer. It is an offence to discriminate against sex, against gender and against colour, but apparently it is perfectly all right to discriminate against birth. My noble friend has given a great deal to this country and yet when this Bill is passed he will not only not be allowed inside the Chamber, but inside the House. That is a great pity.
For all those reasons Clause I needs looking at again. For the first time the noble and learned Lord shakes his head in assent, and I assume by that he means he will look at it again and for that I shall be grateful.
Lord Goodhart: My recollection is becoming a little hazy by now, but I feel that we had exactly the same debate the day before yesterday. I made a speech expressing my views on that occasion; I have no intention of pressing the replay button and delivering it again. And I express the hope that other Members of the Committee will follow my example.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I can intervene at this stage and other Members of the Committee can intervene after me in due course. I will try to follow the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and not make a Second Reading speech. In fact I intend to be very brief.
I greatly welcome the fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be responding to this discussion. I am sure that in the course of this debate she started off on her own without any advice from either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or her noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, or even the noble Lord, Lord Williams—not that he is learned in the terms of this House—who seems to have been spirited out of the country. I dare say we will see him back in due course.
No doubt the Leader of the House has had some expert legal advice from her noble and learned friends and will be able to respond in due course. From my point of view I cannot respond as my noble friend the Leader of these Benches did the other day, starting off by saying, "Dealing with these arcane points of law". That was how he put it. He was not a lawyer. I am a lawyer, albeit not one of any eminence. I was called to the Bar, but sadly never proceeded any further. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am tempted to say that I would like to go further. I might even put in my application to take Silk at some stage and perhaps the noble Baroness will convey that to her noble and learned friend in due course.
A number of points have been put by those on these Benches who are much more learned in the law than myself.
Lord Peston: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: Those are points that need answering by the Government and we hope that the Government will answer them in due course, in particular those raised by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew dealing with retrospection. It is important that that specific question is dealt with.

529
I said—and got a degree of "Hear, hear!" from the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that I did not know much about the law. The noble Lord can now say "Hear, hear!" again if he so wishes.
Lord Peston: My remarks were intended to doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not know much about the law. I assume when I make a similar remark that he really knows a great deal about what he is saying.
Lord Henley: I hope that the noble Lord will pass that back to his noble and learned friends and perhaps they will view my application for Silk in due course with some consideration. The fact that I do not practice will probably count against me but, similarly, I make no criticism. In fact, I have never made criticisms about the noble Lord as an economist, but we can discuss that in other debates.
What little law I do know suggests that a certain number of questions have been raised and we must consider whether it is enough that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor simply declares that what he says is what the Bill means. However loud and however often he says that, it does not take the doubt away from many on this side and from those who have written learned opinion on the subject. We have heard, both inside and outside this Chamber, that expert opinion exists. We heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he has a lack of readiness to look at arcane questions of peerage law. However eminent the Lord Chancellor is, how can he be so sure that he is right and others, even if they are not Queen's Counsel, such as myself, or the drafter of this opinion, are wrong?
I hope for his sake that the noble and learned Lord is right. If not, when the law is challenged and found wanting, I suspect he will be like that unfortunate young man in the Edward Lear limerick, which I am sure many noble Lords will remember:

"There was a young man in a boat

Who cried, 'I'm afloat, I'm afloat'.

When they said, 'No, you ain't',

He fell down in a faint,

That unhappy young man in a boat".

As I said, a number of questions have been raised. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be able to respond to those questions—questions put by lawyers much more eminent than myself.
Lord Grantley: I wish to support the plea made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that this legislation should be correctly drafted. Many people have had the advantage of reading the opinion given by Mr. John Lofthouse, which was much referred to on previous occasions. The noble and learned Lord said that he had had the advantage of having known Mr. Lofthouse for 10 years in his capacity as standing counsel for the Treasury on peerage law. I have the advantage of having known him for 25 years since we were at Oxford together. He was a great authority on peerage law then and undoubtedly is a great authority, perhaps the greatest authority in the land today, in that respect. Therefore,
530
I think that the opinion he has given should be considered extremely seriously so that the legislation can be correctly and accurately drafted.
I am not a lawyer myself but I have had some regrettable experience of the law courts as a litigant. I can give Members of the Committee one example which I believe to be germane to the question of construction; indeed, I shall be extremely interested to hear the answer. Some years ago, in my capacity as a landlord of a house, I sought to terminate the tenancy of a tenant whose tenancy had come to the end of its contractual term. The tenancy had been granted when I was not the landlord but the resident beneficiary of a trust which was the landlord. The relevant Housing Act clearly intended that the resident beneficiary of a trust which was the landlord should have the same rights as a resident landlord. However, when the case came to court, I lost it because the legislation did not absolutely express that situation. In other words, what the court said was, "We know very well what the intention was, but that is not what the law says".
As I understand it, the response which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given to the questions very rightly raised by the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Mayhew, is that it does not ultimately matter exactly how we have drafted it because everyone knows what the intention is. We do indeed know what the intention is but, for goodness sake, let us have it correctly drafted. I urge and beg the Government to consider very seriously the points that have been made in relation to the defective drafting of the Bill and to come back with a considered redraft, which at least gives proper effect to their clear intentions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I can agree with two comments that were made by those who have opposed the question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that this clause goes to the heart of the Bill; indeed, that is the case. I can also agree with the noble Earl, who seems no longer to be in his place—although I thought he was opposed to the inclusion of the clause—that the passage of the Bill becomes ever more extraordinary.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, this clause goes to the heart of the Bill. Therefore, as the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip seems to find it somewhat peculiar that I should be sitting on these Benches without support, perhaps I should respond to him in the most friendly fashion and say that, if it is the heart or the centre of the Bill, it is surprising that neither his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition nor the Deputy Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, are here to take part in the debate.
Lord Henley: I appreciate that the noble Baroness was supported soon after the debate began, but I was merely expressing doubt because she seemed to lack legal support at the beginning. I have my noble friend Lord Kingsland with me. He is not learned in terms of this House but is, nonetheless, very learned in the law; and I need him.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Frankly, I do not take that point because I am sure the noble Lord does not

531
expect me to come to this debate or indeed to any other proceedings on the Bill without obtaining previous legal advice. I am making the political point that if, as noble Lords have suggested—and as I would agree—this clause is the heart of the Bill, I would have expected noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench to be better represented.
I should just respond to those noble Lords who have complained, if I can use that rather strong word, about the attitude of the Government Front Bench to the amendments which have been tabled; and, indeed, about our facial expressions, as was the case with the suggestions made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We are now on the 24th group of amendments on the Bill. We are at the end of the third day of the Committee stage. In practice, in the proceedings on most normal Bills—and I have taken the advice of my noble friend the Chief Whip on this—one would expect that to be an average day's business in this Chamber. As I say, we have reached the third day of the Committee stage of this Bill and we have considered 24 groups of amendments.
Lord Henley: I remind the noble Baroness that she is the Leader of the House, not the leader of her own group. I hope that she is not in any way accusing this side of the Committee of a filibuster. If she is, I remind her—there has been no filibuster—of the activities of her party back in 1971 on the Industrial Relations Bill that had a Committee stage which lasted for some 21 days.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I had no wish to raise the heat of this discussion. I simply pointed out to those noble Lords who accuse the Government Front Bench of not taking the detailed consideration of this Bill seriously that we are indeed making progress. However, it has been slow progress because the Committee has properly considered the detail of this Bill. That is why the Government Front Bench feels it is an inaccurate observation to say that this Bill is not being taken seriously.
I return to the heart of this Bill, which is indeed Clause 1. Everything in this Bill flows from it and without this clause the Bill has no meaning. I gather from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk—who has now returned to the Chamber—that he does not intend to divide the Committee on this Clause. Were he to do so, that would be a complete breach of the conventions of this Chamber. It would indeed be the equivalent of a vote again st the Bill on Second Reading. The effect of this clause—
The Earl of Northesk: That is precisely why I made the point that I did.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That is why we accept it. However, I shall reply in precisely the way that I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, will feel is an appropriate response to the detailed points that have been made on Clause 1. Perhaps it will be helpful if I first of all repeat what the intent of this clause is, as there appears to be some confusion here.
532
The effect of this clause is that no one in the future shall be a Member of your Lordships' House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I shall return later to the question of the Writs and the points that were addressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I emphasise to the Committee—I hope this meets the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who again mentioned the case of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that that is not necessarily the same as saying that no hereditary Peer shall be a Member of the House of Lords, as they, like everyone else, will become eligible to receive life peerages. I am happy to confirm that, as I did in the debate on Amendment No.6 of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and today in the debate on Amendment No.30 of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not present at the moment.
As is explained in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the effect of the clause is comprehensive. I appreciate that the Committee well understands that, given the terms of the amendments which we have discussed. However, for the purposes of clarity—and, I hope, finality on this point—I repeat that this clause applies to all hereditary Peers, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, and whether they are male or female, Royal or non-Royal, Peers by succession or Peers of first creation, holders of Baronies by Writ or in possession of a Patent of Creation, or sit by virtue of a Writ of Acceleration or by a peerage called out of abeyance. This clause marks once and for all the end of any automatic connection between a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords.
Earl Ferrers: I ask a question for clarification. The noble Baroness was kind enough to say in response to my remark about people such as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, not being able to come here that such people could be offered life peerages. Who is eligible for life peerages and who grants the life peerages?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Noble Lords who at present sit by virtue of their hereditary peerages will, like every other citizen of this country, be eligible for life peerages. As I said in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who sought to include Privy Counsellors as hereditary Peers sitting in the reformed House, of course it would be entirely appropriate for any political leader who wished to recommend to the Prime Minister particularly distinguished Members of his Benches who sat previously as hereditary Peers—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would fall into that category—as suitable candidates for life peerages. It is a fairly straightforward point. It means that no one is excluded from the possibility of becoming a life Peer.
Perhaps I may answer another of the points of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. If as a result of the deliberations on the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, some hereditary Peers temporarily retain their seats in your Lordships' House, their right will no longer flow from their peerage but from their peerage in combination with a vote by other Members of the House.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and other noble Lords have mentioned, we have returned to matters which were addressed by my noble and learned friend on Amendment

533
No.10A. Some noble Lords have suggested that the clause does not achieve its effect because it does not operate directly on the Writ of Summons. I hope that noble Lords are now satisfied by the response of my noble and learned friend. We are confident that the clause is effective to achieve in law its simple objective, as, frankly, the overwhelming majority of those who appreciate it understand it, and those who have voted for the Government would agree. Of course the Government, too, have access to legal advice. That legal advice was taken when the Bill was drafted and has been taken during its passage. The Government's opinion of the effect of the Bill was extensively discussed on Tuesday and it has been presented to the Committee again today by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I would refer noble Lords who still have difficulty with this to the simple constitutional issue of the sovereignty of Parliament.
There is a sense on these Benches—I hope that noble Lords will not feel that it is either discourteous or dismissive—that we see a certain degree of—can I use the word?—"humbug"in trying to improve the Bill as noble Lords have suggested. For noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Benches to argue that they are seeking to make the exclusion of hereditary Peers more effective would seem to go against some of the arguments they have made in other cases.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. As she has effectively accused me and other noble Lords of humbug in putting forward our arguments, I wonder whether she would answer this question: what would be wrong, what would be inexpedient, in expressing the purpose of the Bill in terms stating that no one shall be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords unless he or she has received a Writ of Summons? What would be wrong or difficult in adjusting Clause 4 to make it work—if that be the will of the Government, there is no question of parliamentary sovereignty—and making it retrospective? What would be difficult about that? That would meet the difficulties that we have seen, the difficulties that Mr. Lofthouse has seen and the difficulties that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, has seen. We have never had an explanation as to why that would be difficult, except that it would mean a change to the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: It would not be a simple semantic matter of changing the wording of the Bill. As my noble and learned friend took some trouble to explain—although noble Lords have suggested that he did not—the terminology of the Bill was crafted in the way that it was and written in the way that it is in order to embrace the widest possible concept of the membership of your Lordships' House. I cannot recall whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was present at the time when this matter was discussed on Tuesday—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I was present.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I said that I could not remember. I am
534
sure that noble Lords will remember that we then discussed at some length whether it was possible to define the membership of the House of Lords, the membership of the House of Commons or the membership of the Welsh Assembly. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was replying to those points on another amendment, said that he was quite sure that it would be impossible to find judicial agreement on how that membership should be understood; nevertheless, it was perfectly legitimate to describe. It could, as we have discussed several times, be understood by anybody with common sense and even, as he said, by the judges. So I think we really must accept that the Government have taken appropriate legal advice on this matter and this is how it has been decided to formulate the Bill.
Perhaps I may move on and try to be a little more precise about exactly what Clause 1 does. It removes the totality of the rights and duties which members of the hereditary peerage have in their capacity as Members of your Lordships' House. It removes the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords and in any of its committees, to speak in the House or to receive a Writ of Summons. It removes ancillary rights and any other rights which are connected with membership of the House. The clause will also deprive hereditary Peers of those privileges of membership of the House which we call "club rights".
Now I must emphasise—I hope it does not sound too bald: it is certainly said only to achieve clarity and not in any way to be aggressive—that the privileges that are allowed to Members by virtue of their membership of the House of Lords, as far as concerns club rights, will be removed. Sadly, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is not in his place. Perhaps I may quote the words of his grandfather, the then Marquess of Salisbury, who said in your Lordships' debates on the Life Peerages Bill:
"This House is not a club; it is a place of legislation-. —[0flicial Report, 17/12/57; col.1231.]
I think we all agree on that; at least I hope we do.
Your Lordships are here to do a job of work. The facilities are provided to assist Members in fulfilling their functions. It would not be right to insist that hereditary Peers who no longer have any function in the House should still have the right to use those facilities provided by the taxpayer to support the work of Parliament.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question which arises out of that. Earlier today we debated the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford about the position of Privy Counsellors. At present Privy Counsellors who are Members of the other place may sit on the steps of the Throne. What will be the position of the Privy Counsellors in this House who are hereditary Peers and are to leave?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I said that in our view it was not appropriate that Privy Counsellors should remain as

535
hereditary Peers but that they are, as I said earlier in response to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, eligible for life peerages.
Lord Trefgarne: Will those without life peerages be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I was going on to say—unfortunately, the noble Lord intervened once again—that this statute is not the appropriate place in which to discuss matters of that kind. Just as with the question of former Members of the other place visiting the House of Commons, that would be a matter for the administration of the House. If, once the Bill goes through, the House of Lords decided that as a concession it would extend the use of its facilities to non-Members or former Members, that would he a matter for the House. But it is not a matter for this statute.
Earl Ferrers: This is an important point. The noble Baroness said that hereditary Peers will not be allowed access to the House as a result of the Bill, yet the question of whether Privy Counsellors are permitted to sit on the steps of the Throne will be a matter for the administration of the House. If the Bill removes hereditary Peers who are Privy Counsellors, why is it that the administration of the House is required to decide whether they should be allowed back in again?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am obviously not being sufficiently clear. Perhaps it is because I am becoming confused by the different points which are being made to me. I shall try to explain. I was asked about arrangements for former Members of the House, whether they be Privy Counsellors or hereditary Peers who are not Privy Counsellors, to have access to the facilities of the House or to sit on the steps of the Throne, or indeed to have a cup of tea or go into the Library. That access will of course he removed directly by virtue of the removal of their membership through this statute. But the arrangements for former Members might indeed become a matter on which concessions were granted, by, for example, the Committee for Privileges or the Procedure Committee, in the same way that they have been in another place where, if I may explain what I understand the position to be, former Members of the other place who have served for more than 15 years receive a particular type of pass to the Palace of Westminster which lets them have access to some of the refreshment and other facilities but not necessarily to all of them. Those facilities are determined administratively by the authorities of that House. That is the consistent pattern that your Lordships could adopt in circumstances where hereditary Peers as a group were excluded from membership of this House. I hope that is clear. If it is not, I am happy to respond to further questions.
Earl Ferrers: I think it is clear; but it is not equitable. The noble Baroness is saying that, by statute, hereditary Peers should not enter the House, and hereditary Peers who are Privy Counsellors should not enter the House; but
536
it then remains up to the administration of the House as to whether the statute should be overridden and they can be brought back in. Is that correct?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: It is perhaps most simply expressed by saying that they will not have the right but it could be accepted by the administration of the House—the Privileges Committee or the Procedure Committee, whichever is appropriate—that a concession might be made if that were the will of the House. But that is not to say that their rights to membership of this House will not have been removed by this Bill. Perhaps I may—
The Earl of Northesk: On a related point, will the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal concede that the Bill does nothing in regard to what she has termed the ancillary rights of the Irish peerage?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thought I had made the matter clear earlier in my remarks. Perhaps the noble Earl was not present at that time. I listed the numbers of all hereditary Peers who were excluded for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who, by virtue of the amendments they have produced, seem to think that various types of exclusion are possible. Perhaps the noble Earl will read the official record tomorrow. If he has a further query, perhaps he will write to me.
The Earl of Northesk: I simply niake the point because the rights of the Irish peerage do not arise out of membership of this House in the terms in which the Government have presented it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I invite the noble Earl to read the official record.
Lord Strabolgi: Perhaps I may intervene. As a member of the Privileges Committee, I sat on the Farnham case when it came before the committee. The Irish peerage had the right, before 1920, to elect a certain number to attend the House. After 1920, those who had been elected were allowed to remain for the rest of their lives. They had all died by a certain date, after which no Irish Peer had any rights here at all.
Lord Henley: As an Irish Peer, perhaps I may intervene to make just one point. One right of Irish Peers survived; namely, the right, as with Privy Counsellors, to sit on the steps of the Throne, and to do no more than that. I point out to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that, when our rights are abolished and we all go, it seems that my noble friend Lord Northesk and myself, as Irish Peers, will continue to be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne, but my other noble friends will be out completely. I offer that as an explanation to assist the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
Lord Strabolgi: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, does not sit in this House as an Irish Peer. He sits here under an English title.
Lord Henley: I am afraid the noble Lord is wrong. I sit here as a United Kingdom Peer. I also happen to have,

537
in the name Henley, an Irish peerage. I sit in this House under my other peerage, as Lord Northington. But if I am no longer entitled to do so, then, as Lord Henley, I shall be entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne, as will other Irish Peers. But time is moving on. To assist the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I make a plea that, having referred to the most obscure and arcane points of peerage law, most noble Lords, myself included, would probably like to move on.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for his help. Perhaps I may continue. I am not sure whether noble Lords sitting on the Benches behind me will be entirely happy with what I am about to say. However, I say it sincerely and with seriousness. The Government accept that for some Members of the House who will lose the role to which they are accustomed and access to the facilities of this House, it will be a serious disruption to their lives. I hope the Committee will accept that we have sincerely and genuinely expressed, on several occasions—I have done so at every relevant opportunity—our gratitude for the work that they have done and the sympathy that we feel at a personal level for those who are facing change. But it is a sympathy that one would feel for all those who were facing an enforced change of occupation or a lifestyle taken away that was of their choosing. But those are not reasons for compromising on the basic proposal that all automatic connection between the hereditary peerage and this House should be severed.
Although we may have sympathy for them, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that we are not concerned that their human rights are being affected. The noble Lord asked me whether the Bill was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Act of this Parliament which brings that convention into force because hereditary Peers did not vote in the last general election and yet they are to lose membership of this House before the end of this Parliament.
This point has been considered by the Government. The matter was raised in the other place by the Opposition. The Government believe that the Bill is compatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the convention concerning free elections. Although hereditary Peers lose their seats in the House of Lords under Clause 1, under Clause 2 their disqualification from voting in the House of Commons is removed. Clause 4(3) makes transitional provisions to enable hereditary Peers to vote from an early date. I believe that hereditary Peers will be in the same position as others who were not entitled to vote at the last general election, for example those under 18. We believe that this meets the obligations under the Act.
Earl Ferrers: Can the noble Baroness say why, in view of her very generous and fulsome remarks about hereditary Peers, she doubts whether she will carry her Back-Benchers with her?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I was, perhaps regrettably, being somewhat frivolous. I simply suggested that the interventions that had occurred in the past few minutes appeared to demonstrate that the concerns of a
538
number of my noble friends about the relevance and worth of a great many hereditary Peers, and their natural sympathy and human concern for them, were perhaps being slightly undermined.
Perhaps I may seek to reassure the noble Earl. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn emphasised in response to an earlier debate on Tuesday—I repeat it for the sake of clarity—that this Bill does not abolish the hereditary peerage as such, although that shorthand has been much used by noble Lords in speaking to amendments. All the titles, precedence and other privileges not connected with membership of this House will remain. All that we are concerned with now is the right to sit in a legislature in a House of Parliament. Hereditary Peers can continue to be known by whichever title they choose, Irish or otherwise, as is already the case with Peers who are Members of this House. We had that debate in relation to my noble friend Lord Longford, who is not in his place, and other noble Lords who raised this matter, one of whom was the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
Another matter of genuine concern is the sovereign's right to create hereditary Peers. That remains precisely the same. However, for the sake of clarity, no future right to membership of this House is conferred by the adoption of an hereditary peerage.
Perhaps noble Lords opposite will find my next point uncomfortable, in the same way that I suggested that some of my noble friends might have found my remarks uncomfortable. I believe that the majority of Members of this House accept that the day of hereditary membership of Parliament is over. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for putting it very clearly and directly in one sentence this afternoon in speaking to Amendment No.25 when he simply said that the day of the hereditary Peer was over.
I refer to my contribution to the original debate on this subject in October. In opening the debate I referred to the conversations that I had had with the hereditary Peers who sat on the Benches on this side of the House. I acknowledged their grace in accepting that their present role was over and that accident of birth gave them no claim to be Members of Parliament at the end of the 20th century. On this occasion I record my gratitude for their continuing support for this Bill and their very important contributions to these debates.
The other objection which has been raised consistently throughout the debate on the clause is that although people may say they accept the principle they continue to insist that our approach is wrong. One variant which has been spoken of a great deal, and moved most eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Tuesday, is that hereditary Peers should be allowed to sit and speak but not to vote. That, it was suggested, would remove one of the Government's most legitimate grievances. It would indeed remove one of the more unacceptable political consequences of the present situation in which the noble Earl's party finds itself in such a majority, but it would not tackle the root of our objection to it. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in replying to the noble Earl, our policy is that it is really a good idea to treat everybody in the country equally.

539
That is why the manifesto—and I do not hesitate to refer to it—committed us to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit as well as to vote.
The other line of dispute has been that the two stage approach is wrong: that the Government either have no intention of proceeding to or will not be able to deliver on the second stage; that until the second stage is before us we should not make any reform. We have heard that argument in many forms during the course of the debates on Clause 1. I should emphasise for clarity and simplicity and, I hope, to conclude this part of the argument, that we take the view that this first stage change is an absolutely essential preliminary to making any progress. We tried it the other way round in 1968. We discussed comprehensive reform in 1948. There was an inter-party conference in 1918. All agreed that the hereditary principle as a basis for membership of Parliament was indefensible. Yet we find ourselves in the middle months of 1999 still having the same debate.
I reaffirm that although we understand the emotional attachment that people have to the hereditary peerage as Members of your Lordships' House it is more than an emotional attachment because it has constituted, and does constitute, an enormous barrier to rational and focused discussion. That is why we have persisted with the intent and the purpose that we shall move through stage one. We shall clear that out of the way. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, there is one simple question: Do you think that hereditary Peers should continue to be members of the legislature in 1999, or do you not? Clause 1 removes the option of having any further debate on anything more complicated.
After that, the choice between the options for the future will have to be made on the basis of the merits of the alternatives that are then available. We genuinely believe—I know that some of the sincerity of the Government has been challenged today—that the chances of getting agreement to long term reform are considerably enhanced by achieving that first purpose; and then, we hope, agreeing a consensus on the way forward.
The Government believe, in the phrase that I used in an earlier debate to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred recently (and I hope that it does not irritate him if I repeat it) that it is time to say to the hereditary Peers, "A sincere thank you, but goodbye". The rationale for their continued presence as hereditary Peers has, frankly, long since worn out. Forty years after the passage of the Life Peerage Act the argument for pragmatism is also exhausted. The Government intend to proceed with the Bill. We intend to proceed with it in the normal conventions of your Lordships' House by listening, and taking note of what people say. There is no intention on the Government Front Bench not to respond appropriately to points made around the House.
This has been an ingenious debate, but nothing in it has begun to convince me that the Government's approach is anything but essential if we are to make any progress with the long term reform of the House of Lords. I commend the clause, the heart of the Bill, to your Lordships.
Lord Rees: I have a question which I directed to a degree to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor
540
on Tuesday but I did not receive a satisfactory answer. If Clause 1 is effective and deprives our hereditary colleagues of a seat in this House, what is the point of Clause 4(2)?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I made the point that that was in order to enable the hereditary Peers, who were prevented from membership by virtue of their hereditary peerage, from assuming their citizens' rights and enfranchising them.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the Lord Privy Seal sits down, I feel that she has not answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantley. Noble Lords keep quoting Pepper v. Hart. I understood that before Pepper v. Hart, the exact wording mattered in British law. In other words, the manifesto could not be put into the Bill because at this moment I am not sitting and voting; I am standing and speaking. Therefore, this situation would literally not have been covered.
I understood that Pepper v. Hart—this is a serious point—allowed one to take into account the debates that took place on both sides in deciding the intention of legislation when we were trying to comply with European legislation. In that case, can we rely on Pepper v. Hart to interpret all debates and ministerial replies in the way in which the Government would like? If we get it wrong, it will be wrong. That is what worries me.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I say to the noble Earl, as I said in my reply, that the Government have taken legal advice on this matter. Some contributions by noble Lords seem to suggest that we sat down in a restaurant and wrote this Bill out over a cup of coffee or something stronger. This Bill was constructed in the usual way, with enormously valuable legal advice. It is regarded as effective by my noble and learned friend and many others whom he consulted and whom the Government consulted. As neither the noble Lord nor I is a lawyer, I am prepared to stand on that legal advice and to defer once again to the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Trefgarne: I suggested, together with my noble friend Lord Northesk, that we have the debate on Clause 1 stand part. It is now time to bring that debate to a close. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her long and detailed reply to many of the points raised. Clearly she has not convinced very many noble Lords.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Trefgarne: If noble Lords opposite are convinced, then I am happy. Perhaps I may make one point. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that hereditary Peers are here by accident of birth. She should know that my mother takes great exception to that remark!
Clause 1 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.