HL Deb 09 December 1999 vol 607 cc1391-408

3.37 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

rose to move, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 9).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain that the usual practice of the House on these occasions is to debate together the Motion standing in my name and any amendment—in this case, the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. That means that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will speak immediately after me and, at the end of the debate, I shall respond and the noble Lord will reply on his amendment. When he has replied, the Question will be put, first, on the amendment and then on the Motion without any further debate. That will avoid the need for two debates and a third speech from me—two will be quite enough, if not more than enough.

The Offices Committee considered carefully and thoroughly the question of privileges for former Members of the House, most recently at its meeting on 30th November. The committee's report records the decisions reached at that meeting, but it is based on work done by the usual channels with the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. I express my thanks and those of the committee for the considerable amount of work and thought put into that. It is based also on the work of the committee's sub-committees. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and his Refreshment Sub-Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, and his Library and Computers Sub-Committee. I express the same thanks to them.

As noble Lords will remember, the subject also received an extensive airing during the passage of the House of Lords Bill. It is fair to say that the usual channels and the committee were united in thinking that the House would wish to approach this matter in a forthcoming way, perhaps if anything, erring—if "erring" is the right word—in a relatively generous way. So the question is: what privileges should be granted, bearing in mind that the working of the House must not be impeded and that any privileges must not make a charge on public funds? I think the committee's recommendations represent a good balance.

The proposals are set out in the report, so I do not intend to outline them. However, I should point out that this is a complete list, as suggested. The House and, indeed, former Members should be clear that anything that is not expressly stated is not included. Former Members will not, for example—this is my only example—be entitled to use the car-parking facilities of the House. In view of that, the House may expect that many hereditary Peers will not wish to make extensive use of the proposed privileges. Finally, I should like to say a few words on the proposal to allow excluded hereditary Peers to sit on the Steps of the Throne. This was debated at length in the Offices Committee. In reaching its decision, the committee was mindful of the fact that other former Members have already been granted this privilege. Bishops who are no longer, or are yet to be Members—Bishops in waiting, as it were—are allowed to sit on the Steps of the Throne as are Peers of Ireland. This represents a total of around 150 people, yet I am not aware that it has ever caused any problems for the House.

As the report makes clear, the committee agreed that the use of the privilege should be watched closely, so that it could be withdrawn if it proved inconvenient to the House. We bear in mind, too, that this privilege would not apply to the heirs of former Members.

This is a practical set of proposals. It is a workable set of proposals. It is a civilised set of proposals. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 9).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

1. Appointment of Sub-Committees and the Advisory Panel on Works of Art

The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—

Finance and Staff Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Administration and Works Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Library and Computers Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Refreshment Sub-Committee

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Advisory Panel on Works of Art

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

2. Privileges for Hereditary Peers Excluded from the House under the House of Lords Act

The Committee have considered the question of facilities for hereditary peers excluded from the House under the House of Lords Act, and recommend that the following privileges should be granted: (a) Access to one of the galleries in the chamber. (b) On an experimental basis, the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne. This right should be reviewed if it causes inconvenience to the House, and in any event should be reviewed before the end of the current Session. (c) Access to the Library, except when the House is sitting, in order to consult Parliamentary papers. deposited papers, reference material, journals and periodicals held by the Library. This right would not extend to borrowing books, consulting material which would have to be brought from an outside library, using the PDVN or commissioning research by library staff. (d) The right to host any pre-booked function up to the end of the current booking period (31st December 2000). (e) A right to book a table for four people not more than once a month in the Peers' Guest Dining Room, to be reviewed shortly after the Summer recess 2000. (f) Access to the Peers' Guest Room, in conjunction with a Guest Dining Room reservation only. (g) The issue of a distinctive photographic pass. (h) The right to use Peers' entrance. (i) The Committee also recommend that excluded hereditary peers who were appointed by this House to be members of international assemblies should be permitted to make full use of the Library until the appointment of a successor (a maximum period of six months).

Lord Williams of Elvel

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "except for paragraph 2(b)".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I shall keep my remarks as brief as I possibly can, but I should like to focus, if I may, on the question of the right of former Members of this House to sit on the Steps of the Throne—as set out in paragraph 2(b) of the Offices Committee report. My noble friend—if I can describe him as such—the Chairman of Committees has said that this is a "practical" matter. I will argue, as briefly as I can, that it is, first, inappropriate; secondly, impractical; and, thirdly, rather patronising. I begin with inappropriate. After the difficulties of the last Session of Parliament, which we all recognise created a rather bad atmosphere, I believe that it is time to draw the line below that and say that we should move on. After all, there are many legislatures where members come and go. If Parliament has decided—as it has in both Houses—that former Members of this House should no longer be Members of this House, that is something which should be respected. Further, I do not believe that one should try to amend that, as it were, through the backdoor. I rather regard this particular proposal as an amendment through the backdoor.

I believe that this measure will be impracticable. Perhaps I may guide your Lordships to the Steps of the Throne. The seating room there is not exactly extensive. As I understand it, there are some 600 former Members, perhaps more, who, if this proposal is carried by your Lordships, would be entitled to sit on the Steps of the Throne. No one believes that 600 or more people will come in, but perhaps I may give your Lordships a scenario.

Let us suppose that a Bill comes before your Lordships which is designed to ban hunting with hounds. Would any noble Lord expect former Members of this House who have an interest in the subject not to come and sit on the Steps of the Throne? Indeed, even if 30—that is, 5 per cent—of those who would have this entitlement came, the seating room would really prove to be very difficult. Further, those who are already entitled to sit there, such as Irish Peers, a sprinkling of Bishops, Privy Counsellors from another place and Members of this House, would probably be crowded out. I find this whole business to be impractical. I give way.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I am much obliged. It is very interesting to watch the rather amusing style of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but, in his excitement to amend paragraph 2(b), did he not take note of paragraph 2(a)? I believe that that deals with his problem rather effectively.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I certainly read that in great detail, but I do not believe that it deals with the problem at all. All that paragraph 2(b) says in that respect is, if it causes inconvenience to the House"— and I will come to that in a moment, if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will allow me to do so.

I turn now to my third point, and I intend to be very brief. I regard this proposal as being rather patronising. After all, in my not very long experience in this House—almost 15 years—I have made many friends. Indeed, I am very sad to see that many of my colleagues and friends on the Opposition Benches and, indeed, many colleagues on my own Benches are not here now as participating Members of the House. Nevertheless, to say to them, "You are second-class citizens. You have a special pass that says you are second-class. You're allowed to come in and sit on the Steps of the Throne, as long as you don't make a nuisance of yourselves and cause"—in the words of the committee's report—"inconvenience to the House. If you do make a nuisance of yourselves, like jumping on to the Woolsack, or whatever, we will remove that right".

I find this very patronising and, to a certain extent, somewhat offensive. So my argument against this particular proposal is that it is inappropriate that we should draw a line under what happened in the last Session. We must start to get on and move into the transitional House and make it effective. It is impractical because, at some point in time—I do not know when it will be—the already overcrowded Steps of the Throne will be even more crowded by the return of former Members of the House. I believe that it is rather patronising to former colleagues and, if I may say so on a personal note, friends. Therefore, I shall be inviting your Lordships to support me in my amendment when the Question is put on the Motion.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "except for paragraph 2(b)".—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend but my approach will, I think, be slightly different, although the end product will be very much the same. A good deal of what I have to say centres around the drafting of the report. If noble Lords would care to look at paragraph 2(a), they will see that it refers to, one of the galleries in the chamber, but I am never terribly sure what constitutes the Chamber; for example, when the Lord Chancellor sits on the Woolsack, is he within the Chamber? He is certainly not within the House. So I do not know what that description means. The paragraph does not say that there should be a designated Gallery. In fact, one could be placed in the Public Gallery by one of the Attendants. Alternatively, if you are friendly with Black Rod, you may be placed in his rather important enclave.

We should be precise in this matter. If we are to give courtesies to the hereditary Peers who have been excluded, they should have the right to sit in a particular place as opposed to having to obtain permission with regard to the Gallery in which they are to sit. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the House asks the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to undertake consultations with the House Offices to decide the most appropriate Gallery to be set aside as of right for the excluded hereditary Peers. That would give them a clearly recognised place in the Chamber.

I do not like the wording of the paragraph that we are discussing. If one gives a right, one should not say that it is provisional. Any right or privilege in this House is already subject to review. We can change anything we wish if circumstances so require. If we are to grant a privilege with regard to where Members may sit, I believe that it should be granted as a right, subject, of course, to a review, should circumstances so require. In this instance, I suggest that if a privilege were to be granted, we should leave any review to the end of the Session. Perhaps then the various subcommittees which have had oversight of those areas in which privileges have been granted could then be asked to report. The report would then be made available to Members of the House and any proposals for change could be made in the new Session.

As regards my objection to sitting on the Steps of the Throne, there are Irish Peers and Privy Counsellors from another place—and my son when he used to come here—who have never participated in the hurly-burly of political life in this House. However, many noble Lords who may claim the privileges that we are discussing have done so. They may look back on that experience with a degree of nostalgia. However, in my opinion, to allow them to sit on the Steps of the Throne within the Chamber—because I suspect that that would be within the Chamber—would bring them into too close a proximity to debates. We should allocate a suitable Gallery for the excluded hereditary Peers. I suggest that is a just acknowledgement of their status but would not cause difficulties with regard to debates of a particular nature that may take place.

I wonder about some of the drafting of the report which I consider to be imprecise. I recommend the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to reconsider it, not necessarily to change the substance of what is in the report—unless my noble friend were to divide the House on his amendment—but to ensure that the drafting is precise. At the moment it is imprecise and that could lead to difficulties later. For example, paragraph 2(e) of the report states that a noble Lord could, book a table for four people not more than once a month in the Peers' Guest Dining Room". However, the provision does not state that he has to attend the meal. He could book the table for a chairman and a managing director. I may be giving an exaggerated example but that is what the provision states, although I am sure that was not what was intended. If a privilege is to be granted in this respect, the wording should be precise. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees is willing to reconsider some of the drafting of the measure, but if my noble friend were to divide on the major issue I would certainly support him.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, during the passage of the Bill concern was expressed as regards what should happen to those hereditary Peers who would no longer attend the House I thank the Offices Committee and all those who contributed to the suggestions which I consider are kind, generous and respectable.

However, I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that the measure should be rewritten to state that if a noble Lord books a table he should partake of the meal. But if he does not like the food or feels sick, is Black Rod to turn him out? One can try to put too fine a point on these matters. Everyone knows what the measure intends.

I was sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was a little ungenerous today. He has made many plausible arguments for bad cases, but today thought that he made rather a bad argument for a bad case.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I thought that I was being rather generous. I accept that former Members of the House have made substantial contributions to this House. I was not trying to offend against that principle; I was trying to be generous.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord and I have different ideas of generosity if he says that they should not sit on the Steps of the Throne.

In previous debates we were told that it was bad to be a hereditary Peer and that one should not sit in this House by virtue of heredity. One understands that argument. However, it is curious that the children of life Peers have the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has a child. He probably has lots of them. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, have children. All those who are violently against heredity nevertheless have the right for their hereditary sons, who are not Members of this place, to sit on the Steps of the Throne. Therefore, what is wrong with the suggestion of the Offices Committee that ex-Members of this House may sit on the Steps of the Throne? I believe that that is perfectly reasonable. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, says that if a Bill on fox-hunting is introduced in this House, the Chamber will be too crowded, I suggest that that is a good argument not to introduce a Bill on fox-hunting.

As I said, I believe that the present proposals are reasonable. However, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees stated categorically that nothing which is not in the report should be included as a privilege. However, what would happen if noble Lords who wish to listen to a debate want to have a cup of tea? I suppose that they are probably not allowed to have a cup of tea. What would happen if they wish, in the vernacular, to go to the toilet, or, as your Lordships would say, go to the lavatory? Are they not allowed to do that because that is not mentioned in the provision? I presume that one takes that as read.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, with regard to sitting on the Steps of the Throne, we should not lose sight of how that tradition came into being. It was introduced to enable eldest sons to come to the House and learn about the tradition and the procedure of the House before they took up their seats. The noble Lord has said that they will no longer take up their seats. However, he has forgotten the by-election process and those 90 Peers who can be replaced. Therefore, it is right that those who show an interest in the place should come to the House to learn about its procedures. That was the reason eldest sons had the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne.

I realise that this courtesy has been extended to life Peers whose eldest sons will not necessarily sit in this House, although we understand that certain peerages have followed, as it were, a life peerage hereditary line. But leaving those aside, I see more logic as regards disbarring the eldest children of life Peers than as regards disbarring those possible future Members of this Chamber who happen to be excluded for the moment and for the interim.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I support the suggestions of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the tone in which he made them. I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I do not believe that the suggestions are patronising, condescending or any such thing.

I remind your Lordships that there was a time when Members of the European Parliament were refused admission to the House of Commons on the grounds that they would swamp it. The House of Lords kindly allowed Members of the European Parliament admission rights and the use of certain facilities of the House. There was certainly no swamping in that case.

I believe that there would be no swamping in the future. The suggestions of the committee should be fully supported by the whole House.

Lord McNally

My Lords, I am well aware that the two Front Bench members of the committee have gone along with these arrangements but, with characteristic generosity, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats said that if anyone felt impassioned about these decisions they should speak. I feel rather impassioned. I have listened to the speeches so far and it would seem that the best thing the committee can do is to remove the right of the eldest sons of life Peers to sit on the Steps of the Throne, because that is a clear anomaly.

The clearest statement I heard during the debates on the reform of the House was contained in the final speech of the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who said, "Thank you and goodbye." I think that we are now slipping back from a commitment, not to reform a club, but to reform the second Chamber of Parliament. In these recommendations the committee is sending all the wrong signals to the outside watching world about how serious we are as regards truly reforming the second Chamber.

When the Conservative government abolished the GLC, there must have been members of that council who had given their lives to the governance of London and who felt deprived of the facilities of County Hall. But they went because that was the decision of the elected government. It would be far better for the hereditaries who have departed and, more importantly, far better for our commitment to a modernised, 21st-century second Chamber if we did not go down this slippery slope. I shall have few opportunities to vote today, but I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I will be voting with him.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe

My Lords, I am one of those who feel that we should not simply express our gratitude to the departed Peers for the services they have given to the country but that we should do whatever we can in tangible terms to help them deal with the difficult transitional period through which they are going. I share the view that we should deal with them as best we can in a civilised fashion. Therefore, generally, I welcome the package before us.

However, I do not believe that the Offices Committee has got the balance quite right, particularly with the inclusion of paragraph 2(b). The qualifications that the committee has written into paragraph 2(b) are a fair indication that it is worried about the possible effect and consequences if paragraph 2(b) is put into practice. I think the committee has cause for some concern. A fair number of Peers are unhappy about the rest of the package. Being reasonable people, I suspect that they will live with it. However, I venture to suggest that they will not live with paragraph 2(b). If that is adopted, it will be a cause of continuing concern. I shall explain why.

There would be something of a case for former Peers to come in and sit on the Steps if we were not making any provisions whatever for them. I am speaking here to the Cross Benches. However, within the recommendations there is a provision that they will be permitted to go to a special place within the Gallery. I think that that is appropriate. That is also the place, I believe, for the eldest sons of life Peers. It is time that we moved to address that matter.

We should take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. We now have a new House. It is changing; it is moving broadly in accord with the wishes expressed by the people of this country who, in May 1997, opted for a quite significant change of direction. I do not wish to repeat many of the arguments we have had previously about the manifesto but, in so far as they affect this House, they were part of that change. If we are seeking to bring through the doors into the Chamber people who are neither life Peers nor exempted under the Act we have just passed, we are, in a sense, seeking to fly in the face of the will of that statute. We are trying to go backwards, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. For those of us who want to make a success of this House, that is not the right thing to do.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not realise that the House has been through a pretty rough time which has created a rather sad atmosphere? Does he really think, when we are trying to construct the new House—and have faith that we may be able to do so—that this kind of contribution is of any constructive value?

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe

My Lords, I believe I am being constructive in my contribution. I have been here since we embarked upon the legislation and I have felt for those people who have been affected by it. I am seeking to ensure that we do our best by them, but, more particularly, that we do our best for the country also. I share the view that we are not necessarily representing the best interests of the people who have been asked to go. I have spent a lifetime dealing with people who have been made redundant. There is a balance to be struck in how we handle this matter. I hope that people will reflect on that. I look particularly to the Liberal Democrats to reflect on their position here. It is about moving to change the House. It is also about looking after, as far as we can, the best interests of those who have left. The balance at the moment is incorrect. I support the amendment to remove paragraph 2(b).

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I welcome what the Chairman of Committees said. I acknowledge also the thought and the work put into the report. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke about clarity and the importance of having a designated Gallery so that one knows where one is going. Irrespective of whether the right of access to the Steps of the Throne is to be excluded now or at a later date, can some thought be given to guidance not only for excluded hereditaries who are wheelchair users—in a sense they are easier to see—but for those who are just too frail to get to the Gallery?

Lord Elton

My Lords, anyone would think that we were dealing with some sacred matter such as access to the steps to the sanctuary of a cathedral. We are talking about whether a number of people who used to work here should be allowed to sit in the Gallery and perhaps on the Steps of the Throne as well. That is the extent of the matter. It is not a great act of symbolism. In so far as it is, it does not show the grandeur of the history of the House; it shows our good manners towards those who used to work here.

Another matter on which your Lordships should perhaps reflect is that not all of those who have been dismissed from this House are particularly well off. Many of them live more than £100-worth of railway miles away from the House. They will not be paid to cover that ground because they will not be performing any public service by coming here. That will diminish the numbers coming to the House. I recognise too the acute sense of nostalgia and frustration they would feel were they to be sitting mute on those Steps on the edge of a debate they passionately wished to join. I do not think they would leap over the railings, as the noble Lord suggested. They might mutter. If so, they would be courteously removed by the attendant. We are straining after a gnat. This is a good report and it should be adopted.

Lord Randall of St Budeaux

My Lords, I support the noble Lord. Lord Elton. The first point is that I believe the committee has been very generous in putting the case. The second point is that I believe the comments of the Lord Privy Seal during Third Reading, recognising the contribution that the Peers had made, were right. Thirdly, as regards being patronising, that is a matter for the Peers who wish to attend to decide for themselves. Let us leave that matter to them. Fourthly, we do not want any elitist stances here. Everyone should be treated equally. That is what the word "peer" means. Finally, I shall be voting for the committee today.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I believe I am in order in changing the subject slightly and putting a practical question to the Chairman of Committees about paragraph 2(c) since there will be no other opportunity to do so. I know that I am not alone in being delighted that our excluded friends will be able to continue using the Library for research purposes. After all, many of them have served this House for several decades. I have one practical concern. If the phrase, except when the House is sitting is taken literally, it will mean that our friends will be spilling out of the Library at 2.29 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays and at 2.59 p.m. on Thursdays, getting tangled up in the Lord Chancellor's procession, and possibly accidentally impeding noble Lords in the Library who are putting the finishing touches to their speeches and so forth. From a practical point of view, would it not be wiser to request them to vacate the Library half an hour before the House sits?

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I was very disturbed to hear on at least two occasions in this short debate that there should be differences between the treatment of the elder sons of life Peers and hereditary Peers. All Peers in this House are equal and should remain so. I would be extremely sorry if the right of elder sons of life Peers to sit on the Steps of the Throne was curtailed or done away with and it existed only for the elder sons of hereditary Peers. In my view, that would be quite wrong and utterly disgraceful.

I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is very odd that the few Peers who are no longer in this House and who have served it well should not be allowed to sit on the Steps of the Throne whereas Irish Peers, who have not even had the right, in recent generations, to sit in this House, would still have the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne.

The Lord Bishop of Derby

My Lords, concern has been expressed about continued use of the Crypt Chapel by the excluded hereditary Peers. If I am not out of order, will the Chairman of Committees be able to clarify the position?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I say at the outset that I wholly support the committee's report. I was a member of the committee and I endorse entirely the words of the Chairman of Committees.

As the House knows, we had an enormous amount of discussion on this matter during the passage of the Bill. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House quite rightly said at that time that it would be better for the issue to be dealt with by a committee of the new House, and that has been done. In that context, I thank and congratulate members of the Government Front Bench who were members of the committee for their very constructive and positive approach to this matter. That is one of the reasons why we have this report before us.

Many suggestions were made to the committee. Many wanted a far more generous package than is proposed and others wanted some restrictions. We have a very useful compromise. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the measure should be taken in a spirit of compromise.

As regards the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, put three points. First, he said that the provision was inappropriate because too many people might wish to arrive at the same time. One of the effects of the House of Lords Act 1999 is that it has removed entirely the right of over 600 heirs to sit on the Steps of the Throne. When they had that right very few of them used it. I believe that the noble Lord would find, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, that very few Peers would take up the new right. If too many of them did so they would go to the Gallery that would be pointed out to them by the attendants.

The noble Lord said that this provision was impractical, and I have dealt with that point. He said that it was also patronising. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord felt patronised or that the Peers would feel patronised. If Peers feel patronised by the decision of this House to allow them to sit on the Steps of the Throne then they do not need to take up that particular privilege.

I believe that paragraph 2(b) was extremely well drafted. It says that the measure is on an experimental basis only and that if any inconvenience is caused to the House the provision would be reviewed immediately. It also states that in any event the matter will be reviewed before the end of the current Session. The provision is not so much an act of generosity but one of courtesy.

Given the safeguards that are in place, I give my wholehearted support to the committee's report. I hope that the House will reject the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, my noble and rebellious friend Lord McNally very fairly pointed out that he was expressing his own opinion. I believe he made it clear to the House that it was not the view adopted by representatives from these Benches who served on the committee. Perhaps I should simply restate that view and say that those of us who supported the proposal then support it now.

Those of us who look back on the long debates on the Bill in Committee remember that there were those who believed that the departing Peers should have unlimited club rights and others who thought that they should have no access whatsoever. I believe that we have reached a fair and reasonable compromise, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said.

There is another matter. There are seven recommendations of substance. Recommendations (g) and (h) simply facilitate the others. Four of the recommendations are very clearly time-limited. As regards the remaining three, including the matter which has raised controversy today and the right to sit on the Throne, the position will be reviewed at the end of the current Session.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to forgive me. I do not believe that anyone aspires to that and I certainly do not myself. In those circumstances we can look at these matters again.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Evil—

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, I call that a dyslectic mistake! There is an argument for saying that the sons of Peers should not sit on the Steps of the Throne. That is a reasonable argument. Were that the proposition before the House today I would find myself very tempted to support it. But that is not so. The proposition is a simple one that on an experimental basis there should be the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne. It is a reasonably fair proposition and I hope that Members on all sides of the House will be able to support the Motion moved by the Chairman of Committees.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, for the sake of brevity I hope that your Lordships agree that it is not necessary for me to reply to every contribution in this debate. Indeed, some of them do not call for a reply and speak for themselves.

Perhaps I may first thank noble Lords who have supported the committee's proposals, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and others in the House. Perhaps I may reply as briefly as possible to some of the specific points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for informing me beforehand that he was going to raise the question of a designated Gallery. That was considered by the committee. It was clarified when this proposal was decided on. It was indicated through the usual channels and the Convenor that the nature of the proposal was not for a designated Gallery. It was felt that it was better to put the matter in the way in which it appears in the report. However, I believe that I can offer a suggestion to noble Lords in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. If we find that there is any difficulty in administering the proposals—Black Rod has assured me that he should not have any difficulty in applying them—we can always look at the matter again and consider whether a designated Gallery would be a more appropriate course. If we were to leave the matter open in that way, we could, of course, feel free to return to it.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Is the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees saying that, if there is to be a designated Gallery, my noble friend's suggestion that we could remove the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne is acceptable?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not going so far as that. I am going only so far as the indication I have just given; namely, that if there was any difficulty about an unspecified Gallery, we could always give further consideration to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, what I was trying to establish was a Gallery to which Members who have been removed from this House could go as a matter of right. They would not have to apply to Black Rod or to one of the attendants and say, "Where do I sit?" My suggestion to the House was that those Members should have a designated Gallery similar to the one we have, as Members of this House, in the Commons. I believe that that is what those Members are entitled to, and to come here on pain of behaviour is unacceptable.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, expressed himself perfectly plainly on the previous occasion. I think that noble Lords fully understood his proposal. I do not believe that I can take the matter any further this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also questioned the use of the term `experimental basis." As was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, those words were included as a means of reassuring the House. It also goes to the point that I made at the start of our debate— other noble Lords have referred to this—that if there is any difficulty, immediate steps will be taken by the Offices Committee to look at the matter. I shall invite the committee to address it immediately. Indeed, to move a little further than that, I would not hesitate to suggest to the Offices Committee that, if there were any real inconvenience to noble Lords, the privilege should be suspended pending immediate review. That course would always be open to us to recommend. I hope that that provides some reassurance.

I turn now to the point made about dinners in the absence of the sponsoring departed Peer. That simply would not be allowed. As your Lordships know, our staff always act with great discretion and appropriate steps would be taken to ensure that anyone without an accompanied, authorised host or hostess, would not, in those circumstances, be admitted. Our staff act with discretion and I believe that we can rely on their common sense.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his remarks in support of the recommendations of the committee. Common sense and discretion also apply to any difficulty that might arise with visiting departed Peers and as far as concerns the use of our lavatories, I am sure that that matter would not inconvenience your Lordships too much.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the question of looking backwards. I fully understand the noble Lord's point and I believe that there were one or two murmurings of support around the Chamber when he spoke. However, I do not think that he should be disconcerted on that matter. In the discussions and debates that took place in your Lordships' House, it was perfectly well forecast and clearly understood that this House would return to these matters in the new Session of Parliament. I would suggest therefore that it is not a matter of looking backwards, but rather of dealing with something which was foreseen. Indeed, we were looking forward in the previous Session of Parliament to the possibility of considering these matters.

The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, raised a practical point about possible difficulties for some of the more frail visitors gaining access to the Gallery. I shall look into that, but I am sure that a way will be found to deal satisfactorily with that point, again in accordance with the exercise of discretion. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will not overlook the point.

Again, the same considerations, although on a different matter, apply in relation to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the timings. It will be made clear to departed Peers that what we are thinking of on days when the House is sitting is making use of facilities in the Library in the mornings. I am sure that discretion will be exercised to ensure that there are no collisions of the unfortunate kind envisaged by the noble Lord as possibilities.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised the question of the Crypt Chapel. I am grateful to him for forewarning me that he proposed to raise that point. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that this is not a matter that arises from the report before us. Furthermore, it is not a matter within the responsibilities of your Lordships' House, but rather concerns in part another place. There are also other considerations. It is one of those places in which a Royal peculiar applies—if that is the right term. I shall let the right reverend Prelate know in greater detail, as necessary. about any further considerations on the matter, I hope that that will provide him with some reassurance.

I believe that I have probably dealt with the specific points but I wish to say a few words on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. A good deal of consideration has been given this afternoon to this matter. First, I would remind noble Lords of the two categories of Peer who are granted this privilege, and have been for very many years: retired Bishops and Bishops who in due course will become Members of this House; and also Irish Peers, as has been mentioned by more than one noble Lord. I do not think that it is right— was in the mind of the Offices Committee and the usual channels—to create more anomalies than are necessary. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, were to be agreed to, it would create a further anomaly.

The other side of the question which the Offices Committee considered was whether, if the committee did not recommend that departed Peers should have the right to sit on the Steps of the Throne, we should also abandon the anomaly of the right of the Irish Peers and retired Bishops to do so. It considered whether, in the circumstances, that would be a very harsh course to take. It was not a matter that was overlooked. It was carefully considered and the Offices Committee, with the assistance of others whom I have mentioned to noble Lords, came forward with this proposal.

As has been indicated, we can always return to any of these matters at any time if difficulties are found. My recommendation on behalf of the Offices Committee to your Lordships is simply this: we have before us a complete set of proposals. Why not see how it works out? My feeling is that it will not cause us bother. If it does, we shall deal with it.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords—

A noble Lord

Withdraw!

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am not going to withdraw. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees says that he is against anomalies. I should have thought that paragraph 2(b) introduces another anomaly. I am not arguing about the rights of sons or grandsons of Peers, or of Irish Peers or retiring Bishops. I am arguing about the single anomaly that Members of this House who have been excluded by virtue of the House of Lords Act, which was passed by Parliament, should be given this privilege.

The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said that the proposal is experimental. That, of course, is what William Pitt said about income tax. Imagine how, having granted this privilege and there is then inconvenience to the House, the Offices Committee meets and says, "We are now taking it away. You must surrender your passes—your second-class citizen passes—and you cannot come and sit on the already crowded Steps of the Throne". That is it; summary dismissal.

We are dealing with one of the great Houses of Parliament. This is not just a frivolous discussion about club rights. I believe that my noble friend Lord Shepherd made a serious point—that those who can sit on the Steps of the Throne, whoever they are, will mingle with Members of this House. I have heard all the arguments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his support. It was unexpected but nevertheless welcome. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

4.31 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Annan, L. Howells of St Davids, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Hoyle, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Bach, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Hylton, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Burlison. L.
Carter, L. Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Laming, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Levy, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Lipsey, L.
Dholakia. L. Lockwood, B.
Donoughue, L. McIntosh of Haringey. L.
Dormand of Easington, L. McIntosh of Hudnall,B.
Dubs. L. McNally, L.
Evans of Watford, L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Methuen, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Morris of Manchester, L.
Filkin, L. Nicol, B.
Gavron, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Puttnam, L.
Goldsmith, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Goudie, B. Rendell of Babergh,B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Richard, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Roll of Ipsden, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Sawyer, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Harrison, L. Serota, B.
Haskel, L. Shepherd, L.[Teller]
Hayman, B. Shore of Stepney, L.
Simon, V. Varley, L.
Stallard, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L. Warner. L.
Strabolgi, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L
Thornton, B. Whaddon, L.
Turner of Camden, B. Williams of Elvel, L.[Teller]
Uddin,B. Williams of Mostyn, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Lucas, L.
Ackner, L. Luke, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Avebury, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Molloy, L.
Biffen, L. Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Blaker, L. Monson, L.
Blatch, B. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Blood, B. Montrose, D.
Bowness, L. Moynihan, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Bradshaw, L. Naseby, L.
Brightman, L. Northbrook, L.
Buscombe, B. Northesk, E.
Butterfield, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Butterworth, L. O'Neill of Bengarve.B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Onslow, E.
Chalfont, L. Oxfuird, V.
Chichester, Bp. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Randall of St Budeaux, L.
Colville of Culross, V Rawlings, B.
Colwyn, L. Reay, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Renton, L.
Courtown, E. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Rogan, L.
Crathorne, L. Rosslyn, E.
Crickhowell, L. Russell, E.
Cuckney, L. Ryder of Wensum, L.
Darcy de Knayth,B. St John of Fawsley, L.
Derby, Bp. Sandberg, L.
Elliott of Morpeth.L. Seccombe, B.
Elton, L. Selborne, E.
Erroll, E.[Teller] Sharman, L.
Falkland, V. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Feldman, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Ferrers, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Flather, B. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Strange, B.
Geddes, L. Strathclyde, L.
Geraint, L. Swinfen, L.
Glentoran, L. Taverne, L.
Goodhart, L. Tenby, V.
Hanham, B Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Henley, L.[Teller] Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Higgins, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Hooper, B. Tope, L.
Howe. E. Tordoff, L.
Hunt of WirraL,L. Trefgarne, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Walton of Detchant, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Weatherill, L.
Kimball, L. Wigoder, L.
Kingsland, L. Wilberforce, L.
Kirkham, L. Wilcox, B.
Laird, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Listowel, E. Windlesham, L.
Liverpool, E. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to