Lords Sitting of 15 June 1999

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

Middle East Peace Process
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they are proposing to carry out concerning the Middle East peace process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we believe that there should be a recommitment to negotiations from all parties in the process. Once a new Israeli government have been formed, we would expect the Wye River Memorandum to be implemented and for there to be a resumption of negotiations on all tracks. We are actively discussing how we and the EU can contribute to this resumption with partners in Europe, the US and in the region.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's response as well as the happy election of Ehud Barak of Israel, may I ask: will she extend the consultations regarding peace and goodwill in the Middle East to Iran? Will the Government protest most vigorously at the recent arrest of 13 Jewish people in Iran, including the Chief Rabbi of Shiraz? Do the Government recognise that these people are in grave danger of execution and that urgent representations by our newly appointed ambassador and the Foreign Secretary would be most appropriate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, initially news of these arrests was a little hazy and it was difficult to establish the truth. There are a number of different and conflicting rumours. We have been in regular contact with the Agvdas Israel Organisation both in the United Kingdom and the United States through our mission in New York. More reliable accounts indicate that 13 people have been detained. Last week it became apparent from media reports in Iran that those people were being accused of espionage. Before the news broke the Gennan EU presidency was, on 20th May, on a visit to Iran and expressed the concern of EU member states about these detentions. This is due to be followed up with an EU démarche in Tehran. We have told the Iranians of our concern through their ambassador in London and have pressed for the detainees to be treated fairly, as have our European partners. We shall continue to monitor the situation, as the noble Lord suggests, and take further action as necessary.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the continued construction of settlements and roads in the West Bank is bound to undermine the final status of
126
the negotiations that are due to start very shortly? Will Her Majesty's Government make their views absolutely clear to the present Israeli caretaker Government and any future government that may be formed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we continue to regard the settlements as illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. The Berlin declaration in March of this year urges all parties to refrain from unilateral acts, including settlement activity. The Prime Minister included a recommendation for a freeze on settlement activity in his message of congratulations to Mr Barak on his election.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it will still be possible to adhere to the 12-month period for completion of the negotiations set in the Berlin European Council declaration in March of this year? Since it is not possible to resume these negotiations until Mr Barak has formed his government, in the meanwhile can progress be made on the other issues in the Wye River Memorandum, such as the Gaza industrial estate and airport?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we must wait for Mr Barak to form his government which he must declare to the Knesset by 9th July. I believe it is sensible, given the enormous delicacy of a number of these issues—we have just spoken about the settlements—and the other pressures on the Palestinian side, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, to ensure that the government are firmly in place, that Mr Barak announce his Ministers to the Knesset and then take forward the process from there.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the plight of the 13 Jews detained in Iran. Does the noble Baroness agree that the situation is such that representation at the highest possible level, certainly at Foreign Secretary level, is now most urgent? Is there any likelihood that that will be forthcoming?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made representations through the Iranian ambassador in London. If the situation is not satisfactorily resolved the whole House can rest assured that representations will be made at an appropriate level. I hope that what I have said indicates that we have acted both bilaterally through the ambassador here in London and through our European partners with the démarche. This matter is being taken very seriously. In response to my noble friend Lord Janner I said that the Government were monitoring the situation and would take further action as necessary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the more private the consultations and contents, the more likely they are to succeed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord says. It is often easy to forget that negotiations through a

127
loudhailer are not the most effective form of negotiation. Often what is said forcefully in private has a great deal more effect.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what steps have the Government taken since Mr Barak's election to make it clear that they oppose any unilateral action or any attempts to impose conditionality by either party which would pre-judge or pre-determine the outcome of the agreed negotiating process and which would undermine the ability to negotiate permanent status issues?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is vital that there is not a pre-empting of the process. Part of what we have done I addressed in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton: that when the Prime Minister wrote to Mr Barak following the election he urged upon him a freeze on all settlement activity. On the other side of the coin, if I may put it that way, we have made no secret of our view that a unilateral declaration of statehood from the Palestinians would be unhelpful. We welcome the Palestinian Central Council communiqué about this as a sign of Palestine's continuing commitment to negotiations. We have sought to engage on both sides; and we have been closely concerned to ensure that we engage with all the interested countries.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I take the point about the importance of confidentiality on the content of negotiations. However, can the Minister tell us anything about the status of the mission undertaken recently by her colleague, my noble friend Lord Levy, to Israel as an emissary apparently of the Prime Minister? Is it intended in the near future to send any of our Moslem colleagues to visit the Palestinians?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend will know that my noble friend Lord Levy visited Syria from 9th to 10th April and Jordan and Syria from 5th to 10th June. He went as a personal representative of the Prime Minister. The visits were aimed at strengthening our bilateral relations with those two countries. As I am sure my noble friend knows, my noble friend Lord Levy has good contacts in the region. Those contacts can be beneficial to the United Kingdom in the context of our relations in the region. His first visit to Syria took place when the late Derek Fatchett was Minister. My honourable friend Mr Hoon is in the process of exploring possible dates for his first visit to the region as a Minister.

Welsh Assembly and UK Government: Concordats
2.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What concordats have been agreed between the Welsh Assembly and government departments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, none as yet. While concordats are at an advanced stage of drafting, it will be for the Assembly to agree them with the appropriate government department. I expect this process to occur in the relatively near future.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he have confidence that sufficient progress will be made with these concordats, which cover a considerable number of fields, to ensure that there will be smooth continuation of effective government in Wales with the transfer of powers to the Assembly on 1st July?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am confident that arrangements will be effectively in hand for the smooth continuation of government. I agree with what the noble Lord said. That is extremely important. We have to bear in mind that the Assembly had its first sitting only on 12th May. The noble Lord and I both know that Her Majesty opened the Assembly on 26th May. It is early days.
There is the additional complication, welcome to both the noble Lord and myself I hope, that before the Assembly can approve them the concordats have to be translated so that they are available in bilingual form.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can I have the assurance of the Government that a register of concordats will be maintained in the Library?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am willing to give my noble friend's suggestion the most careful consideration. It is intended that the concordats will be published except perhaps in terms of commercial confidentiality which can be justified. I shall relay my noble friend's suggestion to the appropriate quarter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the concept of a concordat been accepted by an important department; namely the Treasury? Will the Treasury recognise such agreements being made by other departments? That applies also to the situation in Scotland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we anticipate a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the three devolved bodies together setting out general post-evolutionary principles of operation. I have no doubt that our colleagues and well loved friends in the Treasury will play their necessary part in that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington suggested placing the concordats in the Library. Might it be better to produce them as White Papers and to make them available through the Stationery Office to the public, and to Members of both Houses through the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that is necessary. These are agreements between the

129
devolved bodies and central government. If, as a generality, they are to be published they are available for public scrutiny and comment.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it considered that concordats in Welsh placed in the Library will remain confidential?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they will not be confidential because my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I will have read them.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the concordats to be made between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly be debated in this House of Parliament?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, that is not the intention. The relevant territorial Secretary of State will be authorised on behalf of the UK Parliament to enter into those agreements. It is then a matter for the devolved bodies as to what they want to debate, in what detail and in what form. It is entirely a matter for the Assembly, but I would expect that some of the concordats or memoranda of understanding will be debated.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister has been most helpful, but can he tell the House a little more about what has been referred to in the other place as the overarching concordat dealing with the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and the UK representative in Brussels? What is the further scope of that concordat, and does it involve Scotland too?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to assist your Lordships in answering that question. The overarching concordats—they are plural—relate to questions of Europe, international relations, statistics and inward investment between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved bodies. That is part of the continuing process of debate and negotiation taking place at the moment.

Spaceguard Programme
2.50 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to form a national spaceguard centre, as part of a European spaceguard programme, to improve the assessment and probability factor of impact hazard of a near earth object on the continent of Europe or in the seas surrounding it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government take the potential threat of impact by near earth objects very seriously, but we regard it as an issue where a common international approach is essential. The UK therefore supported a recent workshop on monitoring programmes for asteroids and comets in Turin earlier this month, which was sponsored by the European Space Agency
130
and the Spaceguard Foundation among others. The European Space Agency is also mounting a study to produce a system for the co-ordination or the worldwide capability in near earth object research
At the present moment, the Government have no plans to set up a national spaceguard agency, but we will consider the possibility when we receive the report of the Turin meeting. Any additional work undertaken in the UK must have benefit over and above that being taken internationally.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Science for that Answer, which I shall study with interest. Is he aware of the most recent astronomical data which forecast that a potentially hazardous asteroid designated 1999 AN 10, weighing approximately 2 million tonnes and a kilometre in size, will miss the earth by only 24,000 miles on 7th August 2027 and will possibly impact on its return in 2044?
Is he also aware that, unlike a NATO missile, which travels at approximately 500 miles an hour on a pre-programmed trajectory, AN 10 is approaching earth at 25,000 miles an hour on a chaotic orbit and will require more detailed observational data before the International Astronomical Union can definitely certify it as harmless in the years following its approach in the year 2027?
May I therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister for Science—I am sorry, but the issue is somewhat technical—how he intends to calculate the risk for the next generation posed by the low probability but high consequence threat of 1999 AN 10 and other potentially hazardous asteroids which have a non-zero impact probability?
Furthermore, is the noble Lord the Minister for Science aware that only 10 per cent of near earth objects which could be classified as hazardous have been identified so far?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of the situation and all that information on asteroid 1999 AN 10. It was discovered in January. The estimated probability is one in 500,000 of colliding with the earth during its 2044 encounter. It is therefore extremely remote. It is important that this information is transmitted regularly and we hope that in due course the spaceguard website will convey the information to the public.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if such a centre is to be established in the United Kingdom the obvious place is Armagh observatory in Northern Ireland where they have the experience, have undertaken a great deal of research and where work can be carried out most effectively?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the key issues in this regard is that any programme of detection or deflection should be on an international basis. In view of the fact that we would not be able to tell where such things were going to land until the last moment, it would be absurd if each country were to

131
have its own detection and deflection programme. Therefore, it is important that we have an international effort. The ESA is working on an international effort. When it has been produced we will examine what contribution we can make and the Armagh observatory will be an obvious candidate to play a part in that.
Lord Winston: My Lords, in addition to consulting other agencies, has the Minister considered consulting the right reverend Prelates?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that prayer would certainly be a key part of any strategy.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the asteroid has already landed and is called William Hague?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, am I right in believing in the odds quoted by the Minister are twice as good as the odds of winning the lottery? Does not that give him cause for concern?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the odds are extremely remote and are comparable to winning the National Lottery. That means we should have one instance about every 100,000 years.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how does the Minister propose to deflect these objects?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the main consideration in deflection, if it ever gets to that point, is that the longer time one has between the time one observes the object and the time of impact the easier it is to deflect it because one can deal with less force. A number of proposals have been made ranging from impact on the asteroid, to nuclear weapons, to detonation on the surface of the asteroid. Clearly, in most cases, if we observe it early enough it would be possible to think of a strategy to deal with it.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact that the name of spaceguard and the concept of it was devised many years ago by the eminent science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, now Sir Arthur Clarke, who is a British subject and has his own telescope? Does that not furnish a very strong reason why we should have our own national agency, no doubt working with the international agencies, in order to draw on the great experience and imagination of that great writer?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I must disagree. There are more important considerations as to whether we have our own agency. The first question is whether work should be done by any of the current bodies rather than invoking new agencies.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has been subjected to the giggle-factor, which is a problem involved with this subject. Does he agree on the general principle that if nations are prepared to pay
132
to preserve their civilised past for the current generation, they should be equally prepared to pay for the preservation of a civilised future for the next generation? Would not a first step in this direction be to subscribe to a national spaceguard centre as part of a European contribution to a global spaceguard programme which could benefit the future of all mankind?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would not wish to imply in any way that this is a trivial issue. It is a serious issue because mainly, while the chances of impact are extremely small, the impact of any object more than a kilometre in length could be considerable. Therefore, we propose to work through ESA. Of all subjects which come before this House, this is one in respect of which an international effort is the key. We shall play our part in that rather than acting independently.

Kosovo: Return of Refugees
2.57 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What preparations are being made for creating conditions in Kosovo which will encourage refugees to return there once a settlement of the dispute with Yugoslavia has been achieved.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the refugees are keen to return to Kosovo as soon as their security is guaranteed. As the international security presence is established in Kosovo and as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security forces withdraw, so we, in close collaboration with the military and UN, can begin the considerable task of providing the displaced persons and refugees with humanitarian support and assistance to rebuild their homes and essential infrastructure. The Department for International Development is currently establishing a field office in Pristina in order to better assist with this task.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. However, perhaps I may express my disappointment that this Question is not being answered by her noble friend Lady Symons who I informed yesterday that my Question would be a political one and not an aid question. I want to refer to a matter which I believe is relevant to the question of the enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm of the refugees to return to Kosovo; that is, the risk of continuing friction or disagreement between NATO and the Russians which could certainly discourage refugees returning.
Given the helpful role of Russia in securing the cease-fire and the known willingness of Russia to provide troops, is it not surprising that no role was provided for Russian troops in the military agreement? I am not justifying Russian action in relation to Pristina airport but it is important to understand why they may have taken this action.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Blaker: My Lords, with silence, I shall come to my Question. President Yeltsin referred to the

133
connection between that action and what he calls Russia being sidelined in the peace process. I raise this matter because I believe it is important. Is it not of great importance that we should continue to have good relations between Russia and NATO both in the context of Kosovo and the wider context?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that when I stand at the Dispatch Box I am answering on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. There has been no noticeable lack of enthusiasm with respect to refugees wanting to return to Kosovo. In fact, one of our concerns has been that refugees may want to return too quickly, before the international security force has had an opportunity to ensure security in Kosovo.
With regard to the specific point concerning Russia, my noble friend Lady Symons addressed this point yesterday in response to a question from the noble Lord. It might be helpful if I repeat some of what she said. We welcome a Russian contribution to KFOR. We are aware that a small number of Russian troops are already in Kosovo. There is a clear understanding that there will be no further movement of Russian troops into Kosovo without prior agreement in NATO. Of course, we want to continue to have good relations with the Russian Government, not only on this issue but on other issues also.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question and ask my noble friend about the refugees that are held in the United Kingdom. Can she tell us about the conditions under which they are being held and their view about their aspirations to return to Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our aim has always been to ensure that it is safe for refugees before we propose their return to Kosovo from the UK. There are just under 3,500 refugees in the UK who have come in since the end of April. They are located in a number of refugee centres across the country. I should like to pay tribute to the work of local authorities and the voluntary sector, as well as the work of the Refugee Council which has been instrumental in ensuring a warm welcome for them. Our initial contact with the refugees indicated that the majority would like to return as soon as possible. We shall be in regular communication with them to ensure that that happens.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the enormous cost of repairing the damage done in Kosovo should be apportioned between those who took part in the campaign? What steps are being taken to see that the benefit of the work that results from those payments will be felt, as far as possible, in Kosovo and not distributed among other countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords may be aware that we announced an additional £50 million yesterday for the Kosovo effort. We are working with our international partners and the international financial institutes to ensure that we look not just at the immediate rehabilitation effort but also the long-term
134
reconstruction of the entire region. It is far too early to say how much that will cost. However, I am sure that question will be raised in this House on several more occasions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one aspect of infrastructure that must be addressed with great urgency is the devastated state of the education system? Is the Minister aware that since the crisis began a couple of years ago, a thousand dons from Pristina University and tens of thousands of teachers, all of Albanian ethnic origin, have been dismissed? Must not, therefore, staffing and equipping the education system be very, very high in our priorities for re-establishing life in Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that education is one of our key priority areas. We have been working to ensure that even in the refugee camps the children have access to education. I am sure that when a civilian administration is established in Kosovo, education will be one of the key priority areas.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord 'Whiny will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on London Underground.

House of Lords Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
PURPOSE OF ACT
(" . The purpose of this Act is to create a more legitimate and more democratic House of Lords which will increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to draw the attention of noble and noble and learned Lords on the Government Bench opposite to the irresistibility of Amendment No. 1, I should like to remind noble and noble and learned Lords of some of the statements they have made about its component parts.
The first is a statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister about democracy. He said:
"Surely the democratic monstrosity is not the House of Commons deciding that one variant of the PR system is the best but the Conservative Party using its permanent in-built majority of Conservative hereditary Peers, elected by no one and accountable to no one, to overturn the democratic majority in the House. That is how the vast majority of people will see it".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/98; col. 935.]
Then, in the Labour Party's election manifesto we find on page 33 the statement:
"This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative".
Still on the word "democratic" in the amendment, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to two statements made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. On 14th October, 1998, at col. 922, the noble Baroness said:
"Legislating to stop hereditary Peers being Members of Parliament removes a profoundly undemocratic element".
She went on to say at col. 923:
"I should emphasise that the removal of the hereditaries will, at the most recent count, still leave a Conservative majority over Labour of 22. Nonetheless, any change which produces a fairer balance—as our proposals will—must make this House more democratic".
I hope noble Lords on the Government Benches will agree with me that, on the basis of those statements, the Bill before your Lordships' House, in the Government's view, will produce a more democratic legislative Chamber.
I address now the second component of my amendment which concerns legitimacy and turn my attention to the Government's White Paper entitled Reforming the House of Lords, where we find on page three:
"The present House of Lords suffers from a lack of legitimacy because of its anachronistic and unrepresentative composition".
Then on page 6 we find:
"But the House of Lords and the work it carries out suffer from its lack of legitimacy, because the presence of a hereditary peers creates a permanent, inbuilt majority for a single party. For its functions to be properly performed, the House of Lords needs a degree of legitimacy which it does not now enjoy".
Finally, on page 7 of the White Paper we find a reference to:
"the fundamental problems of the House—the deficiencies in its legitimacy arising from its method of selection".
I hope noble Lords on the Government Benches will again agree with me that, by their own definition, the changes proposed in the Bill will make your Lordships' House more legitimate. Then I turn to the other part of the amendment which will,
"increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account".
On 22nd February 1999 at col. 847 of the Motion to take note in the debate on the House of Lords reform, we find the noble Baroness the Leader of the House saying:
"I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, overall, the Government accept the broad sentiments of his amendment"—
the amendment tabled by the Opposition and not voted against by the Government—
"Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out. the first page of the White Paper emphasises that Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy, and that for Parliament to carry out its purpose it must act with authority and integrity. That principle is the basis for our proposals for reform of this Chamber; to improve the effectiveness and balance of the House so that it can play a full and proper role in Parliament, a role which necessarily includes a significant scrutiny of legislation and of the executive".
I finally turn—your Lordships will be relieved to hear—to the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the following day on 23rd February 1999 at col. 1086, where he said,
"The Government entirely share the view that it is essential that Parliament should be properly equipped to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account. That is precisely why we wish to reform the composition of this House. In our view its present composition means that it lacks the legitimacy to do [that job] properly".
In the same speech, in col. 1087, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, continues,
"My noble friend the Leader of the House has made clear that the Government agree with the first part of it"—
that is, of the Opposition's amendment which concerned itself with scrutiny and control of the executive. He went on:
"Who can be against an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account".
There we have it. If your Lordships read Amendment No. 1 again, and the words, a "more democratic House of Lords"; "a more legitimate" House of Lords; and a,
"House of Lords which will increase the independence of Parliament and enhance its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account",
your Lordships will see that on the Government's own terms, in the Government's own words, every ingredient of that amendment is accepted by them. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we debated a virtually identical proposition from the official Opposition in Committee and we seem today to be quoting previous remarks. But I hope your Lordships will agree that those previous remarks on an amendment almost precisely the same as the one tabled today may be of greater relevance to the decisions as to whether or not to accept this amendment than the more broad discussion points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
When we debated the almost identical proposition to this one, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, described the amendments as probing amendments designed to give the Government an opportunity to explain where they stood on the issues raised by the amendments. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn explained the answer to that in some detail. Those amendments, which were debated at Committee stage, served the purpose of airing the subjects for debate. I am therefore somewhat surprised to see them reappear, especially as they are virtually identical, despite the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that if the Opposition returned to these questions at all, they would be seeking a different form of words which answered some of the criticisms made in the debate. As I understood it—I re-read the Committee stage proceedings on this matter this morning—it was not their view that they wished to reopen, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has just done, a very general debate on some of the subjects which, as he has rightly drawn out, we debated over a

137
long period on the long-term reform of this House and the impact that that might have both politically and legally.
The noble Lord drew on evidence given to the Royal Commission in developing his own theme. I say again—your Lordships must tire of hearing this—that that evidence was the Labour Party's evidence and not the Government's evidence. It sets out the principles the party believes the Royal Commission should address.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In fact, I did not quote from that evidence. I quoted from the White Paper, not from the evidence to the Royal Commission itself.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise. I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he mentioned the evidence to the Royal Commission. However, he was reopening some of the general points about the longer-term issues that we have discussed at length. As he rightly says, we accept the broad principles, but do not feel that they are immediately relevant to the proceedings on this Bill.
In our previous debates on the subject of a purpose clause—the point behind these amendments—we had the authoritative view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale (I am glad to see him in his place) who explained why purpose clauses should not be entertained in respect of Bills of the simplicity and clarity of the one we are discussing today. As he quite rightly said, they are unnecessary. I could perhaps also draw on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is not in his place this afternoon, who chaired the previous committee on the preparation of legislation and recommended that purpose clauses should be used only when they are the most convenient method of clarifying the scope and effect of the legislation.
I suggest also that the present purpose clause is describing purposes to this Bill which are simply wrong. They may describe the political effect of the Bill, but they do not describe its purpose which is a much more narrowly defined issue. The purpose of the Bill, in law, is to remove the automatic right to be a Member of this House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. In this country it is not practice—I argue this point with some trepidation with the noble Lord—to add extraneous provisions to Bills just to make those types of political points. There is no ambiguity in this Bill that such a purpose clause might help the courts in interpreting. There is no external obligation to which it gives effect which it would be worth specifically linking to the Bill. I do have the courage to assert, as a non-lawyer, that otiose law is bad law in all instances.
That is why we continue to think that the Bill should not contain a purpose clause. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord who moved the amendment that it is emphatically not because we are embarrassed by any of the sentiments expressed in the amendment, or indeed embarrassed to have our general remarks recalled. We agree, of course, with those remarks and we agree with some of the sentiments which are expressed in the amendment. We are delighted that the Official Opposition are prepared to assert in amendments that
138
those are worthwhile aims. They are indeed. They will indeed be the political effect of the Bill but they are not its purpose.
I also remind your Lordships that simply to say something is the case does not make it so. We all have before us the example of the 1911 Act to make us understand that. I remind your Lordships that the preamble to the 1911 Act famously promised that it was the first step on the way to a more democratic popular Chamber. The fact that after 88 years nothing has been done about that until now indicates just how pointless that kind of declaratory purpose may be.
What I have said about Amendment No. 1 applies also to Amendment No. 3, which is labelled the "Purpose of Act (No. 2)", and that is also in the name of the Official Opposition. I concede that in that second version they have done rather more redrafting of the propositions than they did both in the first amendment and those that we debated at Committee stage. However, I must tell your Lordships that they have not made enough changes to overcome our conviction that putting such a clause in the Bill is unnecessary and undesirable. Again, I would say to them that this is not because we regard the aims of the amendments as being anything other than consistent with the long-term policy objectives that we have put on the record. I merely repeat that we are not embarrassed by either version. We stand by either version as a long-tern objective. But we feel that the amendment is inaccurate in not describing the limited purpose of this Bill and is superfluous in asserting its political effects.
The Government have the proper respect for the law and for the purpose of law. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. If he does not wish to do that, I would urge the House to reject it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House says that this Bill does not, unlike the Parliament Act 1911, contain a preamble. That is perfectly true. But this Bill goes much further than the Parliament Act 1911. Therefore, in our judgment, for reasons even more powerful, it should have either a preamble or a purpose clause. But the noble Baroness will not accept that.
Unless the noble Baroness's reasons for introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House were wholly arbitrary, then the Bill must have a purpose. That purpose has been made very clear to your Lordships' House on several occasions during the many debates we have had on it; it is that the removal of hereditary Peers, in the Government's view, and the reduction in the Conservative majority, in the Government's view, will produce a more democratic and legitimate House.
I happen not to agree with that, because I do not understand the distinction between a nominated Peer and the son of a nominated Peer. It seems to me that they are both equally legitimate or equally illegitimate, both equally democratic or equally undemocratic. I do not see the distinction.
The Government's belief is that there is a distinction. The Government are clearly on record as saying that the reason for this Bill is that they want the House to be

139
more democratic and more legitimate. It must follow that, once this Bill is operational, the House will be more democratic and more legitimate. Why are they so frightened of saying that in the Bill if they have said that about the Bill in every single speech they have made?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall make only one point. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with the familiar repetition that this is the first stage of a process of reform. The purposes of this Bill are very clear, and are set out in Clause 1. I do not think there is any argument about that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at the risk of interfering in an almost private exchange, perhaps I may—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it may be helpful to remind the House that we are at Report stage and that, on a government Bill, only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances, and despite the Opposition's strong feelings about this point, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) This Act shall not come into force until the people of the United Kingdom have approved its coming into force in a referendum.
(2) The question to be put on such referendum shall be—
"Do you wish to retain the House of Lords as constituted with the Hereditary Peerage until enactment of a Bill to establish a successor House [YES/NO].")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63, which is consequential. These are not probing amendments to find out where the Government stand. I think we all know where the Government stand in the measure of their opposition to these amendments. These are Back-Bench, Cross-Bench amendments. They are not politically motivated. A free vote has been conceded on our Back Benches and I understand today that my own Front Bench will neither oppose nor support these amendments.
These amendments are concerned with the exercise of the powers of governance. As such, they enter inevitably the domain of party political contention. The question is, having regard to the apparent state of public opinion, whether, on these matters substantially affecting the constitution, there would be a deprivation of entitlement of the people if referenda were not to be held in the due exercise of the powers of governance. The questions arising on these amendments are not the same as those arising on the transitional House.
In deference to the decision of your Lordships' House on the transitional House amendment, it is not to be called in question. Your Lordships are nonetheless
140
invited to consider whether Clause 2 should not be qualified by these referendum amendments. The arguments in support of these amendments and the transitional House amendments are distinct, free-standing and not mutually inconsistent. Such is the authoritative advice.
The Government, in breach of their own manifesto commitment, by introducing their own wrecking amendment as Clause 2 have shot their own manifesto fox. Only the broadest assent of the people can now salvage this wreck of a Bill. Let it be said, to deflect the scatterchaff of misinformation and confusion, first, that these referendum amendments do not wreck the transitional House amendment but could afford legitimacy without appreciable delay if such is the wish of the people. Having supported the transitional House amendment, which was not amended in Committee and may not be amended thereafter, your Lordships may well now conclude that this Bill as amended is not acceptable to your Lordships unless it is also acceptable to the people. Your Lordships may well prefer that this situation should be resolved by the people at the behest of your Lordships' House and not by your Lordships' House as a self-interested party. Even noble Lords who are minded to reject the Bill on Third Reading—and I see some of them present in the Chamber—might, if I may respectfully suggest, prefer to allow the people to decide whether or not this legislation should come into force. For are we not all but the servants of the people?
A "yes" vote on the question to be put would inhibit the Act from coming into force. No doubt that is why it is opposed by the Government. A "no" vote would enable the Act to come into force at once under Amendment No. 63, with the broad assent of the people. The dust-ridden area of the Amendment No. 31, upon which 230 noble Lords—that is, over one third of those attending—abstained, including the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, needs not to be revisited in this debate, and thank heavens for that!
However, the people should know that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and many other noble Lords have recognised that no firm assurance can be given as to whether, when and in what form a successor Chamber may be established. As yet, the people are aware—they have not been consulted on it—of the setting up of a transitional House with 92 hereditary Peers to sit for life, until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary, as a process of self-selection on a provisional 13th draft of standing orders not yet approved by the House.
What is the current apparent state of public opinion? To begin with, two-thirds favour retention of your Lordships' House as constituted, with the hereditary Peers, until full details of reform are known. Over half—that is, 58 per cent—reject retention of the hereditary entitlement in any successor Chamber. On the assumption that a transitional House were to be set up, two-thirds considered that it was about right, not too many and not too few, in answer to questions put. But no question was put as to whether a transitional House should be set up nor any question such as is proposed in the amendment; and no such question has been put since the two-thirds favoured retention of your

141
Lordships' House as constituted, until the details of reform were known. Therefore, it is idle to suggest, as has been suggested, that there is some general public support for keeping hereditary Peers in a transitional House until reform has been fully worked out. Such is not the case.
Having regard to that state of public opinion, is it acceptable to your Lordships that this Bill, as amended, should be imposed without regard to the wishes of the people? At least those who wrote to me since the Committee stage, some of whom voted Labour, should know that their representations for a referendum have been brought to your Lordships' attention and that the Government, according to their stated intention, are not minded to accept their representations on this amendment or, indeed, any other amendment.
Although on the referendum debate on 12th May it was accepted that referendums have now become part of our political process, the view of many noble Lords, which I share, is that, in general, referendums are not to be favoured. But where provisions substantially affecting the constitution on which the people are divided against the Government are concerned, where a simple, readily intelligible question can be put, such as was not the case on Maastricht, where the referendum is conducted under fair and proper ground rules, which will soon become generic, and where a threshold—a fence—to he jumped has been erected, then, as in this case, your Lordships may think that a referendum is not only right, proper and reasonable but part of the political process within the power of governance.
As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in Committee, why are the Government in such a flap unless they are nervous about the proposition? It cannot be beyond the wit of government or Parliament to pass a short referendum Bill, or to attach such a measure to this Bill. Almost exactly two years ago we passed a referendum Bill in less than two months. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Cranborne said that if this amendment were to be accepted on the first day of Committee, it would make it more difficult to amend the Bill in other ways and that, after the Committee stage, this "admirable proposal", as he then called it, would be set in context.
The rectitude of such advice and, indeed, the advice given by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that I should take a rain check and return, was much appreciated and is acknowledged with gratitude. Taking account of the constructive criticism, these amendments have been redrafted to strip them down to matters of essential principle. First, the referendum will not be delayed until after the report of the Royal Commission. Secondly, provisions as to the conduct of the referendum have been omitted; and, thirdly, a simple question, all but incapable of misunderstanding, to be put on the referendum is proposed.
We are told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I no longer see in his place—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In any event, I had better say what I was going to say. We are told by the
142
noble and learned Lord that we, the life Peers, represent the country. Well, such is the very purpose of this amendment. It is not readily understood why in your Lordships' House, as constituted, the hereditary Peers do not also represent the country. The rectitude of the principle asserted by these amendments was acknowledged by the Government in the White Paper to which reference was made at Committee stage, and to which no doubt other noble Lords may wish to refer in this debate.
If this admirable proposal for a referendum were now to commend itself to your Lordships in principle—and that is how it is put before your Lordships—in context with the Bill as now amended, it would avoid pre-empting the Royal Commission's process of public consultation which your Lordships all know about. It would qualify the Bill as amended in breach of the manifesto to enable legitimacy to be conferred upon it and it would afford a requisite measure of protection, of safeguards removed by this Bill on which the people rely, as was put so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who I see is in his place.
As the nation would appear to be substantially divided against the Government, your Lordships may well conclude that verification of the wishes of the people on this matter of constitutional importance in the due exercise of the powers of governance is not only appropriate but wholly requisite. Was it of the essence of the deal that the guardianship function of your Lordships' House should he overridden? Who can tell? Who knows? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was too late to ask the simple question I intended to ask of the Government on the previous amendment because I had mistaken what proved to be the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness as a mere intervention to ask information from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not want to be caught in that way again. Therefore I now ask a question relating to this amendment which is concerned with the state of public opinion. I hope that whoever delivers the reply on behalf of the Government will be able to tell us what is being done to draw the attention of the public to the public hearings of the Royal Commission on the future of this House which, as I understand it, have been conducted in something approaching privacy in some of our provincial capitals.
The other point I want to address to my noble friend is the following. While I follow his argument I am concerned again by his drafting because the question he asks is:
"Do you wish to retain the House of Lords as constituted until enactment of a Bill to establish a successor House?"
As I understand it, this is a Bill to enact a successor House. I cannot see how you can describe it otherwise. It is not the last Bill or the last successor House, bur it is a successor House. It seems therefore that the referendum—if it is conducted in the terms here drafted—would not succeed in elucidating anything. However, I await with great interest the reply to my question about the Royal Commission.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lords whose names are to this amendment. Obviously there is much to be said on the place of a referendum within a democratic society. That was why in the previous Parliament the government of the time were urged repeatedly to set up a Royal Commission which could consider a whole number of interrelated points which have now emerged without the benefit of that mature consideration; namely, referendum, second Chamber, method of voting and a whole number of others. That was not done.
If, as I believe, a society is democratic in so far as the mass of the people can influence the decisions which will affect themselves, in those circumstances it is obviously desirable that there are certain matters that should be directly addressed to the people at large. As I ventured to suggest on an earlier occasion, that is by no means the only method of democracy; nor is representative government. Probably the most effective is to vouchsafe to the individual who is affected by a decision the decision itself. That is why we now all embrace the market economy where every penny put down on a counter is a vote for one or other candidate for the favour of the customer. That not only means that he can choose what goods please him most, but by thereby doing he influences the whole shape and development of the economy. It was to the great credit of the Conservative governments who preceded the present one that they seized on that truth and vindicated it. I believe that it is now accepted almost universally in this country and indeed abroad.
But obviously there are certain questions that cannot be addressed to the individual himself. Someone else may be affected and that is the reason why we have a representative democracy, a parliamentary democracy. However, in the case of a referendum certain not only wide questions but also specific ones can be submitted. We have heard a great deal in the deliberations on this Bill about manifesto commitments which all too often slip into the old phrase of "manifesto mandate". Of course there is no such thing. It is quite unreal to pretend that voting for a party is a vote for everything in a manifesto. On the contrary my experience was—such as it was—that in general there was a vote against a party on very general grounds rather than a vote for a party, and particularly not a vote for the individual items in a manifesto.
However, it would be perfectly possible to put those questions. The state of California has referenda which go into such detail. Indeed, as your Lordships will remember from a debate in the previous Parliament, so does Switzerland. Therefore there is much to be said for a referendum although it still has to be decided whether it should be pre-legislative or post-legislative.
In my respectful submission, there are two overriding reasons why this amendment should not be accepted and I very much hope that the noble Lord will not press it to a Division. First, there is Clause 2, the Weatherill amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by your Lordships. Although there has been perhaps a
144
moment of fractiousness about whether the Government would stand by their amendment—quite unreal fractiousness, in fact—the noble Baroness and my noble and learned friend are standing loyally by the agreement. I believe that in those circumstances their position must be sustained.
My noble friend Lord Marsh pointed out in an earlier debate the difficulties that might arise in the other place. It would be quite deplorable for us to do anything to increase those difficulties or to make the position of the noble Baroness and my noble and learned friend more difficult. That is the first reason.
The second reason is that the proposed question virtually invites a repetition of the highly undesirable contention before 1914 of "the Peers against the people". That is how it would be represented. However, we have got away from that by means of Clause 2 in which the Government have conceded—at any rate, in the interim—the value of a chosen section of your Lordships remaining Members of this House. I refer to the hereditary element. Although these words were not used then, perhaps I may describe those noble Lords as the crème de la crème. I would be very surprised if those 90 Members are not only considerably superior to anything that can be proffered through the life peerage system to top up the Government's numbers, but also considerably superior to any similar body in any legislative system in the world.
Moreover, as a result of the retention of that element, the Royal Commission will be enabled to see whether some element of the hereditary peerage should be carried forward into its recommendations with regard to the ultimate composition of your Lordships' House. It may well do so. If it does not, that will probably be because the Government have so categorically declined to consider any further hereditary element that the Royal Commission may consider—I hope not, but it may well do so—that it would be useless to recommend the continuance even of the crème de la crème of the hereditary element.
As we have now got away from "the Peers against the people" and as the Government have now conceded the value of the hereditary element, if only in the interim House—that point should not be dismissed—it seems foolish to invite a recrudescence of a campaign of "the Peers against the people".
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for introducing the amendment. I see no reason why reform of your Lordships' House, alone among the major constitutional changes introduced or proposed by the Government, should not be put to the people in a referendum, particularly as the Bill conflicts in two major respects with the commitment contained in the Labour Party's manifesto.
Those two respects are, first, that the Bill does not make your Lordships' House more democratic or more representative and, secondly, that the Bill as amended provides for the continued involvement in the affairs of your Lordships' House of 92 hereditary Peers.

145
The Bill fundamentally alters the composition of your Lordships' House and, in so doing, affects its ability to discharge its functions. Inevitably, the Bill alters the relationship of this House with another place. Therefore, it is a measure the effect of which is comparable in importance with the measures under which the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority were established. Therefore, I believe that that also should be submitted to the people for their approval.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whom I do not see in his place, pointed out in Committee on 18th May:
"The Government also think that the composition of this Chamber is not just a matter for this House. There are wider considerations beyond the wishes of this House, in particular the wishes of another place and of the people".—[Official Report, 18/5/99; col. 223.]
We know how the Government intend to ascertain the wishes of another place, but how will they discover the wishes of the people? I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government still hold the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because, if they do, I should like to know how they intend to discover the wishes of the people other than by means of a referendum. It is clear that the people have had no opportunity to express their views on the Bill as it currently stands. I think that it is absolutely right that they should be given such an opportunity.
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I do not think that this is a case of "the Peers against the people" but rather that the Peers would like the people's opinion on whether the people—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood me. It would be represented as "the Peers against the people".
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am sure that certain elements would attempt to represent it as "the Peers against the people" but it would not be that as, I think, the people would recognise. They would recognise that the Peers were seeking the people's opinion on whether they wished the Peers to continue to act as a constraint on the power of the executive until such time as a successor House, stage two, is agreed.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment calls for a referendum on this Bill. It is technically a somewhat odd amendment. I wonder how an Act of Parliament can authorise a referendum and specify questions to be asked in that referendum when no part of that Act is in force. However, that is a lawyer's quibble and could no doubt be cured by redrafting.
What cannot be cured by redrafting is the substance of the amendment. The referendum would not be about the permanent retention of the hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. That question was decided in 1910 when the Liberals and their allies won two successive general elections on the platform of "the Peers against the people". Permanent retention of the hereditary membership is not now supported by any political party in this country. Indeed, it is supported by
146
only a few Members of your Lordships' House. Frankly, it has no support among the public. Therefore, the permanent retention of the hereditary element is not a live question.
The referendum would relate only to the transitional stage. When a similar amendment was debated in Committee, the Weatherill amendment had not been passed. In effect, the question then proposed for such a referendum was: should all hereditary Peers be removed from the House of Lords before stage two, or none of them? I said then that even at that stage we did not think that such a question was appropriate for a referendum. Although it was an important issue, we did not think that it was so fundamental as to require a referendum of the entire electorate. I do not want to re-argue that question now because the situation has changed. Indeed, it has changed so as to make the case for having a referendum, such as it was, very much weaker than at that time.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, the Weatherill amendment has since been passed and accepted by the Government. That changes the situation entirely. The question that would now have to be asked in a referendum is: do you want all hereditary Peers to remain in the House of Lords until stage two, or simply 92 of them?
That seems to be a wholly unsuitable question for a referendum. It is a far less important question than when the Bill did not contain the Weatherill amendment. For better or worse, your Lordships' House will continue to contain a substantial hereditary element during the transitional stage. The question of whether that element should be all 750 or only 92 is of great importance to the individuals affected by it, but it is not an issue of great public importance. It is certainly not an issue that is being discussed in the pubs and clubs—with the possible exception of White's. Referendums should be kept for issues of national significance and should not be devalued by being used too often. If we hold the referendum that this amendment asks for, the turnout for it will make last Thursday's turnout for the European elections look like mass hysteria.
The Government rely on their manifesto; it is not our manifesto. If we thought it right to support a referendum, we would do so. But without regard to the manifesto, we do not support the call for a referendum on its own merits. As it is, we are unhappy with the Weatherill amendment. To add a requirement for a referendum to the Weatherill amendment would, in our view, effectively constitute a wrecking of the Bill. We are therefore wholly unable to support this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly explain to your Lordships' House why I support the amendment and have put my name to it.
We have heard again talk about the manifesto. That argument has been exhausted and I do not propose to enter further into it. We are all agreed that the Government are perfectly entitled to enact legislation which is referred to in their manifesto. The only point I would make—it has already been made more than

147
once during the passage of the Bill—is that we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that the Government did not obtain its massive majority on the issue of the hereditary peerage. There were other matters upon which the electorate voted. That is the only point left to make about the manifesto.
However, on the question of this constitutional change, we have been already advised to look at the record so far. In matters of constitutional change there have been appeals for a referendum on the Assembly in Wales, the Parliament in Scotland, on Northern Ireland, the assembly in London and we understand there is to be a referendum on the question of the common currency in Europe. The question then arises: whether the change now proposed in the Bill is a constitutional change of lesser importance than any of those. In my view it is not. It is a constitutional change of profound importance which is designed to lead—and will lead—to constitutional changes of even deeper significance. Therefore, if it is right to ask the people by referendum about the other constitutional changes, it is certainly right, proper and desirable to ask their views about this one.
Comments have been made that the people are ignorant of the issues; that the turnout for such a referendum would be low. If there is ignorance of the issue in the country, the answer is to remove it. In order to remove that ignorance of the issues from the public mind, we should have a referendum, have it debated and have the issues on both sides fully explained to the people. There is a need for a much wider debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the matter is not much discussed in the pubs and clubs. It is not; but it should be. We are the people who can make it so. Outside of Parliament, I have found very little knowledge in the country of not only the Bill but the functions of the House of Lords; what it does, when it does it; what it is designed to do and how well it does it. These matters are not known to people generally outside Parliament—except of course for London taxi drivers who, as usual, know more about them than any of us. Leaving taxi drivers aside, there is room for a wide and wide-ranging public debate on the matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that it would be represented once again as the old issue of the Peers against the people. If it is represented as such a matter by those who are against the referendum, then those of us who are in favour of a referendum should explain that it is not so. If we cannot win the argument then we do not deserve to win the referendum. But we must have argument and debate.
It is often quite rightly said that there is a difficulty about framing a question for a referendum; usually there is. I do not think that argument holds in this case. The question set out in Amendment No. 2 is a very simple one. It has been suggested by other noble Lords that it might be misunderstood. I do not believe that there is a very great danger of that. It is very clear that what the amendment means by a "successor House" is a House which follows the interim House. That is perfectly clear in this draft amendment.
148
It has been said—not today but at other times during the debate on the Bill—that there are those who are minded to reject the Bill at Third Reading. That would be indeed a drastic step to take; it has all kinds of implications. I would regard that as becoming unnecessary—or, at least, less desirable—if the amendment were passed. It would mean that on a constitutional change, which is, in my view, of the profoundest importance to every person in this country, every person in this country would have the right and the opportunity to say whether he or she wanted it or not.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene. I accept the commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the previous occasion when we discussed this matter, that this was not an attempt to delay. But, whatever way one looks at it, that will be the consequence. I accept that a referendum does not have to wait for the Royal Commission but, nevertheless, there will be delays. A referendum Bill will need to be established and we will have to go through the procedures. That will take time and delay will still be a consequence of accepting the amendment.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. When we arrive at the successor House, does he then propose that there should be a second post-legislative referendum in order that the public can say whether they agree with what will be a further constitutional change?
May I make one point on the matter of constitutional change and holding a referendum. There would be more validity in the argument if there had been a demand for a referendum on the Human Rights Bill. I do not recall anyone on the other side of the House requesting one.
My final point relates to the question on the referendum. I find great difficulty with it. Recently in your Lordships' House we had a debate on referendums. It was generally agreed across the House that one of the most important matters was that the question should be simple; that it should be able to clearly have a "yes" or "no" answer; and that it would be understood absolutely. I have had three different interpretations given to me of what the question says. Therefore, I do not think that it is simple. It is not the type of wording for a referendum question. It has too much legalese in its approach, which will cause problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that he wanted the amendment accepted in principle. That is fine, but when one has something as rigid as the question written into the amendment, then that becomes the fact and the principle ceases to be. One then has the wording on the face of the Bill as the wording which will go into the referendum, without any consultation or discussion about what might be in a referendum Bill, who should consider the question and who should consider the details of holding a referendum. As with the previous amendment, I have great technical problems with this one.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, one should try to greet the noble Baroness who has just sat down with the congratulations and thanks that are usually tendered to

149
a maiden speaker. It is not often that we have the privilege of hearing a contribution from a noble Lord or noble Baroness from the Government Back Benches. So we cordially welcome her and hope that we shall hear from her often.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not know how many times I and my colleagues have spoken in the Committee stage debates in this Chamber.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry if I happened to be absent on some of those occasions. However, I do hope that the noble Baroness will not lose the habit of speaking.
I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I will not go into the issue at length for the reasons given with great eloquence by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. First, I believe that if we were to have a referendum, we would be moving backwards to a stage which we passed long ago with the Weatherill amendment. Secondly, I believe it to be almost inevitable that if we had a referendum on this subject, it would be represented as one more round in the battle which finished long ago; that of the Peers against the people. So I hope with some confidence that when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House comes to reply, she will reject the amendment.
We should also bear in mind that referendums asking the public to express their opinion are not all that popular. Only last week, we emerged from a process which I would not like to describe in detail. I refer to that awful document which most of us met for the first time in a polling station. It was a revolting way of taking an opinion on the subject. If it is ever tried again, I believe that the disappointment recently experienced by the public will lead to an even lower poll than we had on this occasion. Those who advocate referendums should bear in mind that the public do not find us all that interesting. They do not wish to hear from us every day of the week.
There are in your Lordships' House many more modest people than there are in the House of Commons. We should perhaps use our influence on them to avoid referendums, and not encourage the use of this rather superficial and unpleasant device.
I wish to make only one more point before I sit down. I wish to express very quietly my sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Elton said very courteously just now. He said that when the first amendment appeared there occurred what I took to be—I may be wrong—a preliminary private chat between the two Front Benches, with eventually someone on the Back Benches perhaps having a chance to speak. It was silly of me to have had that view, but nevertheless I missed my opportunity to express an opinion. I will not go into what my opinion was now, but I hope that in future we will not be the victims of the Whips on the Government Front Bench and be caught out without having had an opportunity to say something.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must gently intervene to say that I rose to reply to the noble
150
Lord, Lord Kingsland, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench only after what I considered to be a fairly significant pause in the proceedings. I was following the procedures on Report, as was my noble friend the Whip on duty. We certainly left every opportunity for other noble Lords to rise. There seemed to be a significant silence at that time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for her explanation. If she will do me the courtesy of reading what I said, she will find that I made it perfectly clear that it was myself, and not her, who was the problem, and that I had made the mistake. That little private chat was entirely misread by myself, and for that I apologise.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the fact that I was under the same misapprehension perhaps throws a little light on the situation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart has clearly and ably set out the position of these Benches. I largely concur with what he said. However, I should like to refer to one matter on which he touched and which has been referred to by other noble Lords who have spoken. I refer to the lessons to be drawn from the democratic catastrophe, as I think one could call it, of the recent European elections. I am not at all sure that I go along with the view that, because the result was such an appalling reflection of the democratic vitality of the British electorate, one should have less reference to the electorate and should engage in less dialogue with them. I think the reverse is true.
When the Leader of the House comes to reply to the amendment, I should like her to comment on the way in which the consultation exercise, if one can call it that, is going vis-à-vis the proposed second stage of reform of this House.
Before Christmas I asked whether there would be what I called in my Question a widespread information and consultation campaign with the public at large. The answer that I was unequivocally given was, yes. If one reads the White Paper setting up the Royal Commission, one will find there, too, an unequivocal and enthusiastic endorsement of the notion that we should be engaging the great British public as much as possible in a dialogue in which, first, they will be enabled to understand the main sinews and lines of reform proposed and, secondly, to give their response to those proposals in order that the Royal Commission may have fed into it a wider tributary of responses than those of the usual "chattering classes". I have to say that so far the signs are extremely disappointing.
The Royal Commission has set in train a series of a dozen or so public meetings. It is to be commended on that, but what is not to be commended is that there is little or nothing by way of public information, let alone consultation, around those public meetings. I believe

151
that two of them have already been cancelled because of a failure even to inform the public adequately that they were being conducted.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, as a matter of interest, can the noble Lord give some indication of what, where and how this relates to the Bill?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it relates to the Bill in terms of the argument expressed by a number of noble Lords that the need for a referendum is to make up for the failure to inform and consult the public. I was seeking to engage the Government in responding to that general line of argument. While I am not persuaded that we should accept this amendment, I am entirely in sympathy with those noble Lords who feel that without it there will be no public information and consultation. That is the drift of my argument. I leave it at that, but I urge the Government, if it is not too late, to put some muscle behind this public information and consultation campaign and perhaps take a leaf out of the book of the Local Government Commission, which for the first and only time did effectively engage public opinion and received a huge response. I am disinclined to support the amendment, but I am extremely sympathetic to those who have spoken in terms of the failure to inform and consult the public.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, whatever conclusions may be drawn from last week's election results, they demonstrate two things. There is no overwhelming, pulsating desire on the part of the British electorate to become more and more involved in the political decision-making process. Secondly, far from being a catastrophe, it is difficult to imagine a more comprehensive, deeply emotionally moving demonstration of the British public's opinion of some of the activities of the European Commission. That came over loud and clear.
Like the noble Baroness, I could well understand, although not agree with, a call for a referendum on the proposals for stage two. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, represents a significant body of opinion which has believed from the beginning that the details of stage two should have been available and negotiated before we took the decision on stage one. That view has been expressed—and expressed, and expressed. A refrain has begun to emerge.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, drew attention (he was wrong, as he said) to the attendance of some Members of this House. I have become increasingly bewildered by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber—I must say that I have not given the noble Lord notice of this comment—because this is reaching a stage where it could be set to music. It could be developed at some length.
The problem for all oppositions is that strongly held, perfectly legitimate views are not accepted by the government of the day and it is difficult to come to terms with that. There comes a time when a government has to take a decision. This Government, whether right or wrong, have made it clearly, as they are entitled to
152
do, and they want to do it this way. The amendment would mean going to the electorate with a referendum, which would take several months to set up, and effectively asking people to take part in the kind of negotiations which usually take place between the usual channels. The last thing the general public want is to get mixed up with the usual channels.
This is a serious point. We cannot get away from the recognition that there comes a stage in the passage of a Bill as controversial as this, and on which there are such deeply held emotions, when, with a government majority, it has to progress. Whatever the virtues of referendums—and I have grave doubts about them—to expect the public to take a decision on how we should manage the progress of a Bill through the Houses of Parliament would make us look ridiculous. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. His is a serious and strongly held view. But we have now debated it many times. We cannot at this stage simply pass the matter on to the public by means of a referendum.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, always makes an entertaining speech, and he is usually right. But with the greatest respect, this time he is wrong. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who also makes entertaining speeches, is also wrong. I happen to believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is right.
I do not like referenda, for all the obvious reasons that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. People have said to me that we elect people to the House of Commons in order to take decisions, and the first thing that they do is to turn round and ask the electorate what they ought to do about a particular matter. As one person who made that comment said, what on earth do we pay those people for other than to take decisions?
We have become hooked into these wretched referenda. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to a number of different referenda—on Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and possibly the euro. Presumably the total alteration of one of the Chambers of Parliament is at least as important a subject for a referendum as the others.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but to say that the Government have displayed such huge loyalty over the Weatherill amendment that, therefore, there should not be a referendum is not a matter of any moment. Of course the Government have shown loyalty over the Weatherill amendment. They instigated the arrangements that brought that about.
We have been told all along that this was in the manifesto. But what is being done now was not in the manifesto. The manifesto referred to the abolition of all hereditary Peers. There is now to be retention of 92 or 100 hereditary Peers. That is a very different matter. Much as I hate wretched referenda, as do many others, this question ought to be put to the people of this country. They should be asked: "Do you want one of the Chambers of Parliament altered like this, as a temporary measure?".

153
I always long to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I almost always disagree with what he says, and never more so than today. He says that no political party wants hereditary Peers; no one believes that hereditary Peers have any part to play in the political life of this country at all and that is out. He is plainly wrong. There is a just a hint of what outside this Chamber would be termed arrogance. It is the flavour that one would normally attribute to the noble Lord. The inference is that life Peers are tremendous and everyone wants them and does not want hereditary Peers. That is not my experience at all. Many people have said, "For goodness' sake why are the Government messing up the House of Lords? We want it kept as it is because we approve of the balance of hereditary and life Peers". The great idea that no one wants hereditary Peers, all they want is life Peers, is frankly a lot of nonsense.
I agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that this is a constitutional change of profound proportions. So it is. Let no one think that it is anything else. It is not merely a minor twist or change. It is a total alteration. I do not believe that that is right. There is a good argument for saying: let the people of the country say whether they want it, yes or no. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will help me to understand his argument. I understood him to say that, without the additional twist of bringing in hereditaries, he would have had no objection to the will of the people as expressed at the general election. The problem as he sees it is that now the mandate which was sought and given is being varied, that variation entitles him to argue that it alone should be the subject of a referendum.
Surely the noble Earl was present in this Chamber when, months ago, arguments were put that some mechanism was needed to ensure that the Government's intention to have two stages had to be locked in by making the changes that were made. Surely the noble Earl has heard his former Leader, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others putting the argument that was generally well received by his own side, that they have achieved an additional opportunity for a section of the House, a number of hereditaries, to remain until the second stage is achieved. So will the noble Earl help me by explaining his argument that a referendum is necessary because of the additional change, but was not necessary when the mandate was sought and received?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply. The noble Lord gets the whole matter completely wrong. He refers to the will of the people. It is not the will of the people to alter this House of Parliament. It is the result of a few lines in a manifesto. It is the will of the Labour Party. In a major situation such as this, whether with or without the addition of the Weatherill amendment, that change is of such profound importance that the view of the electorate should be sought.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first "democratic catastrophe" is a novel description of a situation in which one's own vote is halved. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Ferrers was very keen that none of us who wanted a referendum on Maastricht should have our way. Thirdly, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for wearing a spiffing blue—obviously to celebrate Thursday's election results. Up until now we have managed to pass constitutional Bills by the use of Parliament. I pressed for a referendum on Maastricht because I thought that it would go the way that I wanted. There is always a tendency to favour a referendum because one believes that one can get one's own way behind the back of Parliament. I believe that to be a bad idea. It seemed to me to be totally unnecessary to have a referendum on Scots or Welsh devolution. That was part of the Labour Party's manifesto, and it should have stuck to its guns and done it through Parliament and not by referendums.
I believe that it was the Duc de Lévis who said, "Gouverner, c'est choisir"—to govern is to choose. That is what governments are there for. The Government have made a choice in this Bill. They proposed one set of propositions and under considerable pressure, and, I suggest, with great grace, changed their mind and offered a major concession to those of us who thought that the first stage was not a dog's breakfast but a dog's indigestion or hangover in the middle of night—which it was. The Government have given a great deal and there is now only one point of real disagreement: namely, the issue of by-election, to which we shall come next Tuesday. We are being asked to insert into the Bill a provision for a referendum. Governments are there to govern, and if it comes to a Division I am afraid that I shall vote with the blue Lobby.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Elton, Lord Goodhart and others, I have reservations about the wording of the proposed referendum. Like the noble Baroness on the Government Benches, J believe that such a question should be less legalistic and more user-friendly, but that is a detail that can easily be rectified at Third Reading. The important point is the principle. In addition to the reasons so well advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, there is another one touched on by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. The referendum campaign would provide a very necessary opportunity to correct widespread misapprehensions about this House. When a newspaper headline shrieks out "House of Lords spurns battered woman's plea"—referring to an appeal by a woman sentenced to life imprisonment for killing her violent and drunken husband—fully 50 per cent of the electorate, or perhaps more, imagine that 750 hard-hearted hereditary Peers have dismissed the woman's appeal, not a handful, of Law Lords sitting in their judicial capacity.
The confusion does not end there. Within the past few weeks highly educated and intelligent people like Dr Matt Ridley on the right of centre and a lady on the left of centre who holds a senior position in Charter 88 have written articles which indicate that they genuinely believe that at the moment there exists a hereditary' right

155
to rule, judge, order people about and single-handedly to make laws to change people's lives against their will. That is a total travesty of the truth. We have no such powers, thank God! The only power we have is a power of temporary delay which is rarely employed. Not a single Bill or amendment that emanates from your Lordships' House gets anywhere at all unless the elected Chamber gives it the green light, which is at it should be. We know this but most of the public do not. Once they know the truth, public support for the retention of your Lordships' House in broadly its present form for the time being is likely to be become even more widespread than it is now.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale was worried that the amendment might be construed as reopening the question of Peers versus the people. With all respect to him, it would have precisely the opposite effect. The short and medium-term future of this House would be entirely in the hands of the people as expressed by the referendum. What could be fairer than that?
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminds us, a number of entertaining speeches on this subject have been made. Like him, I want to be as clear where I stand as he is. I believe that he and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are wrong and that the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Peyton, are right. To call for a referendum expresses two kinds of circumstances: at best it is some kind of strategic retreat; at worst it is further clutching at straws. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that this saga could be put to music. It seems to me that if so it would become a classic Gilbert and Sullivan opera. If we put the constitutional position of the House of Lords in a referendum to the British people we would become an absolute laughing stock. The people are concerned about employment, health, education, the economy, keeping their families together and living in a society that is good for them. People are not concerned about the retention of hereditary Peers in the House of Lords.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to make a short intervention, not so much on the ability of Parliament to deal with this Bill—I am sure that I shall be corrected, but Parliament is omnipotent and the sovereign, through Parliament, passes laws that affect the whole country—but the fact that power used without consideration can easily be abused and not respected. Power that is used prudently and considerately with discretion is accepted far more easily than otherwise. One considers the major changes in the constitution that occurred in Wales and Scotland. The people of England were not asked about those changes although the matters relating to Wales and Scotland affected many of them. It is right that people should be asked specifically for their views.
On this issue there is no shadow of doubt in my mind that the people of this country should be asked. It is argued uphill and down dale that there is a mandate for it in the election manifesto, and that is a perfectly valid argument. I believe that the people of this country
156
wanted a Labour government. They were perfectly happy to go along with many of the things that the Labour Party wished to put in its manifesto—I for one believe that it contained one or two very good things—and as such accepted the whole deal, warts and all.
I suspect that if people were asked whether they wished to throw away 800 years of constitutional history in the form of a House that provided an effective control over the executive, despite the observations of the noble Lord who just spoke, they would be extremely interested in the matter. Of course, people are very interested in health, education and many of the matters that affect their daily lives—quite rightly so—but I suspect that they are also interested in seeing that there is not unicameral government without an effective check on the legislature which, if this Bill is passed as it stands, will be the case. I believe that it is only right and proper that people should be asked, and for that reason I shall be right behind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if he chooses to press this amendment to a Division. It may be that because of what I have said he will think that it is probably better not to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not think that the point I wish to raise has been made.
I agree with those who say that this change is as major as the changes in Scotland, Wales and London. I agree that people have not been able to discuss the issue and do not realise the implications. I agree that people are becoming worried about referendums. That is obvious. They have never liked them. Anyone who has taken part in a referendum campaign knows that one has to talk quite a lot about the question as one campaigns. One has to justify the fact that that enormous operation is taking place.
If one campaigned on this referendum, one would have to say, "You are voting on something which may last for only two or three years, but what worries those who have asked for the referendum is that it might last for 15 or 20 years". If we had said that in the Scottish referendum campaign, people would never again have wanted a referendum. I should have been sorry about that. It is a tool which sometimes has to be used. I have from time to time regretted that we have not had one. The recent referendum demonstrates that people are not too keen on having too many in too hot a succession.
On this issue, I do not believe that we should be doing a service to the public or democracy by having a referendum. I believe that we would do the public a disservice. Taking account of all the feelings about the issue at stake, I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment should not be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am happy to follow my noble friend Lady Carnegy in what she said.
I do not know whether, like me, in noble Lords' adolescence they became a fan of the Edwardian writer Saki. If your Lordships were, in the distant past, fans of that writer, no doubt you will remember the story entitled, The Great Weep. Noble Lords will remember that in the story there was a plague in the United

157
Kingdom which unfortunately carried away every member of the British Royal Family. As a result the throne devolved upon the scion of a rather obscure German house who was known as Hermann the Irascible also called the Wise. He happened to come to the throne at a time when there was great agitation for an increase in the franchise, in particular for women. The prime minister who, unlike me, was against the extension of the franchise to women came to the new king, Hermann the Irascible also called the Wise, and said, "Sir, I don't know how I am going to contain this difficulty". The king said, "Well, they want the vote, let them vote. Let them vote not only on who shall be the next government, but on every position of a public nature in the polity; and not only should they have the right to vote but compulsorily they should vote".
It came to pass that that happened; and so onerous was that new duty that there came into being an enormous political movement dedicated towards the revocation of the right to vote; and as a protest a great weep was organised outside the gates of Buckingham Palace. During the course of the agitation accompanying this protest. the prime minister came to the monarch, who advised the prime minister in the following terms: "Prime Minister, in politics it is sometimes worth knowing when to retreat"; and so it came to pass that the obligation to vote was revoked.
I remind your Lordships of that story for one simple reason. Of course the prime minister of the then monarch, Hermann the Irascible also called the Wise, was wrong in his feeling that the women should not be allowed to vote. But there was a great truth which the imaginary monarch encapsulated in his advice to his prime minister: that it is unwise to expect the electorate to do the duty of Parliament; and that there is a judgment to be made that the electorate of this country has other things on its mind but politics. That is perhaps a gauge of the political health of the nation: that the electorate feels able to delegate substantial powers of judgment to its representatives in Parliament.
So long as that is so, it is right that there should be only a limited opportunity for the electorate to express its opinion. How limited that opportunity is is a matter of judgment.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway feels that there should be a less limited opportunity than I do. In this modern age, I am not against the principle of the referendum on all matters, but the choice of the question which we submit to the judgment of the electorate in a referendum should be used with enormous care. The choice should be clear and on a matter of overwhelming importance. I yield to no one, least of all my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, in my sense of the importance of your Lordship's House in any constitutional settlement. But a referendum on stage one, particularly given the Government's—in my view—foolish stance in their election manifesto is not a sufficient reason to submit the matter to a referendum. By that judgment the wisdom of Hermann the Irascible applies.
There is a strong argument for a referendum on a final reform of your Lordships' House under stage two if the Government eventually get to that. I still maintain
158
substantial reservations about whether the Government want to reach stage two. But should they wish to implement some stage two proposals, I think that there is a strong case for a referendum. But I suggest to your Lordships that as regards the transitional arrangements on stage one perhaps we should heed the fictional advice of Hermann the Irascible and, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, reject his idea for a referendum on this issue.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have been told that a referendum would result in a delay to the coming into force of the proposed Act of Parliament of at least two months. In such an important matter, is a delay of two months important? It seems to me that on such an important matter two months is neither here nor there. We have already heard many people tell us that referenda have been held recently on no less important constitutional matters. I think that that has created a precedent which cannot be disregarded in this case.
Finally, we have been told that the Government have made a great concession: they have accepted the Weatherill amendment. I am sorry, but I believe that the Government accepted the Weatherill amendment because it suited them to do so, whatever they have told us. It suited them for two reasons: first, it would enable them to get their business through; and, secondly, they realised that it would divide the opposition and so kill it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, this amendment reminds me of the time when I used to chair the Islington South and Finsbury Labour Party when on the management committee some people by a show of hands lost a Motion. They then decided to have a roll-call vote. When they lost that they decided that they must have a postal ballot. Until all the electorate had been consulted they were not willing to accept the obvious truth that they had lost.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the present Bill has arisen out of a manifesto commitment. They also said—and I did not agree with them—that Clause 2 had improved the Bill. Therefore, the Bill as previously approved by the electorate is new and improved. It will be strongly approved by this House and another place. I do not believe that after that procedure one should go through the arcane doctrine of expecting the public to take any interest just because we are being reformed.
Some noble Lords have said that if the public rediscovered how good we are, they will begin crying and gnashing their teeth and saying that we should stay here forever. In my view, sadly the opposite will happen. When one cares to ask the public what they think of us one discovers that it is not very much. They think that we in the House of Lords are asleep most of the time and that what we say is most obscure. I have always said that that is because this House lacks legitimacy and effectiveness and the Bill will make the House more legitimate and more effective. The sooner we pass this Bill, the sooner we shall be loved for our efficiency and not for the pomp.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, a short time ago the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speculated as to whether

159
this matter was causing any heat in the bar at White's. As a member, I can assure him that during Ascot week there is very little chance of that.
I wish to bring another issue to the attention of the House; it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The Bill was a government manifesto commitment and a couple of weeks ago we were treated to the amazing sight of the Government Front Bench leading the lobby in order to drive a coach and horses through their own manifesto commitment. We all understand the reasons for that, but the fact is that it is no longer a manifesto Bill and there is an element in this House—a maverick fringe—which believes that it now has a licence to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. Therefore, I suggest that the Government consider accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell because it would cut the ground from under that maverick fringe. I believe that the Government should think about it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying a few words about the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on the amount of publicity which the Government are giving to the issue of whether the Royal Commission is succeeding in enhancing the value of public debate. I congratulate the Royal Commission and my noble friend Lord Wakeham, first, on deciding to go outside London and, secondly, on having some hearings in public. Therefore, I am disturbed to hear from my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that there is a view that sometimes such hearings are undertaken in conditions of secrecy.
I am sure that the Government will say that they have no responsibility in this matter because it is up to the Royal Commission. That is fair enough as regards the Royal Commission. But as a matter of public policy, they have a responsibility to extend public debate. No doubt they will have seen, in the evidence given to the Royal Commission by the Conservative Party, that a strong case is made out for maximising the publicity surrounding the issue. We do so in order to ensure that the kind of House the country ends up with is the best possible, with the maximum authority and the widest public acceptance.
Turning to the amendment, I am pleased that my noble friend has simplified it in comparison with that tabled in Committee. The current amendment merely requires a referendum before the Act comes into force. No doubt that will remove the objection which the Government made to the Committee stage amendment: that it would cause delay. That amendment sought to delay any referendum until after the report of a joint committee on the findings of the Wakeham commission. This amendment does not do so. I believe that that is wise, although I believe that the Government should not have come forward with the Bill until they had heard the wise words of the Royal Commission.
However, there is one thing about the amendment which I regret. It is the omission of any requirement for a referendum to be conducted on the lines of the Neill recommendations. I do not believe that this House,
160
particularly as in the eyes of the Government it is to become more legitimate, should ever again pose a provision for a referendum which does not require the impartial rules laid out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill. Referendums are a dubious device at the best of times and they should not stand without proper safeguards.
I must also ask my noble friend what is meant by "the people of the United Kingdom". Would a simple majority of the electorate be enough? If fewer than 20 per cent of the electorate turned out, as happened in the recent European elections in the North-East, would my noble friend consider 50 per cent of that 19.6 per cent an adequate majority to abolish this House? How much fewer than 10 per cent of the electorate constitutes "the people of the United Kingdom"? I wonder whether my noble friend might not give the issue further thought if he decides to return once more to the charge on Third Reading.
Turning to the general thrust of the amendment, I agree with much of what my noble friend says. The House of Lords, this House, appears to be the only matter on which the Government are not prepared to entertain a referendum. We have had recent referendums on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. We are promised, although now with less enthusiasm, which is not surprising, referendums on proportional representation and the euro. Is this House, and the future of Parliament. any less important than those? Yet Parliament is being left out of the process of referendums.
I ask again the question I posed in Committee. What are the Government afraid of? Surely it cannot be the popularity of hereditary Peers. Perhaps it might be. Perhaps the Government are hearing the cry that I and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have heard; that no change is better than this change. Who was right over the issue of the disastrous closed lists in the European elections which caused the Government to fall flat on their face? Was it the House of Commons? No, it was this House which stood for democracy in those weeks and, whatever one's view on Europe, would that it had been heeded.
If my noble friend's amendment were carried today, I should not count on winning a referendum. But if the matter were ever put to the test, we might find that the public saw rather more sense in this House than the Government do. If asked to buy a pig in a poke policy, the policy of the wanton destruction of the old House, without spelling out any plan on how to create a new one, the public might be no more enthusiastic to trust the Government than they were last week on the matter of the euro. I would counsel the Government against counting their chickens on this matter.
I have also taken the trouble to look carefully at the debate on this issue in Committee. There the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in a typically rousing speech from the Liberal Democratic Benches, said that all amendments to this Bill were unnecessary. At that time, the noble Lord also said that he thought there would be a low turnout in a referendum. He has said very much the same today and that, therefore, a referendum should not be held. I thought then that it was curious reasoning and

161
I think it is again today. Has this reasoning turned the Liberal Party against the Welsh Assembly? Has it led them to question the validity of the European Parliament? I think not. In any case, when was a defeatist expectation of apathy an excuse for not trying? After all, have we not heard in recent days the Liberal Democratic leader, Mr Ashdown, excoriating the Prime Minister last week for not trying to combat apathy over the euro?
The whole Liberal Democratic case against this referendum, coming from a party that calls itself the party of consultation, openness, fairness and democracy, and so on, was riddled with inconsistency. It was peppered with an assumption that the people of this country do not care about their Parliament and that it can all be left to the politicians to sort out behind closed doors. Therefore, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, he may find that they do not echo the feeling of his Front Bench.
I turn to the arguments of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I find these even more surprising. They came down to two matters; that is, that the proposals were in their manifesto and the people, she said, have spoken precisely on this issue. That canard has been exploded by the poll taken by the pressure group, Common Sense for Lords Reform. It found that only 2 per cent of the public was aware that it had voted for such a thing. If only 2 per cent was aware, how have the people spoken precisely on this issue? If one believes they have spoken precisely, what fear is there in asking them to voice their opinion directly on the matter?
The noble Baroness was less than convincing in explaining why a referendum should not be held on a House of Parliament whereas it had to be held on an assembly for London. I may be romantic—I have sometimes been accused of that—but I happen to believe that this House is and should be rather more important than the London assembly. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the manifesto did not state that there would be a referendum on this House whereas, as she stated, the policy of the Labour Party has always been for a referendum on Scottish devolution. At that point my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained that "always" did not mean for a very long time.
I have said that there are certain flaws with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The definition of "the people" should be tightened. The question may need to be reviewed to express more simply the idea behind my noble friend's amendment; namely, that stage two should be clear and agreed before stage one is put into effect. We would have to weigh carefully whether, given the Government's resistance to any change in the Bill, we would be wise to put the referendum above any other of our priorities to improve the Bill.
As an Official Opposition, we have priorities. We wish, for instance, to contain the patronage available to the Prime Minister. We wish to require the replacement of the membership of the Weatherill 90 by by-elections, and we wish to ensure that there is an extra hurdle for
162
another place in asking this House for an extension to its life beyond five years. We shall return to these issues in the rest of Report stage.
My noble friend's amendment deserves rather more constructive response than it has received from those parties that claim to support the principle of referendums. I hope at this stage my noble friend will not press his amendment, for the technical and practical reasons I have given. I could not support him if he did so.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may briefly respond first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I believe that some of the same points were addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Although I have to say to both noble Lords that I am not entirely sure of their direct relevance to the amendments under discussion, they were points which the noble Lord had wished to raise.
Perhaps I may say to him, for the purposes of information, that I understand that the Royal Commission has taken a number of steps to publicise the public meetings it is holding in various places around the country, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I gather this has been reported widely in the local media, both on radio and television news programmes and in the local press. However, some meetings have been better attended than others. I understand from a conversation that I had with those responsible for the organisation that the reason for the variance is not immediately clear. However, I would say, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde suggested I would, that the detail of the organisation and, indeed, the policy of undertaking this kind of consultation, is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the commission, and it is not for Government to intervene. However, I hope that that is helpful on his initial inquiry.
We have had a lengthy debate today, both on the principles and practice of referendums, as indeed we did in Committee. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, feels that he has seriously argued this afternoon that the reason for returning to this subject is partly because he feels that the situation on a referendum has changed fundamentally since he originally proposed it. That was before the House, then in Committee on Amendment No. 31, considered what was then the Weatherill amendment and has now become Clause 2.
I have to say that I am inclined to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and other noble Lords who have contributed. Passing the Weatherill amendment, as it then was, by 352 to 32 in your Lordships' House has weakened rather than strengthened the case for the referendum, as both noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, clearly explained. I am also inclined to agree with their pessimistic predictions about the size of a poll in such a referendum.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has clearly taken note of some of the points which were made in gentle criticism of the referendum

163
amendment which he proposed in Committee. As he suggested in moving the amendment today, the new variation does not require the findings of the Royal Commission to be known, nor does it require the joint committee to have come to its conclusions before it is held. So, the delay which was inherent in the earlier amendment has, to some extent, been removed. That said, I am afraid the Government find the amendment still unacceptable. The problem that we have with it is the underlying principle. We were elected on the commitment to end the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House and we are honouring that commitment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his clear exposition of representative democracy and its implications in this particular argument. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for reinforcing those points with his vivid story of Hermann the Irascible, which was all, indeed, entirely relevant to the argument. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, with his typical, pithy comments on the responsibility and duty of government being to govern, seemed to me to put it at its shortest and sharpest.
Following this lead on the responsibility and duty of government to govern, I simply repeat what I said in Committee. The Government's position on a referendum is that when we feel that a referendum is required on any significant change, we will say so in advance in our election manifesto. We did this on the subject of devolution in Scotland and Wales and on the elected mayor for London, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out.
We did not propose this method on the Human Rights Bill, although as my noble friend Lady Gould said this was of very great, long-term importance. If I remember correctly, we did not face any concerted demands from your Lordships' House or anywhere else that a referendum should be held.
I would also gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already done so—as I pointed out in Committee, that he argued against a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty which could be regarded as of extreme constitutional significance, in precisely the same way as noble Lords have suggested is the Bill before us today.
Perhaps I may say to the House that the Government's attitude on referendums is not about the relative importance or otherwise of constitutional change but whether it is seen in policy terms to be relevant and necessary on a specific proposition. On the proposal regarding Scottish devolution, many points were of such detail that we were unable to include them in the manifesto. The Bill giving effect to the Scotland Act ran to over 100 clauses. I do not need to emphasise to your Lordships' House how the Government see the present Bill as simple and extremely clear, not to mention extremely short.
On the Scotland question, we published a comprehensive White Paper setting out the proposals in much more detail than we were able to do in the manifesto or during the election, and then we had a referendum.
164
However, the subject of reform of your Lordships' House is quite different. It is, as I say, a simple measure. The relevant passage in the election manifesto of 1997 is longer than the main clause, Clause 1 of this Bill. Our intentions were then clear and remain clear.
I would also suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the clause is technically deficient. It suffers from what he himself described during the debate on the Scottish and Welsh referendums as a lack of ground rules. It fails to make sufficient provision for the conduct of the referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde said, who is to be allowed to vote? Who are the people of the UK referred to in the amendment? As I recall, in the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was grateful for the amendment to the amendment he tabled which attempted to define the electorate as the majority of the parliamentary electorate in the United Kingdom.
There does not seem to be a sign of that particular stipulation which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, regarded as helpful, in the existing proposal, nor does this present amendment deal with the question of funding; nor does it say when the referendum would take place. I would suggest that acceptance of this amendment would, as my noble friend Lady Gould suggested, mean a new Bill which would be required to allow for the referendum. If there were a new Bill there would of course be new delay. Obviously, for those who cannot accept any reform, delay is to be encouraged, but I am glad to say that as I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that does not include the Opposition Front Bench. At least I think that is the case.
The Government, for their part, intend to proceed with this Bill without delay and I urge the House to reject this amendment should the noble Lord ask for the opinion of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both for and against the amendment. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not seek to reopen the argument at any great length because we have had a very full debate.
The amendment is commended in principle and has been redrafted to reduce it to principle so that details such as ground rules, funding, thresholds and so forth could be dealt with if this is approved in principle at a later stage on Third Reading. One of the reasons why the provisions were removed as to ground rules was to avoid any hint of pre-emption of the government legislation which is to produce, as I understand it, generic ground rules before too long. This is really put forward as a matter of principle.
There seem to be in essence but three main objections. One is that you cannot have it because you have got to sustain the position of those who made the deal. I do not think I ought to comment further on that save to say that it does not appear to me—and it may not appear to your Lordships—to be a very cogent reason for not having a referendum. The second is that if we have a referendum it will be, I thought the noble and learned Lord said but I accept that he meant will be represented as, Peers against the people. That is such a misrepresentation that I think

165
most of your Lordships would be prepared to accept that. It is a question of seeking to recognise the representations of the people in this House when they are not being recognised by the Government or by the majority in another place.
The third objection—this is the last one of substance (I was trying to take a note of the objections)—was, well, nobody is interested in this place. What on earth do we want to have a referendum for? The public will be bored with it. In any event there is no need to do it. I agree with noble Lords who say that a small turnout is not the point. The point is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and indeed my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that there is a need for a wider debate and the sooner it is had the better.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne when he said that it all comes down to a matter of judgment. I think that is right. My noble friend also said that this referendum process must be used with care. There again I agree with him. Where we disagree, a matter of judgment, is as to whether it should be used on this occasion or not for the reasons that have been given. On that matter I must seek the judgment of your Lordships' House.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No, 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 232.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Forbes, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gainford, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gormanston, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray, L.

Berners, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Biffen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blaker, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Blyth, L.

Hood, V.

Boardman, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brentford, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carew, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Chalfont, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

McConnell, L.

Coleridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cowley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Deedes, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Devon, E.

Monson, L.

Donegall, M.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dudley, E.

Morris, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Ellenborough, L

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Erroll, E.

Napier of Magdafla, L.

Exmouth, V.

Norrie, L.

Falmouth, V.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Fisher, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

166

Oxfuird, V.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinton, E.

Renwick, L.

Torrington, V.

Rodney, L.

Trenchard, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Waterford. M.

Sandford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wise, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Swansea, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Addington, L.

Dubs, L.

Ahmed, L.

Eatwell, L.

Aldington, L.

Erne, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Amos, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Freyberg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Geraint, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Attenborough, L.

Glanusk, L.

Avebury, L.

Glasgow, E.

Bach, L.

Glenamara, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goodhart, L.

Barnard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bath, M.

Grantchester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Blease, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Hamwee, B.

Bowness, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Bridges, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brightman, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brookman, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harrowby, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Haskel, L.

Burlison, L.

Hawke, L.

Burns, L.

Hayman, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Carlisle, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hoyle, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hughes, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chorley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hylton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Inchyra, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Colwyn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jacobs, L.

Cranborne, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Crawley, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Cromwell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Levy, L.

Desai, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dholakia, L.

Listowel, E.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dixon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

167

Lucas, L.

Russell, E.

Ludford, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

St Davids, V.

McIntosh of Hanngey, L. [Teller.]

St John of Bletso, L.

Sandberg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Serota, B.

McNally, L.

Sewel, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shannon, E.

Marlesford, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Marsh, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Meston, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Middleton, L.

Simon, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mishcon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Molloy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Monkswell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Strafford, E.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Strange, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Newby, L.

Tenby, V

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Teviot, L.

Nicol, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Ogmore, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Thornton B.

Onslow, E

Thurlow, L.

Orme, L.

Thurso, V.

Paul, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Tope, L.

Peston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Varley, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Vinson, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walpole, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Warner L.

Razzall, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Rea, L.

Weatherill, L.

Reay, L.

Whitty, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Wigram, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Winston, L.

Romney, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

London Underground
5.29 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I wish to repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place by my right honourable friend. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about London Underground.
"London Underground is part of the lifeblood of London, and indeed the whole country, carrying 850 million passengers each year. For too many years,
168
however, under different governments and even under the GLC, investment in the Underground had been inadequate to secure a modern, reliable Underground system.
"As I explained to the House last year, we inherited an investment backlog of £1.2 billion. We intend to modernise the Underground through a £7 billion public/private partnership which will bring long-term stability to the investment programme.
"Train and station services will continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground. However, in order to raise long-term finance, we will invite private companies to take responsibility for upgrading the infrastructure, including track, tunnels, signals, escalators and trains. This would be for a limited period only, after which the upgraded assets would return to the public sector.
"This means that for the first time in living memory London Transport will know what it can spend on investment for years to come. Until now, London Transport investment plans have been approved in theory for a three-year period; in practice, they were chopped and changed every year. I cannot over-estimate to the House the value of being able to plan ahead in this way and to secure greater productivity in the use of capital. It will mean the travelling public—and London Underground employees—will get more reliable, better quality investment, delivered far more efficiently and cost-effectively.
"Over the past year LT has been laying the foundations for the public/private partnership. We have restructured the LT Board with Sir Malcolm Bates as chairman, Denis Tunnicliffe as chief executive, and Derek Smith as managing director of the Underground. New board members with substantial financial and other experience will be announced shortly.
"London Underground is creating within itself three infrastructure companies as well as the operating company which will remain in the public sector throughout, and will be made properly accountable to Londoners through the new mayor.
"I am pleased to announce that London Transport is, today, inviting companies to pre-qualify as bidders to invest in the Underground. Bidders will need to demonstrate the right mix of professional and project management skills and to harness the finance needed to take the Tube into the 21st century.
"Some concern has been expressed about the time needed to get to this point. I can assure the House that we do not intend to repeat the mistakes made by the previous administration in planning the Jubilee line extension (now more than £1 billion over budget), the money wasted in British Rail privatisation, or the Channel tunnel rail link deal, which we had to rescue from financial collapse. We decided to take the time to get it right.
"In the autumn, selected bidders will be invited to submit tenders, based on the rigorous performance and payment system LT has devised. For passengers this will mean fewer delays, greater capacity and a

169
higher quality of service. The Health and Safety Commission have been fully involved because safety is, of course, a top priority.
"We are aware of considerable interest in the market so we have good reason to expect keenly priced bids. However, as I have made clear before. we will not contemplate deals being done if they do not offer best value to the taxpayer.
"For many years I have advocated linking the national railway with the Underground to make it easier for the public to travel to, from, within and across London.
"I have therefore decided to allow LT to explore with Railtrack the a way of linking the national rail network to sub-surface lines in a public/private partnership under which Railtrack would undertake and finance the maintenance and upgrading of the subsurface lines for London Underground—under contract to London Underground; and Railtrack would build links between the Underground and national rail lines.
"This 'London Link' plan opens up exciting new possibilities for integration between surface and Underground rail, providing fast new connections between all the major transport hubs, including London's five airports and the Channel tunnel rail link terminals. In particular, new services could run directly from Heathrow in the West into the City. There will be improved links from Brighton via London Gatwick and East London to North London and beyond. Once these are all in place, all five London airports, including Stansted, Luton and the City airport, will have direct rail links into and through London, all connecting with the Channel tunnel rail link. This plan will deliver a joined-up London—real integration for a world-class city.
"There has been considerable speculation about a possible Railtrack take-over of the Tube. That has never been part of our thinking. Unlike the party opposite, we reject the approach based on selling everything in sight quickly and then hoping for the best.
"Railtrack has confirmed and will announce that it will not be seeking to pre-qualify for the two deep-tube public/private partnership competitions. Let me make it clear that throughout the negotiations we will be imposing rigorous conditions. Railtrack will have to improve on its previous record, particularly on project management.
"The vast majority of London Transport staff serve the public well, often suffering the same frustrations with the ageing infrastructure that passengers experience. I would like to place on record our appreciation for their efforts; and I would like to reassure them of two things—first, that they will benefit more than most by having an upgraded system with a secure investment programme for years to come. Nothing could be worse for LT staff than to leave the Underground to rot. Secondly, I would reiterate the assurances which I gave them last year on employment rights, concessionary fares and pensions.
170
"People have welcomed the guarantees given to staff who transfer to a London Underground infrastructure company; but they ask what will happen to those who transfer to a sub-contractor. I can confirm today that the concessionary travel and pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff who subsequently transfer to a subcontractor, provided they remain in Tube work. We will take the necessary steps to ensure this.
"London is withstanding severe competitive pressure. We are determined that London should remain the premier city in Europe as we enter the new millennium. Investing in a world-class transport system is a vital element of these plans. We are already expanding the public transport network. By the end of 1999 London will have four major additions to its transport network—new Riverbus services, the full Jubilee Line extension, the Croydon Tramlink and the Docklands Light Railway extension. From next year, the mayor for London will be able to build a properly integrated transport strategy for London.
"At the end of the last century the London Underground was the world's first metropolitan railway. During this century, it enabled London to grow as a great capital city. Our aim as we enter the 21st century is to ensure London remains a global city, with a world-class transport system.
"Madam Speaker, the public/private partnership will bring £7 billion to modernise the Tube. It will get away from stop-go investment and improve the quality of service for passengers. By exploring the imaginative 'London Link' of through-running surface railways and sub-surface Tube lines, London can look forward to a genuinely joined up transport system—no less than Londoners deserve."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House is most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement on London Underground made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. I suspect that that is so if only because it gives some welcome relief from the intensity of the earlier debate.
After a two-year period of gestation, I must admit to feeling somewhat let down. Instead of witnessing the birth of a new dawn for London Transport and the Underground system, what we have is news that we can only hope will bring improvement to perhaps part of the system. The background of this Statement is that, under the previous government, investment in the Underground system as a whole was running at around £700 million per annum—£7 billion over a decade. The Government's announced programme of £7 billion is to take place over an undefined but possibly longer period. The people of London may feel that they have been short-changed.
It has been announced that the Government are to invite companies to pre-qualify as bidders to run the Underground in an autumn tender process that will

171
divide the system. That announcement then appears to go on to make it possible for a large section of the system to be placed under the control of Railtrack.
The Government in the persona of the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment and Transport and the Regions have been running a consistent campaign of vilification against Railtrack, and threatening ever-tightening regulations to bring them under control and reduce their profitability.
The Government have done that to such effect that shares in Railtrack have lost 25 per cent of their value over the last few months. Now, having had their capacity to raise capital diminished as a result of that lower share value, they are suddenly trusted, perhaps, to take over a large part of the Underground system without the apparent necessity of competing through a tender process.
That is a remarkable turnaround. The House is entitled to ask what has brought it about. While there is logic in the integration of Railtrack's system with the sub-surface parts of the Underground system wherever possible, there is no logic in simultaneously campaigning to diminish the economic viability of the preferred contractor. Will the Minister assure the House that that inconsistency will now stop and that the Government will work to ensure that those responsible for the running and improvement of the system will feel that the Government are allies rather than opponents?
The Statement itself does not mention the period of time involved in the possible arrangement with Railtrack. In today's Evening Standard—and it is funny that one has to obtain such information from a newspaper—the period is stated as being 30 years. Will the Minister either confirm that this figure is correct or give the appropriate duration of the arrangement?
Londoners will have rightly been concerned that the disintegration index for the Underground system coined in the Chantrey Vellacott survey as reported in the Evening Standard yesterday has worsened by 20 per cent since the Government came to power. The Government have ducked the issue of clear-cut privatisation for the Underground. They have instead favoured the public/private partnership route that we now see emerging from the smoke screens which have been clouding the atmosphere for so long. Londoners will welcome the clearing of the air, but in view of the past mixture of prevarication and obfuscation, they must be forgiven if they remain sceptical about the future of this system which is so vital to the well-being of the whole of their great community, as it carries so many of them to and from their daily work. Will the Minister give the House any clear information about the time scale for announcements determining the future of the remainder of the Underground system? Without such information, this Statement, while welcome, is incomplete. Londoners are entitled to know when they will be informed of the remainder of the necessary arrangements to secure the future of this essential service.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, nobody in this House underrates the importance of the London Underground system. Certainly, a Statement on its future was long overdue.
First, perhaps I may mention some aspects of the Statement which I welcome. The first is the proposal for links between London Underground lines and the surface rail lines to provide rail connections between all of London's airports and between all of them and central London and the CTRL. That will make a useful contribution as a substitute for road travel in those areas.
Secondly, we are pleased that Railtrack is not to take on the entire infrastructure of London Underground, as was rumoured originally. However, there were recent indications that that may not happen.
Thirdly, I welcome the reassurance offered by the Minister and his colleague in the House of Commons to the employees of London Underground. It is a period of great change for them. It must be hoped that they will be treated with good sense and encouraged to take a positive view of the changes which affect them. No one likes change and they need reassurance.
However, we regret, even now, that the Government have chosen the PPP route, albeit that it is far preferable to outright privatisation and total loss to the public sector of the assets involved. We should prefer some sort of public interest company. However, given that that is the Government's decision, I wonder what has been the reaction among government Members to the Tony Travers's articles which confirm what many of us had supposed for a long time; namely, that because it is more expensive to borrow money in the private than in the public sector, there must be a danger that financing public services from private money will mean an increase in fares—in other words, the cost to the user. Will fares be capped?
Secondly, Railtrack has apparently been allocated the near-surface level of the London Underground track to play with, thereby avoiding the problems inherent in modernising the deep-track lines—for example, the Piccadilly line. Are the Government confident that they can make Railtrack perform to its promises? Everyone knows that it is now facing about £20 million in fines arising from lower than promised performance in relation to rail services. Londoners will not forgive a government who allow similar back-sliding on the London Underground.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the Statement is defective with regard to any information about timing. With tenders being invited in the autumn, when do the Government expect the tender process to be completed? How does that fit in with the election of the mayor? When will the strategic thinking and planning for London transport by rail be in the hands of London's mayor? The noble Lord spoke about joined-up thinking. Will joined-up thinking and joined-up London begin before or after the election of the mayor?
I turn briefly to the competition for the two deep-level rail contracts. What criteria will the Government use to test bidders beyond their financial viability? What are the building blocks of what are called London

173
Underground's rigorous performance and payment systems? With breakdowns on the system every 16 minutes contributing to ever less satisfactory service levels, will minimum standards and levels be among those criteria? How will value for money be measured? Will a public sector comparator be used? What protection will be given to the property currently in London Underground's portfolio?
Perhaps I may recap my main areas of query. We are worried about the likely fare increases and we want to know whether they are to be capped. We want to know about the public sector comparator. We want to know about minimum passenger level services; and we want to know when the mayor will have an impact on the various negotiations.
We share the Government's stated ambitions for London. Like the people of London arid its visitors, we shall be watching to see what happens. By their acts, we shall judge them—and I do not mean Acts of Parliament.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for not entirely rejecting this proposition. They gave it a slightly cool welcome. Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is wrong to say that this is incomplete. It extends the whole concept of public transport within London. We are not merely talking about who owns, manages and invests in the London transport system as we have known it; we are talking about a new interface between the tube line and rail services in London. which will focus on the strategic development of that network and, in particular, provide a means of transfer through London, including from London's airports, terminals and the main Underground interchanges. It is a different and wholly more imaginative concept than one of straightforward privatisation; or, indeed, of going on running London Transport in the way that it has been run previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, accused us of inconsistency in our attitude to Railtrack. We are not inconsistent. We have a consistency of purpose here; namely, to make Railtrack perform. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, there have been problems in its performance on the rail network. There are serious inadequacies under the regime that we inherited in terms of enforcing performance standards on the railway side, both for Railtrack and for the operating companies that we are intent on addressing.
If we conclude a successful contract with Railtrack, as I believe we shall, it will be important for that contract to be tight and for it to hold Railtrack to performance standards. That will obviously be a matter of the most intense negotiations over the coming weeks. I cannot be absolutely precise on the questions about the final outcome of that contract which the noble Baroness asked towards the end of her remarks, but it will be a tight contract and it will be performance oriented. There is no inconsistency here; we are consistent in our aim of making Railtrack, and the other contributors to the public transport system of London, perform.
174
The noble Lord asked why we had ducked the issue of privatisation. The PPP is a much more imaginative and flexible system of financing public transport. It will provide not only the mobilisation of private capital but also the mobilisation of private sector expertise, together with a degree of stability in the investment pattern for London Transport, which it has long since missed.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness as to whether that means that the cost will be higher, the PFI projects that we have pursued indicate that the benefits in terms of both time-scale in meeting performance criteria and in improved management and productivity gains will be substantially higher to offset any additional cost of borrowing which the private sector may incur. Indeed, the ability to raise capital may make it easier in the private sector than in the public sector. I believe that we are right to choose the public/private partnership road here.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked about the timetable on the Railtrack element and with regard to other parts of the Underground network. As far as concerns Railtrack, we shall engage in negotiations immediately and we hope to conclude them as rapidly as possible. In regard to the other parts, we have now set up the structure for bidding. We have made it clear in the past that we shall not be rushed into giving specific dates and thereby being hamstrung by them. I believe that that was a problem encountered by the previous government with the rather tight political deadline that they managed to follow in order to rush through rail privatisation. We are not making the same mistake. I do not believe that it will be long before we can also make a decision on the other parts of the Underground network.
The noble Baroness asked whether the cost of this would be loaded on to fares and about the implications for fares. It is not expected that the cost of investment would be loaded on to fares; indeed, no decisions have been made so far on the actual fare levels in the immediate future. But the modelling on which decisions took place was based on the assumption that fares would increase by no more RPI plus 1 per cent in January 2000 and January 2001. Beyond that, I believe that the position will be stable.
London Transport is currently responsible for setting fares. Under the legislation which we considered earlier this week, the mayor will eventually assume that responsibility once elected. While talking about the mayor, and in response to the noble Baroness, I should point out that the mayor will be involved in the decisions about the running of London Transport, once he or she is elected, in the interim period before the PPP contracts are signed and before the Underground is passed to Transport for London and to the mayor. Railtrack will be working under contract to the London Underground which, via TfL, will be accountable to the mayor. It is therefore very important that the mayor should play a positive role in the later stages of the PPP competition. Amendments which the Government intend to bring forward on the GLA Bill will put London Transport and TfL under a duty to consult and co-operate during the interim period.

175
I believe that this is an important step forward and one which, it is to be hoped, will involve a detailed and tight contract to ensure the performance of Railtrack; but it will also extend the nature of the urban transport system within London in a very significant and important way to the benefit both of its inhabitants and the travellers to and from London.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may point out that he did not cover one question that I asked about the duration of the possible arrangement with Railtrack.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. My eyes strayed passed that question in my notes. As with the other public/private partnerships on the three different elements of the Underground, we have talked about a period of 25 to 30 years. Obviously, the precise period may well be subject to some degree of negotiation, depending on assessments of the funding. However, it is of the order of 30 years.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the intervention on the sub-surface routes as regards London Underground and Railtrack is long overdue. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on coming forward with this proposal. It will be of enormous benefit to Londoners. However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend something about the proposed investment and the £7 billion figure. Can he tell us whether it is a Railtrack-type definition of "investment"? On the national network it was said to be £27 billion over 10 years, but, when we looked at the smallprint, it turned out to be £6 billion of its investment, £4 billion from other people and the rest was put down to maintenance. How much of that sum will be actual new investment from Railtrack in this proposal for the sub-surface routes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the sub-surface mileage and the investment requirements amount to something slightly over one-third of the total network. Therefore, one could conclude that it is something over a third of the total £7 billion. Railtrack will raise some of that money itself, while some of it will be covered by the normal income on those routes which eventually come to Railtrack. It is of the order of about £2 billion of that £7 billion.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister, both of which, strangely enough, came from both Front Benches on this side of the House but which I do not believe were fully answered. First, can the Minister say why, despite the fact that there has been a sustained attack on Railtrack for the past two years, it is suddenly the acceptable and only body which should have this initial contract? We should know why Railtrack is suddenly all right.
Secondly, the Minister very kindly said—and I did not get this when I heard the Statement in the other place—that the mayor would be brought in for consultations in the second part of the agreement.
176
Everyone knows that it is the second part of the agreement that really matters; everyone is waiting to see what PPP actually means and what this Government will suggest. Can the Minister say how the Government will react if the mayor says, "This simply isn't a good enough deal for Londoners"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord, perhaps I may make a slight correction to my last comment to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I believe that the figure is nearer £3 billion than £2 billion; in other words, it is between the two, but nearer £3 billion.
As to Railtrack's credibility in this area, there have clearly been problems about its performance on the infrastructure of the national rail network. It has been important both that the Government have drawn attention to that publicly—indeed, it does not take the Government alone to draw attention to that—and that we have taken steps to try to improve its performance. We have to deal with a rail network which we inherited. Therefore, in practice, Railtrack is the main infrastructure owner of the national rail network. It is, of course, a clear front-runner for any interface between that network and a contract from London Underground to run the parts of the Underground system which would most easily be integrated with that network.
As I said earlier, the contract which London Underground will have with Railtrack will ensure adherence to the performance criteria which we shall set in the new regime. It is important to recognise that although Railtrack has failed in certain respects, it has a wealth of expertise which, if given its head, could deliver a modern, up-to-date and effective new rail system not just for London but for the country as a whole. There have been problems with project management within Railtrack which must now be dealt with.
I now turn to the question of the mayor. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, may be straining at the leash here as the mayor will not be involved in this matter in the early stages; I referred to the latter stages. We intend to put the PPP in place before we hand the Underground part of the system over to the mayor. In the latter stages, we shall consult closely with the mayor on PPP. I consider it unlikely that the mayor would disagree that the PPP is a major step forward for London in terms of the mobilisation of resources and expertise. I am sure that any mayoral candidate, and any actual mayor, would recognise that that process is a major advantage for London. I think it unlikely that the mayor would wish to dissociate himself from what I believe is a favourable step.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the early part of the Statement, which I warmly welcome, the Minister referred to London Transport as part of the lifeblood of London. It is a lifeline for many people who work in London but who live outside the London Transport area. I live in Loughton which is on the Central Line. It does not comprise part of the Greater London area. Loughton, Debden and Epping had no say whatsoever on whether a Greater London Authority

177
should be set up; nor on whether a mayor is appropriate. I support the establishment both of a Greater London Authority and of a mayor.
The people in my area are concerned at the following words which appear in the legislation. I refer to the words,
"in so far as they consider it necessary".
Are the Minister and his colleagues seized of the possibility that there could be many disgruntled people who work in London, but who live just outside the area we are discussing, who have not been consulted on what the mayor is able to do in this matter? We should bear in mind that these people, who pay their taxes and their rates, are entitled to a fair crack of the whip. They would not want to see services outside the main area neglected for any reason whatsoever.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Graham and to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I have always known that there are a number of disgruntled people in Essex! The mayor will he elected by the people of the GLA area. Nevertheless, the main function of the whole authority will be strategic. It is essential that the transport planning department of that authority takes into account the needs and interests of neighbouring authorities. It is important that the planning bodies of the GLA co-operate with the planning bodies outside its area, including the counties, to deliver a transport system for the South East and, in some cases, beyond.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I have three questions. First, as an aid to evaluation of the PPP, will the Government now publish the Price Waterhouse study which, it is rumoured, shows that a public interest company borrowing externally is the best deal? Secondly, will there he open competition for bidding for the other lines in future and if not, why not? Thirdly, as the Statement and the proposals concern lines including the District and Circle Lines, and therefore Westminster Underground Station, when is access from the Palace of Westminster to Westminster Underground Station likely to be improved, given that anything that we can do to encourage Members of both Houses to come here by public transport would be desirable?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I trust that Members of neither House need any additional encouragement to come here by public transport. The station at Westminster is being refurbished—that process has continued for some time—as part of the Jubilee Line extension. That will be completed by the end of the year. The station itself may be improved thereafter.
As I understand the position, it will be difficult for us to publish the whole of the Price Waterhouse study for reasons of confidentiality and so forth. We have already published a summary of the Price Waterhouse study. As regards the other two contracts for the Underground system, as I have indicated we are seeking bidders for both of those under a system of open competition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, did my noble friend note the observation of the noble Lord,
178
Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that he felt let down? However—this is much more relevant—is he aware that many Londoners feel let down by the failures and neglect of their transport system during virtually two decades of Tory government? Will my noble friend say something about the processes of integration that are to be undertaken between surface and underground transport systems, in particular with regard to the airports? Are the consultations to be dealt with on a comprehensive basis to enable the whole system to be seen as an integrated one? What form will those consultations take and when do the Government propose to embark on them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I would not put it quite so bluntly, I associate myself with my noble friend's view that there was a long period when Londoners felt acutely that their public transport needs had been neglected. The previous government belatedly recognised some of the problems, but that was far too late. We have ended up with an infrastructure of the totality of London Transport which will take a long time to sort out. However, we are determined to do that.
The Government are considering this matter in a totally integrated fashion both in terms of awarding the contracts and in terms of the structure which we seek to establish in Transport for London which will cover both the Underground and the buses. It will cover the strategic road network, the river service and many other aspects of the London Transport infrastructure. For the first time, those services will be considered together in a strategic assessment. That will, of course, need to have an interface with the airport authorities and the authorities outside London in terms of strategic planning. That process will begin as soon as the new institutions are in place. In the meantime, plans and options are being developed within the department in consultation with the operators.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. The first concerns the capacity of Railtrack to take on additional work. I think we are conscious that Railtrack has done some excellent work on track and stations. There are many good things to be said about what Railtrack has achieved. However, there is also a sense that Railtrack is struggling to fulfil its existing obligations. It is rightly under pressure to speed up the process of dealing with bottlenecks and pinch points and to provide additional capacity for freight traffic in particular. Is it reasonable or wise to add this additional burden? I think simply in terms of engineering capacity and managerial competence. Should a large amount of extra work be put on Railtrack at this stage? Is the Minister satisfied that it has the capacity to deal with it?
My second question concerns regulation. Can the Minister tell us whether the sub-surface track which is linked with the existing mainline system will be subject to the same kind of regulation, and, on this work, will Railtrack be subject to the strategic rail authority in the same way as the mainline system?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of Railtrack's capacity, we are confident that it can provide, develop and expand the necessary expertise to take over. It may have to acquire and demonstrate additional skills, particularly

179
in the project management and overall strategic management areas. If there are deficiencies in those areas they will become apparent during the negotiating period. However, I do not believe that to be so. By the time we have concluded a firm agreement with Railtrack I believe those doubts will have been removed. However, I cannot give an absolute assurance at this point. I believe that Railtrack is working on those matters.
As to the regulations which will apply, although Railtrack is one company it will be responsible for two different parts of the system. It will manage the part of the national rail system which comes into London on the one hand, and it will be managing on behalf of London Transport, under contract to London Underground and TFL, the part of the Underground system it takes over on the other. There will therefore be regulation under the Strategic Rail Authority, taking over the responsibilities of the franchising director and others, on the national rail side; and it will be under the GLA regulations and the power of the mayor on the other side. Of course, we are also building into the GLA Bill a co-operative structure between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority for rail services within, into and affecting the London area. There will be a squaring of the circle. However, it is true that the Underground will be under the mayor and the rail network will be under the Strategic Rail Authority.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for the Statement. Perhaps he can clarify two points. First, if there are to be any additional costs associated with the PPP arrangements, I understand from what my noble friend said that these would not be borne by passengers, subject to the ceiling of increases in fares of RPI plus 1 per cent. Can my noble friend give an assurance that the London taxpayers will not be asked to make up any difference, given that they already subsidise the rest of the country to the tune of many billions of pounds a year?
Secondly, I understand the desire not to give specific dates as to when certain things will happen—it would be improper to rush the negotiations—but can my noble friend give an assurance that the public will begin to see the benefit of the new arrangements before the end of the first term of the first mayor of London?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as concerns the burden on the London taxpayer, there is no implication in these arrangements. The whole objective of the arrangements is to ensure that there will not be an additional burden on the London taxpayer, as there would have been had we put the whole of the London Underground network under the direct control of the GLA. I can therefore give my noble friend the first assurance that he seeks.
As to the time-scale for improvements, a significant number of improvements will be visible during the first period of office of the mayor of London—that is, within the next five years. However, I must caution my noble friend that some of the benefits of this investment will take some considerable time. There will be an investment allocation of £7 billion over a period of 15 years for the Underground network. This contract will run for 25 to 30 years. We have a long backlog to make up. We inherited
180
a £1.2 billion backlog and it will take some time to make it up. However, I believe that we will see some improvement in the time-scale to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the radical approach—on which I congratulate the Government—is the right approach? There is no doubt that the London Underground is in many ways archaic. One obvious example is the Northern Line; another is that even today stored value tickets are not being sold to ordinary people who do not have season tickets or weekly tickets. One cannot buy stored tickets, a system which has been available elsewhere for 20 years.
I have considerable sympathy with the right reverend Prelate about the decision to negotiate with Railtrack. I was involved for five unhappy years with British Rail, and Railtrack still employs a number of its managers, many of whom are second rate people. Did the Government consider handing the matter over to Hong Kong MTR, which is superb? After all, Felixstowe docks now belong to Hong Kong; they are extremely well run and serve Britain very well indeed. Did not the Government consider anything a little more imaginative than bringing in Railtrack?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as concerns the ticketing system, if the noble Lord would care to go across to Westminster station—despite the unattractive report of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—he will see that, very recently, at the bottom of all the automatic machines there is one which says "Carnet". That provides for what I think the noble Lord means by "stored tickets". For decades it has been one of my main bugbears that London Underground has not provided that facility; at last we have it.
So far as concerns Railtrack, because of the benefits of integration with the national rail system the Government were right to explore fully the prospects of the sub-surface areas going to Railtrack and it being able to provide directly that degree of integration. We needed to explore those options first. I hope that we have very nearly come to an effective conclusion on that. Of course it is open to the Hong Kong railway and anyone else to bid for the other parts of the London Underground system.

House of Lords Bill
6.17 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Exclusion of hereditary peers]:
Lord Randall of St Budeaux Lord Randall of St Budeaux moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 59 and 62.
Perhaps I may first give a brief overview of the effect of the amendments and then explain my rationale for bringing them forward. I will give then a brief description of each amendment.
The principle upon which this group of amendments is based is that the heirs of hereditary Peers would lose their automatic right of becoming Members of the House of Lords. It means that all hereditary Peers would remain in the House until they die but they will not be succeeded by their heirs. In other words, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, the House will remain exactly as it is now. This approach does not countenance an instantaneous and arbitrary removal of a large proportion of the membership of the House.
However, to remain consistent with the Labour Party manifesto, it is necessary to introduce immediately fairer voting arrangements in the House of Lords. I believe it is unreasonable and not at all sensible that the Conservative Party should have in perpetuity a large, overwhelming majority over the Government, in this case the Labour Party. In my view, there is not a sound case for retaining this voting imbalance. My proposal therefore introduces a weighted voting system which puts the Conservative and Labour Parties, to all intents and purposes, on an equal footing, the independence of the House being maintained through the votes of all other Peers. To put it simply, all Peers would have the right to vote. Under the current membership figures of the House, the weighting would result in Government votes being multiplied by 2.7. That is all we need to do. Implementation is simple.
The principle on which my proposals are based is, first, to leave the membership of the House as it is at the moment but not to allow Peers who die to be succeeded by their heirs and, secondly, to multiply Labour votes, as Contents and Not-Contents, by 2.7. That is all that needs to be done for phase one reform of the House of Lords. What I have said is utterly consistent with the manifesto. Nothing more needs to be done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend's assertion that everything he says is consistent with the Labour manifesto. I do not know how hard he fought before 1st May 1997. I know how hard I did. I know the belief that after 90 years of travail a Labour government would immediately remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House. My noble friend's proposition allows hereditary Peers to continue to sit and vote in the House but the imbalance in voting strength is dealt with by increasing the value of a Labour vote. That may be an ingenious idea. but I should like my noble friend to explain a little further how he sees that to be consistent with the Labour manifesto and also to explain what he thinks the rest of us were fighting the election for.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I shall try to give my noble friend what I think is a fair answer. All along we have been discussing the removal of hereditary Peers, but we have not had one debate in the House on how we should go about it. Furthermore, there is nothing in the manifesto about the speed with which hereditary Peers should be removed. So there is consistency with the manifesto. The principle on which my proposals are based is not to replace hereditary Peers with their heirs and then to multiply the Labour vote by 2.7.
182
Perhaps I may explain why I have submitted these amendments. I shall do so by referring to two points of relevant Labour Party history, the party of which I have been a member for 35 years, and the party for which I have great affection. The first major reason for Lords reform arises from the poll tax defeat. I was in the House of Commons at the time and everyone was furious, including me. It was a huge public relations disaster for the House of Lords. As a consequence there is overwhelming support for properly balancing the voting in this House so that the Government can get their business through on a fair basis. The Labour Party felt that the only way to get that balance right was immediately to get rid of hereditary Peers, because hereditary Peers are predominantly Conservative. I believe that that view was erroneous.
My second point about Labour Party history—and we should be open about it—is that there is still in the Labour Party a tumbrel mentality. The Labour manifesto was written when Labour were in opposition, and there were, and still are, people in the Labour Party who, like Madame Defarge, wanted to see the elimination of hereditary Peers at all costs and as quickly as possible. Those elements of Labour Party history are at the heart of the Bill and will be seen as part of Labour's constitutional—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, will my noble friend give way?
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am not giving way. There is no "Order" at all. I will give way when I am ready.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am told that it is a custom of the House that I should give way. It is at my discretion when to give way and I will give way. However, that does not mean to say that one has to finish in the middle of one's sentence. I will be courteous and give way in a moment.
Those elements of Labour Party history are at the heart of the Bill and they will also be seen as part of Labour's constitutional reform package, which so far has been highly commendable. I give way.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend most sincerely. My noble friend gave two reasons for his proposal. I was waiting for the issue of democracy to arise. One of the reasons that the Labour Party wrote this into the manifesto concerned the position of the hereditary principle in a modern democracy. I was puzzled not to hear my noble friend say that because that is at the heart of what we are discussing.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I do believe that we live in a democracy and we have to respond to that. That is why everything I am saying is utterly consistent with the Labour Party manifesto.

183
Perhaps I may deal with the way in which the voting system will work. As a result of the Labour Party's submissions on this issue, I have swung away from the idea of having an elected House—I made that point at earlier stages of the Bill—towards the idea of the strong independence of the House.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I should now like to deal briefly with how this manifesto commitment was taken forward.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am most grateful. My noble friend said that what he is advocating is not inconsistent with the Labour Party's manifesto pledge in as much as the manifesto did not mention timing. The manifesto pledge to which the Labour Government are committed is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House. I understood my noble friend to say that he supports the views that the heirs and successors of hereditary Peers would not be allowed to sit and vote in the House. Does he not agree that there is some degree of inconsistency in that view? If the manifesto commitment had been, as my noble friend believes, that the heirs and successors of hereditary Peers should sit in the House, then the manifesto would have been framed in that way. But it was not framed in that way. It was precisely framed to say that the existing hereditary Peers could not sit and vote in this House.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, there is no mention in the manifesto of the rate at which one should get rid of hereditary Peers. It does not state that at all. However, with the passage of this Bill the process of removing hereditary Peers from this House will have started. I support the notion of the removal of hereditary Peers. There is no disagreement between my noble friend and myself on that point. All we are talking about is how we go about it. I propose that we go about it in a way that is in the interests of the House. That is the essence of my case.
Perhaps I may now examine briefly how the manifesto commitment was taken forward. There have been a number of serious deficiencies. At this stage I shall mention just two. I do not want merely to be negative, but, first, there has been no strategy on how the question of reform should be conducted. That is very serious. As a consequence, we have come up with a solution which—I believe the House will agree—is far from optimal. That invariably happens when there is not a strategy and agreed assumptions. Secondly, there has not been a working partnership between the House and the Government on reform. Therefore, there is no consensus across the House. I have always believed that the House had sufficient power to work in partnership.
Perhaps I may summarise my remarks in Committee on strategic objectives. They are central points and I want to place them on the record. In order to arrive at
184
a sensible and acceptable solution for phase-one reform, it was necessary to take account of the various conflicting interests; for example, the interests of the Government—first, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons if necessary—in drawing up a set of agreed objectives. I believe that they should take the following form. These are the seven strategic principles on which reform should be based.
First, the hereditary principle is not sustainable as a mechanism for automatically gaining membership of the House of Lords. Secondly, the passage of phase one of the legislation must not weaken the House of Lords by a large and arbitrary reduction in the number of Peers at a time when the House of Commons is weak and is failing to bring the executive to account. Thirdly, neither the Government nor the House of Lords should take an absolutist or rigid approach regarding the speed at which hereditary Peers leave the House of Lords. Instead, we should go for consensus. That means accepting that there are conflicting interests and that there must be compromise on all sides.
The fourth strategic point is that it is not sensible for one party to have a large overall majority in this House. That must be dealt with immediately by the Bill. The fifth point is that we must minimise the risks of reform by avoiding at all cost a Big Bang approach in removing hereditary Peers. Point six is that the Government, in formulating reform policy, should not treat our hereditary colleagues as if the Government were a bad Victorian employer. A number of hereditary Peers are hurting as a result of the way they have been treated. Finally, a solution to reform should be simple. Complexity does not help at all. That strategic approach results in the decision not to replace hereditary Peers, and the weighted voting solution emerges.
In taking forward the reforms, where do these amendments fit into phase one? First, there is the Weatherill amendment. The House voted for it. It is the will of the House and the details of the amendment are therefore not challengeable. But since there is no consensus, there is a case for adding an alternative solution to the Weatherill proposals in order to provide the House with a choice.
If there were, say, one or two proposals in addition to the Weatherill proposals, they should be considered at Third Reading and the preferred solution should be chosen by the House. There would then be a consensus in favour of a particular solution and that would then be respected. That would provide a basis for some kind of consensus across the House.
Perhaps I may conclude by speaking to the amendments that are before the House—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain one point? He thought that an alternative ought to be presented to the House. It was not clear whether he thought that it ought to be included in the Bill so that it can be presented to the other House, or considered at Third Reading and decided by this House. It would be helpful if he would explain.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, we could vote on these matters tonight but, if they were defeated,

185
that would be the end of the proposal. I have not yet decided how to react; I have not yet heard the debate. My inclination is to take the matter through to Third Reading, but I shall have to see how matters work out. I hope that that answers the question.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. They are very simple. They propose merely that hereditary Peers remain Members of this House until they die and that they will not be succeeded by their heirs—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend the statement in the Companion to the Standing Orders that noble Lords opening should keep within the 20 minutes normally allowed.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, speaking as a senior Back-Bencher on this side of the House, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Randall, as he has been interrupted on so many occasions. That is not the custom of this House.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, there seems to be a consensus in the House that I should continue and ignore that stifling of debate.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 propose that hereditary Peers remain Members of this House until they die and that they will not be succeeded by their heirs. From the report that I produced for Members of this House, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, it can he seen that after three Parliaments 50 per cent of hereditary Peers will have died. That amounts to about 400 Peers. The retention of a few hereditary Peers in this House has no strategic significance whatsoever. Perhaps the Front Bench can tell me now—I am prepared to give way—what strategic significance there would be in having a few remaining hereditary Peers. I give way now. There is no response—a Mme Defarge factor only perhaps.
I now turn to Amendment No. 59, which introduces the concept of weighted voting. Were we to keep the House as it is and not allow the heirs of hereditary Peers to succeed their fathers, it is vital to recognise that there must be a weighted voting system. The arithmetic of that voting system is shown on pages five and six of my report in the Library. Therefore, the essence is to have balanced voting which is fair so that the Government get their business and to retain the sense of independence of this House. I give way.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope that my intervention does not count as my contribution to the debate. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to Amendment No. 58, not Amendment No. 59.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I appreciate the advice. I am sure that the Clerk will confirm that. I see him nodding. The noble Lord is quite right.
186
What does it mean to have a fair balance of voting and to retain the sense of independence? It means that in practice the Tories and Labour would have equal numbers of votes. All one must do is multiply the Contents and Not-Contents on the Labour side by 2.7. The independence of the House would be maintained via the Cross-Benchers, Liberal Democrats and others.
Finally, in relation to Amendment No. 62, I accept that weighted voting is a new concept. However, it is a vital part of these proposals. Accordingly, Amendment No. 62 proposes the establishment of a commission to verify the weighting factors and assumptions that I have made. I do not think that it is right that one individual should do that; there should be verification. My purpose in introducing the commission is solely to enhance the confidence of your Lordships' House in the overall principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, as the amendment stands also in my name. When I came into this House I found it perfect. I liked and admired all the hereditary Peers and life Peers—Conservative Peers, Labour Peers, Cross-Bench Peers and even the Liberal Democrat Peers. It was a very happy place. With the introduction of this Bill, it has changed. I believe that if we support the noble Lord, who is also my noble friend, we can go back to that golden age. Of course, if we all lived for ever, it would be even nicer.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I am extremely glad to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I have some admiration for him as he battled against constant interruptions, particularly from his own side. He is a great friend of the House. I am also glad to be part of the cross-party support for Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, stated, it is important that the House should have an alternative to the Weatherill amendment to consider, as many like myself who supported it did so based on the view that there was nothing else on offer. Now there is. Overall, the great advantage of the noble Lord's proposal is that, in spite of worries by some Peers that it must be very complicated, it involves only a very simple piece of mathematics for it to be understood; and it is also easy to execute in the. Voting Lobbies.
I should like to address other concerns expressed in Committee. First, it is said that it departs from the principle of one man, one vote. The very reason it departs from that principle is to create greater balance in the voting strengths of the main parties. Although it leads to our party giving up its natural majority here, that cannot be a bad thing, especially when it gives the Cross-Benchers such an important role.
Secondly, some have criticised the weighted voting system because the weighted votes of the government party are now only just superior to those of the main opposition party. My noble friend Lord Jopling believed that the Government should have parity with all opposition parties. He was also worried that the Government's business might be overturned by the votes of the Cross Benches. This shows the impartiality of the voting system.

187
It is highly likely that under the Weatherill amendment there will be a caucus of hereditary Peers for some years to come. I believe that an alternative amendment which also allows some hereditary Peers to remain in this House for a limited period is not incompatible with what the Government have conceded under the Weatherill amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I oppose these amendments partly for the reason of consistency. My noble friend said that his arguments were fully consistent with the Labour Party manifesto. I remind him of two specific commitments in that manifesto: first, that the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute; and, secondly, that that would be the first stage in a process of reform. For my noble friend's amendment to come to fruition, something like 50 years would have to elapse. I do not believe that when the Labour Party wrote its manifesto it contemplated starting the second stage 50 years from now. I fail to understand how there can be any consistency in that. My noble friend said that it had nothing to do with speed. We are talking not about speed, but about a very extended timetable which was not part of the Labour Party's thinking when it put those two commitments in the manifesto. I should like my noble friend to answer the specific question: when will the second stage begin—I understand that it will be in about 50 years—and finish?
I also have a problem with the weighted voting system. I understand that my noble friend's motive in moving the amendment is to attempt to redress the political balance. How does his proposal to make this House a carbon copy of the House of Commons—he said that the government party should have a greater number—relate to another manifesto commitment that no political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords? That is another inconsistency.
I have other concerns about the weighted vote. I firmly believe that every Member of the House should be treated as equal. The only way to do that is to have an equality of votes. I do not accept that a system under which one Member has 2.7 votes and another has just one vote has anything to do with equality. If I were to be mischievous—this has been suggested to me—it would be very tempting for somebody perhaps with no political affiliation to go onto the Labour Benches and then vote in the Opposition Lobby, thus giving the Opposition 2.7 votes every time. The process becomes a little farcical. It would be extremely difficult to explain the imbalance in the voting system to people outside this House.
Another concern is that if a Government Peer went into the Opposition Lobby it would have to be recorded as 2.7 votes. The Clerks would then have the responsibility of identifying the political affiliations of those who had gone into each Lobby. That is something that we have never done, and I believe that it would be
188
very wrong. In reply to a similar question at Committee stage my noble friend said:
"All you would need to do is to find out how many government Peers were in the Contents Lobby and how many in the not-Contents Lobby, and multiply by 2.7. Lo and behold!"—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1143.]
That might be simple. I have no problem with the mathematics. I do not have the problem referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I understand the position, but I believe that it is unfair and ludicrous and would put the Clerks of the House in the difficult position of having to identify politically who has gone through each Lobby. I think that that would be unfair.
I wish to ask my noble friend a number of questions about the commission. Who will serve on it? Who will determine who serves on it? For how long will it sit? What will be its terms of reference? I am worried about the wording of the amendment which implies to me—I may misread it—that this House will have no say on whether or not to accept the recommendations. They will go straight into Standing Orders. That is not acceptable. This House should have the right to determine what does or does not go into Standing Orders. I have a problem with that amendment, too.
Finally, although the overwhelming acceptance by this House of the Weatherill amendment creates a disparity of numbers because there are more Conservative than Labour hereditary Peers, that can be dealt with easily by creations rather than what I believe will be interpreted as a complex and farcical system. Rather than returning at Third Reading with options, we should determine the issue today.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in general terms I supported the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, in Committee although I advocated a system of weighted voting whereby the government of the day would always be in a minority in this House in order to provide a permanent check on the executive. I made those comments then and do so again now in a totally apolitical sense. It is nothing to do with who happens to form the government of the day; it is a general issue. However, the noble Lord has now produced a proposal which will give effectively the balance of the vote, properly—I applaud it—to the Cross-Benchers, and the Liberal Democrats. I am not quite sure about the Liberal Democrats, but I endorse the view that the Cross-Benchers in this House have given enormous benefit to the House and should and would provide a useful check and balance on the powers of the executive. The proposal of the noble Lord does that extremely effectively.
I have one quarrel only. Perhaps I misread Amendment No. 58. Subsection (1) appears to me to be effectively contradicted by subsection (2). Subsection (1) states that the total number of votes to be cast belonging to the party of the Government shall be greater than the total number of votes of the Official Opposition. I agree with that. However, subsection (2) refers to,
"any vote cast by a member belonging to",
and so on; I shall not weary noble Lords by repeating all the amendment. That would depend on how many Members were on which side. I do not think that subsection (2) provides what the noble Lord intends.

189
However, that is a technicality. If the noble Lord wants to progress further with the amendment, he might want to consider subsection (2) of Amendment No. 58.
With that exception, I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I admire the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, because she says that she understands the proposal. In Committee, I said that I did not understand it. We are now discussing the issue again on Report and I find that I understand it no better.
We have to be sensible about this. We are changing the voting systems all over the place. In the old days we had first-past-the-post and everyone knew where they were. If you got more votes than someone else, you won. Then we talked about PR. That is completely different. Everyone says that it is a system; it is not. It is an umbrella for about 12 different systems, each one of which has a different answer. Scotland apparently has a system of first-past-the-post plus PR. If anyone understands how that works, they are lucky. Then we had the European Parliament elections which were also different.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, provides that we vote and then someone multiplies it by 2.7. If anyone understands how that works, why it works, or the purpose of it, they are better people than I am. I do not understand it. We keep talking about what the people of the country will think about the Bill. When they hear that certain noble Lords can go into the Lobbies and have their votes multiplied by 2.7, they will think that we have all gone barking mad—and I think that we shall have done.
Lord Desai: My Lords, there have always been two reasons for the present Bill. One is a matter of principle: that the Labour Party has been committed for 100 years to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. There is no doubt that those hereditary Peers are nice people. fine people, wise and useful. It is not a criticism of their character, contribution, nobility or anything else. If they return to this Chamber as life Peers, they will be perfectly welcome. But the principle of sitting in a legislative Chamber in an age of democracy on the ground of being the eldest son of a Peer is not acceptable. That is the simple point.
However, if having agreed on that principle, and being committed to it in the manifesto we then said, "We are going to do this, but it may take 50 years", the public would be somewhat upset. My noble friend Lord Whitty repeated a Statement on the London Underground. He could easily have said, "My Lords, it is in a terrible state. There are many old trains, but we shall not bring in new trains until the last train currently in existence is finally defunct". If we are going to change, let us change soon—now.
My noble friend does not like speed, efficiency or efficacy. He is sentimentally attached to these nice people. as I am, and he wants to delay the matter. I believe that that would deny fundamentally the principle of this legislation.
190
I have little difficulty about numbers. We could have a different number every day. We could come in in the morning and decide the appropriate number. But it would be completely wrong always to ensure that the Government had their way. That is against the spirit of this Chamber. I oppose the provision on that ground alone. I do not think that one should ever give the Government a guarantee that their legislation will go through. For that reason, let us say that the Government and the chief opposition party will not vote. That will meet my noble friend's proposal. Only the Cross-Benchers, the Liberal Democrats and the Bishops would vote. The position is absurd.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that part of the trouble with the interim House is that no one knows how long it will last. One of the advantages of the amendment is that it would last for a long time—indeed, longer than the five years which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has admitted the interim House might last.
When the noble Baroness asks how long the second stage will last, the precise answer is that no one knows. She worries about 2.7 votes being awarded to each Mumber of her own side, in case one noble Lord on the Benches opposite should be courageous enough to vote against his own side. I would say that that is a thoroughly good thing. If someone on the Benches opposite has the conviction and courage to vote against whatever the party policy of the day may be, I believe that it richly deserves a value of 2.7 votes. I see nothing wrong with that.
I am sorry to keep picking on the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, but she also says—and it is a theme which is running too widely through your Lordships' debate—that the overwhelming acceptance of the Weatherill amendment means that nothing can be done about it. At least 18 of us who had tabled amendments on this "unmarshalled" list of amendments to Weatherill were assured that if we withdrew them and Weatherill were accepted, that would be the opportunity to debate Weatherill. That was the point of doing it.
We are now told that as Weatherill has been overwhelmingly supported for all kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with the amendment, we cannot amend it. That is quite unacceptable. I ask the Minister to say that what the Government dislike in the powers of the hereditary peerage is the power to legislate. I suggest to the Minister that the power to legislate is contained almost entirely in the power to vote. That is why this amendment is so clean. It puts straight the Conservative preponderance in your Lordships' House. It puts the power to vote where it belongs, equally distributed among the political parties. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, it leaves the Cross-Benchers with the final say in most deliberations of your Lordships' House, which is exactly where it ought to be. As I said previously, if your Lordships' House could be entirely and genuinely Cross Bench, that would be very much in the interests of the nation. I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, only I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has got his amendment exactly right. However, we ought to encourage him in his work. It is meritorious, logical, effective and compassionate—all of which are good things. The noble Lord has been attacked on the grounds that what he is doing is against the principle; that is, the principle of the total removal of hereditary Peers from this House. He has been attacked on the grounds that it is not consistent with the manifesto and that it is delaying the abolition of the hereditary peerage beyond the effect of the immediate Bill. That principle, that consistency and that immediacy have all been breached with the sanction of the Government by the Weatherill amendment. Therefore, it seems to me that those arguments necessarily fall.
It has been suggested that the system is too difficult to understand—surprisingly, by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, among others. I do not doubt that in his youth my noble friend played Monopoly. If he casts his mind back he will remember that there is a great difference between the weighting of Park Lane and Fenchurch Street. What has happened is that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is suggesting that the Government Benches should have hotels on Park Lane and that we would be lucky to have Fenchurch Street and the waterworks.
As regards the difficulty that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, suggested the Clerks would have, the Clerks can read lists as well as we can and better—I suggest that they have had more practice—and the names of those voting would be printed in the appropriate blocks with the appropriate figure above. Therefore, there would be no difficulty with the arithmetic.
All that is academic in the present political situation. The homework which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has to do is not merely related to redrafting his amendment but the opinions of his noble friends in this House and crucially his right honourable and honourable friends in another place. There is futility in accepting an amendment that is doomed to failure in place of one which is already agreed. That is the decision that your Lordships would be making. I am interested to see even a tumbrelist on the Back Benches opposite nodding his head in agreement.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, put forward the amendment in the expectation, or at any rate the hope, that it would achieve consensus. Well, hope springs eternal in the breasts of Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, but whether it has survived the speeches from his side of the House I very much doubt. If it has, it is a very stout breast indeed, as we are prepared to concede.
One of the values of the amendment is that the contention between the noble Lord and those who have intervened from his side have concentrated on the manifesto. That is valuable because that difference of opinion throws light both on this Bill and on the ultimate stage. A few years ago in the 1970s, there was much
192
talk of a manifesto mandate, which of course was nonsense. It was treating a manifesto as though it had been a series of questions put in a referendum. It was no such thing. It did not survive at that time critical scrutiny, both parliamentary and legal.
Recently one has heard instead of a manifesto commitment. That phrase is often used to describe what is really meant; a manifesto mandate. Indeed, so experienced a constitutional lawyer as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he first intervened on the Bill, used the expression "manifesto commitment", but then slipped easily into a "manifest mandate". We have heard that over and over again. We heard it in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
The manifesto commitment does not bind Parliament. So long as there is parliamentary government, Parliament must counterbalance the executive. The executive may be bound by its commitment, but Parliament is not and cannot be if it is to do its job. But it will be said, and rightly, that Members of another place are bound by a manifesto commitment because in standing for election on a manifesto they have undertaken a personal commitment. That means that the Government will always get their way in the another place, provided that they can find authority in the manifesto. However, that merely accentuates the importance of your Lordships' House not being bound, as we are not bound, by any manifesto commitment. We are not bound ourselves, nor bound to concede it. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument of the manifesto commitment urges strongly the independence of your Lordships' House, even if it means that there should be a Conservative majority in your Lordships' House to counterbalance the Labour majority in the other place.
I desire to make only one other comment. The only common ground that I could discern between the noble Lord and his critics on his side is that all seem to be committed to the idea that the hereditary system of legislation cannot be justified. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for what he said earlier, I cannot accept that. It seems to me to be thoroughly sensible to pick from a genetic pool people who are not only born into that pool but who are brought up in an ambience of political culture. So, it is small wonder that over the years and, indeed, up to today, your Lordships' House has shown political wisdom and understanding.
The drawback, of course, is that that is not understood. There is an almost universal contempt just now for the hereditary principle; it is said that in a legislature it cannot be accepted. That means that your Lordships cannot exercise full power and conviction.
Nevertheless, I for one cannot accept a doctrine that is vindicated by the modern science of genetics and has a most distinguished philosophical background. If in no other respect your Lordships are platonic in that way. We should not be ashamed to stand for the hereditary principle and consider that it is valuable to counterbalance the democratic principle in the other place. All that one needs to say is that ultimately we are all democrats simply because those who are entrusted with power cannot be trusted not to abuse it. Therefore,

193
the Government are, in my respectful submission, quite right to say in their submission to the Royal Commission that the House of Commons must, in the end, prevail. But, that does not mean at all that the hereditary principle and your Lordships' place in this House cannot be justified. In my respectful submission, it can.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am tempted to speak in support of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, particularly about the mandate; but I wish to offer my general support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. It is in our knowledge that comparatively few hereditary Peers sit on the Labour Benches. The result is that a Labour government can get their business through this House only by political conventions which have arisen over the years to the extent that Labour only governs by leave of these Benches.
This arrangement works well enough, and has worked well enough in the past. Nothing in the debates on the Bill to date leads me to think that the interim House will work more fairly, efficiently or with greater legitimacy than the present House. Nevertheless, the weighted voting provision proposed by the noble Lord is intended to redress the balance and to give to a Labour government the same power in this House as a Conservative government have here when there is a Conservative government in the other place.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Onslow, whose long record as a Jacobin is well recorded, I am not, and do not profess to be, a reformer. Nevertheless, I accept the force of the argument that something must be done about the in-built political imbalance here. Because the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, achieve this, I am prepared to accept them. I would vote "Content" if he sought to divide the House on the matter.
However, the noble Lord should be aware, as I am sure he is, that these Benches are deeply divided on the basic principles behind his amendments. To realise this your Lordships have only to consider the comments of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (who is not in his place today) on the fourth day of Committee after the division on the Weatherill amendment. He spoke in answer to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rowallan which would have excepted from Clause 1 those hereditary Peers who are regular attenders. I would remind the House that the words of my noble friend were:
"the amendment that your Lordships have just passed will take on board, so to speak, almost all the hardest working Peers … So I must say to him that, while I understand his point and appreciate the hard work that many hereditaries have done"—
to that I say, "thank you very much"—
"I think that your Lordships' House has, so to speak, 'done its business' this very words] by the hereditaries in passing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill".—[Official Report. 11/5/99; col. 1142.]
It may be said that the cuckoo hatched in 1958 has well and truly landed in your Lordships' nest, at least in the form of my noble friend's remarks on that occasion.
194
I suspect, therefore, that in seeking to deal fairly with all and not just some hereditary Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, may be trying to achieve just a little too much; but his effort and goodwill deserve much support and I offer him mine.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches, agree so completely with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that l want to add literally just two sentences.
The first is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, whether, when he was thinking up his ingenious idea for weighted voting, he was inspired by the famous slogan from Animal Farm that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. The other sentence is to endorse, as strongly as I can, the plea from the noble Baroness that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, should tonight either trove his amendment or withdraw it permanently so that we do not have to go through this argument again at Third Reading.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, has returned to the question of his plan to introduce a system of voting which would allow hereditary Peers to stay in the House. He has done so with great courage and his amendment has much charm.
As I understand it, his collection of amendments sets out to achieve three things. Amendment No. 9 would keep in your Lordships' House, for life, all those hereditary Peers who were Members on the day that the Bill becomes law. Amendment No. 58 would bring in a weighted voting system; the weight of votes eligible to be cast for parties supporting the Government will be more than the votes eligible to be cast for the Official Opposition. Amendment No. 62 would establish a commission to report on how such a voting system might work.
To me, this seems a logical and coherent package; so logical that I suspect it has absolutely no chance whatever of being accepted by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, is being loyal to your Lordships' House and to its traditions by introducing this amendment. The Bill does so much damage to your Lordships' House. For that he should be praised, not criticised.
In Committee, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, the noble and learned Lord Falconer said, on 20th April 1999 at cols. 1149 and 1150 of Hansard, that no one could understand a weighted voting system such as he proposed. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is unfamiliar with the range of voting systems his party has introduced over the past 18 months.
Is it not odd for a government who have brought in so many new, experimental and differing voting systems, such as those in the European elections, the elections for Wales and Scotland, and indeed in the elections for London, to stop at a weighted voting system in your Lordships' House?

195
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, is not insisting on a specific proposal such as the one deplored by the noble and learned lord, Lord Falconer. Although he has put his ideas in the Library to show that his proposal would not be particularly complex, he has also asked for the creation of a commission to advise your Lordships' House on how his system might work.
The approach of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux— that the hereditary peerage be phased out, not forced out, while the sting of numbers is drawn by a revised voting system—goes with the grain of natural justice and, dare I say it, unfashionable though it now is in many quarters, fair play.
I do see that there are some practical difficulties with the proposal. These are not insurmountable; and his plans would prevent the upheaval and disruption to the work of your Lordships' House that the Bill will undoubtedly provoke. It may be that a specific voting system cannot be linked to the Bill at this stage; but, as your Lordships are fully aware, we are already, at the Government's insistence, putting great weight on standing orders. We have a paper on the Weatherill proposal for the Procedure Committee. Could we not invite the Clerks to look at the potential for progress on the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Randall?
Alternatively, the noble Lord's proposal of a commission would give us time to reach a consensus on the voting system. Is it too much to ask noble and noble and learned Lords on the Government Benches to engage in talks, in which we would be very happy to join, on the ideas of Lord Randall? We could give evidence constructively to a commission such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Would the Government agree to do the same?
At the same time, in its present form we could not support the amendment at this stage if moved before further talks, and we would not favour exchanging the certain provision in the Weatherill amendment for this, as yet unagreed, proposal. But, no doubt, if the Government were ever to withdraw the Weatherill amendment for one reason or another, this is one of the many routes which your Lordships' House might feel could be more fully explored.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, during this evening I have to reply to a number of differently grouped sets of amendments. It may be helpful if I indicate to your Lordships the way I am intending to proceed, which is to be guided firmly by what is set out in the Companion, namely, that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on report. That is a matter which I thought it might be helpful to indicate.
Certainly there have been some remarkable contributions to this debate. Your Lordships have claimed knowledge of what people think in the public houses throughout the land. Evidently your Lordships go to different public houses than I do. Perhaps it is the difference between the saloon bar and the public bar.
196
I find it quite extraordinary that it could be suggested that peasant caps are going to be thrown into the air on realisation that 2.7 votes will adhere and inure to particular Members of your Lordships' House. Or, if I pop into the saloon bar in the Salutation Arms in Nantgaredig and point out to them that they are really not quite full members of the genetic pool, that they are not themselves the happy blessed recipients of what they pronounce as "ambience" but what is in your Lordships' House correctly called the political ambience, I would be very promptly in receipt of a physical as well as a metaphorical thick ear.
Some of the phrases used tonight demonstrate how absolutely right we all were to get started urgently on reform of your Lordships' House. I quote two phrases almost at random: one is, "our Party's"—that is, the Conservative Party's—"natural majority". Another is, "The Government only govern by leave of these Benches". The temptation to sit down now is almost overwhelming. I have to tell your Lordships, because it was not entirely plain to me until the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, came to his last sentence, "but we shall feel unable to support it", that it seemed to me that he was in fact about to invite his colleagues on his Benches to come to a conclusion which I have to say is absolutely smack counter to the Weatherill proposals.
Your Lordships, as always, must come to your independent conclusions. But, in honour to the House, we have no doubt at all that if these amendments were passed they would be wholly opposite to the Weatherill compromise.
They split conveniently into two categories, as has rightly been indicated by the noble Lord who moved them. First, the continuation of the hereditary principle until the last hereditary Peer is dead. On our actuarial calculations, which in the nature of things must be speculative, and indeed may be unduly pessimistic, the last hereditary Peer is probably likely to die in 2068—I am not feeling too well myself. Contrary to the recent historical tour of the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and why it is against the hereditary principle, I do not read the Labour Party's objection to the hereditary principle as having been entirely temporarily coincident with the row about the poll tax. It would mean that about 200 years after serious disquiet had been raised about the continuation of the hereditary principle we should all be there—I beg your Lordships' pardon: one of us would be there on his deathbed in about 2068.
The weighting arrangements, and I am bound to say as so often in these matters that I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, are opaque to the point of not being understandable. They are a device to bring about another objective which is fundamentally not what the Government are minded to do. That does not dispose of the argument. It simply restates our absolute determination that the compromise is to have a life of a relatively short period in the context of the 200 years that I earlier mentioned; that is what we are adamant about.
I do not think it is courteous to your Lordships to reiterate any further the arguments that have been already deployed either by myself, the noble and learned

197
Lords the Lord Chancellor and Lord Falconer or the Leader of the House. Our position is quite plain. We cannot find these amendments or anything like them acceptable.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, first I refer to the Front Bench's comments before I go into the comments made by other Members of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for the Front Bench on the Conservative side, said that although he found it attractive in many ways he felt that there would have to be discussions on any proposals and that there could not be any support before further talks.
We ought to make it absolutely clear that the Government have taken a position, the Front Benches on both sides have got an agreement and there is a deal. We all need to recognise that. When those deals have been made there is a degree of intransigence and therefore Members of the Front Bench particularly have to see the thing through by hook or by crook. We understand that. We understand what the position is. Any move from the current deal is always quite hard to make. Nevertheless, I believe that if something is flawed it is my duty as a Back-Bencher to point it out.
My very good and noble friend Lord Williams on the Front Bench mentioned the continuation of hereditaries; in proportional terms the very small number who could be around for some time. What he said is absolutely true, but, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to the interest of the House, I cannot see any strategic significance for rooting out a very small number of people because they are hereditary. The question of not being able to understand the weighting has come up a few times. I am beginning to feel that just multiplying numbers together is not that difficult.
But let me go back to the beginning. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Lord, Lord. Northbrook, for their kind comments. My noble friend Lady Gould made some interesting points in relation to the manifesto. I sought legal advice on the whole question of the right to sit and vote being ended. That legal advice was to the effect that the whole matter is very open. The initiation of the termination of membership of the House of Lords would be perfectly legitimate within the context of the manifesto. My noble friend also made strong comments in regard to a number of hereditaries remaining here. I cannot see the strategic significance of that.
In relation to the weighted voting and the misunderstandings that arose in that regard, my noble friend quoted out-of-date figures that were considered earlier on. Also, she implied that there may be covert Members of this House who might wish to move to the other side in order to obtain 2.7 votes. I am not sure about that. The other point made by my noble friend Lady Gould concerned the recording and the Clerks. Again, this is extremely detailed stuff but perhaps I should go through it.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, in that case I shall go through it. All one has is the form outside
198
and where one is a member of the Labour Party, we move it over by about 1.5 centimetres. All that happens is that the names are ticked off in the usual way; we add up the bottom row and then look up a table which converts 322 to 256. It is as simple as that and takes around four or five seconds. So there would be no change in procedure for Peers. We would not need computers or anything. It is extremely simple to add up the figures by just shuffling around the design of the forms for both Lobbies.
My noble friend asked some interesting questions in relation to the commission. They will need answering. I did not think it would be necessary at this stage to say who sits and what the terms of reference would be. But it would be for the purposes of validation only and they would probably complete their work in around half a day. Nevertheless my noble friend made some good suggestions and I shall make sure that they are dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made some good suggestions in terms of the interpretation of Clause 58. Again, I shall look at that and take advice. I did not understand the point being made by my noble friend Lord Desai. Again, I believe his concern was that he wanted to see hereditaries go in one big bang. I cannot see the justification for that. If one does a simple analysis of it, then there could be significant losses of people who are competent. I did not distinguish between hereditary and life Peers.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Elton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for their comments. The point they were making was that the Front Benchers on this side have a job to do; they have to deliver Weatherill come what may, because of the agreement between the two Front Benches and the deal that was made. The probability that I will get anything through with that weight against me is highly unlikely. On the other hand, I am going to keep going until the very end, in case the Weatherill amendment is wiped out for some reason. That will leave an option open. I hope the Government will look at it and consider discussing the matter further with the other side with a view to providing more than one option, so that the House can choose. This is an opportunity, and to shut it down and say, "We are not going to have any further discussion on alternative options' would be short-sighted. My advice would be at least to give this approach fair consideration for the benefit of this House, and also for the benefit of this Government.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content''.
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that we reconvene not before 8.35 p.m?
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
7.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £4,282 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. That is in addition to the sum of £3,120 million voted on account in March and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £7,402 million.
We are providing for substantially increased spending in key priority areas in line with our manifesto pledges. The two major beneficiaries are health and education with additions of £616 million and £588 million respectively over the three-year period beginning this year. Other key areas with spending increases include the New Deal for the unemployed, water and sewerage and transport infrastructure.
As noble Lords may recall, Parliament voted to approve sums on account for 1999–2000 to meet the expenditure needs of Northern Ireland departments as part of the normal Northern Ireland appropriation procedures which took place in February and March 1999. The appropriation order itself was then made at the March Privy Council. We had hoped that devolution would have taken place in March or April of this year and the Assembly would therefore complete the appropriation of the 1999–2000 main estimates. However, with the delay in devolution it now seems unlikely that the Assembly will be able to pass an appropriation Bill before the Summer Recess, even if agreement on the timing of full devolution is reached quickly. We have therefore decided that it would be appropriate to seek approval for the main estimates for 1999–2000 from Parliament. This will safeguard the continuity of key public services including the health service, social security, education, economic development, agriculture, environment and so forth. If appropriation was left until after the Assembly's summer recess, there is a risk that some of these services could begin to run out of money. After devolution, the Assembly will of course be responsible for approving all further appropriations for devolved services, including any supplementary estimates for 1999–2000 based on the recommendations of the Executive Committee.
This order covers the services of the Northern Ireland departments which, despite the ongoing political difficulties, we hope will shortly become the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and
200
Assembly. I remind your Lordships that the order does not cover the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services. As a Whitehall department, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office are dealt with separately. However, until powers are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, the public expenditure decisions underlying the estimates for both the Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office will continue to form part of the Northern Ireland block allocation. As such the Secretary of State has flexibility to reallocate resources within the block in light of emerging pressures and easements. After devolution the Secretary of State's flexibility will only cover the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly will then have flexibility to reallocate resources among the devolved services.
I am sure your Lordships will join with me in recognising the possibilities for truly momentous change flowing from the establishment of the Assembly and will share with me in the desire to do everything possible to ensure its success. Indeed, given the present difficult circumstances in the Province, I am sure your Lordships will agree that all those who can bring influence to bear in resolving the present situation, should be encouraged to do so.
Following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, an estimate of some £14 million was set for the Assembly for 1999–2000. However, it is accepted that following devolution additional provision will need to be made for the costs of the Assembly. My right honourable friend, the Minister of State, Paul Murphy, is discussing this matter with the Assembly Commission. He will be in a position to provide more information when he is introducing the draft appropriation order in another place.
I know that your Lordships continue to take a close interest in the prospects for economic development in Northern Ireland and I should therefore like to say a few words about the local economic situation before turning to the contents of the estimates. The latest available official statistics show that the Northern Ireland economy remains in good health in almost every area. The main economic indicators have, once again, shown very positive results for the Province.
The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved nationally. Over the past four years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 12 per cent compared with growth of just 0.5 per cent achieved nationally. There has also been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom, with GDP per head rising from 76.9 per cent of the national average in 1990 to 80.4 per cent by 1997.
At December 1998 the number of employee jobs stood at 609,480—the highest figure on record. This is reflected in the International Labour Organisation's unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent for the period January to March 1999. This means that unemployment in Northern Ireland is now lower than five other UK

201
Government regions (Scotland, Wales, Merseyside, London and the North-East) and a significant 2.4 per cent below the EU average of 9.6 per cent, with major economies such as France, Germany and Italy recording unemployment rates of 11.4 per cent, 9 per cent and 12 per cent respectively. In addition, falls in the numbers of both long-term and youth unemployment are particularly encouraging.
Also 1998–99 has been a good year for investment in the Province. During 1998–99, 49 IDB-supported projects have been announced by companies already established in Northern Ireland, promoting 2,777 new jobs while safeguarding a further 2,817 existing jobs. Over the same period, 21 IDB-backed inward investment projects have been announced, promoting 2,657 new jobs.
Of course, the difficulties surrounding Drumcree last July and the July before have not helped because they possibly deter inward investors and everybody must hope that an accommodation will be reached there before the beginning of the marching season next month.
All of this clearly demonstrates the impressive achievements of the Northern Ireland economy which, coupled with the potential for achieving political stability, provides Northern Ireland with an opportunity for a brighter economic future.
If, as we all hope, devolution of power to local representatives takes place in the very near future, the six main Northern Ireland departments will undergo significant restructuring to form a new 10 department structure, along with the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As this will involve the transfer of many services between departments, as an aid to presentation the 1999–2000 main estimates votes have been numbered from one to 26, with the existing department names removed from the vote. I now turn to the main items of expenditure covered by the order as detailed in the estimates booklet. I will refer to votes in line with the revised vote numbering. Figures are generally rounded to the nearest million pounds and I shall be as brief as possible to allow maximum time for debate or questions. I shall start with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, net provision of £17 million is to fund EU and national agricultural support measures.
In Vote 2, £153 million is for ongoing regional services and support measures. This includes £70 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £20 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, and fisheries and forestry services. Some £18 million is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £8 million is for the rural development programme. Then £18 million is for the Rivers Agency and £10 million is in respect of processing and marketing, fishing projects and structural funds which are wholly funded by the European Union. This vote also contains provision of £9 million in respect of the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme, which incorporates agriculture, rural and water-based projects.
I now turn to the three votes for the Department of Economic Development, where in Vote 3 £153 million is for the Industrial Development Board. The Belfast Agreement, with the prospect of greater political stability, provides a unique opportunity for attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. This major commitment of resources will enable IDB to offer very competitive packages of assistance to both new and existing firms and will build on the IDB's excellent performance in 1988–99.
In Vote 4, £145 million is required. This includes £15 million for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to assist the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. Again the prospect of peace opens up opportunities for promoting Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. In 1998, 1.47 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, an increase of 4 per cent on the previous year. It is anticipated that in 1999, visitor numbers will increase again by 4 per cent to 1.53 million. This aptly demonstrates the potential that exists for attracting tourists and increasing the contribution the tourist industry can make to the economy. At present spending by holiday visitors and domestic holidaymakers accounts for 2 per cent of Northern Ireland's GDP, sustaining in the region of 14,750 jobs. If this could be increased to the levels attained in the Republic of Ireland, currently around 5 per cent., there is the potential to create a further 20,000 jobs.
In Vote 5, £265 million is sought for the Training and Employment Agency and £72 million under the Government's welfare to work initiative will provide 25,000 places in a range of employment and training measures mainly within the New Deals for 18 to 24 year-olds and long-term unemployed. This is a significant increase from some 15,000 places in 1998–99. Employers in Northern Ireland have reacted enthusiastically to the New Deal and to date almost 3,000 have signed agreements to deliver the employment option. Some £61 million is to fund 11,500 training places under the Jobskills Training Programme. A total of £22 million is for other training programmes which will provide some 3,300 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. A further £17 million is to assist companies to improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their workforce.
Turning to the Department of the Environment which has five votes numbered 7 to 11, Vote 7 seeks £204 million for roads, transports and ports. This includes £147 million for the development and operation, as well as the maintenance of Northern Ireland's public roads system. Some £20 million is for road passenger services and almost £13 million for continued support of railway services.
Vote 8 relates to housing, where some £266 million will be provided, mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rental income and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be approximately

203
£605 million. Gross resources for the voluntary housing sector, taking into account some £40 million of private funding, will be around £110 million.
In Vote 9, gross expenditure of £209 million is estimated on the provision of water and sewerage services, of which £90 million is for capital expenditure and £115 million for operational and maintenance purposes, including administration costs. That vote reflects also a recent technical change in presentation. Previously that vote was shown net of a contribution from the regional rate. Now, however, those receipts are not being included and the net overall amount is therefore that much higher.
That technical change will have no effect on the level of activity in water services. We are providing an additional £84 million for water and sewerage over the next three years. That substantial additional provision is needed to put right many years of under-funding in that vital area. We are fully committed to addressing the requirements arising from EU directives and to provide the highest standards in public health.
In Vote 10, £222 million is being sought for environmental and other services provided by a number of agencies, including the Environment and Heritage Service, the Planning Service, the Construction Service and the Rate Collection Agency. Moreover, £30 million will be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need through various urban regeneration measures and £31 million will be made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme, of which £23 million will be funded from EU receipts.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a net total £1,536 million in Vote 12, an increase of 6 per cent on last year's provision. That includes £882 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, of which £1 million is provided under the Government's New Deal. That comprises £818 million for schools and £64 million for libraries, youth administration and other services.
Vote 12 also provides £48 million for boards' capital projects; £65 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools; and £163 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools. That amount includes £28 million recurrent expenditure for grant-maintained integrated schools, an increase of £5 million over 1998–99. The provision for boards' and other schools' capital includes some £6 million under the Government's New Deal.
Also in Vote 12, £110 million has been provided for colleges of further education, £125 million for local universities and £128 million for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £17 million for arts and museums, £5 million for the Odyssey Millennium Landmark Project and £4 million for community relations. Some £13 million has also been made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme.
The next set of six votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services where £1,666 million is sought in Vote 14 for expenditure on hospitals, community health and personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services.
In Vote 16, £33 million is sought for expenditure on grants to voluntary bodies, training, bursaries and further education and certain other services.
In Vote 17, £146 million is sought to meet the department's administration and other miscellaneous costs. That includes £96 million for the Social Security Agency which also takes into account £3 million in respect of administering the Welfare to Work initiatives. Some £8 million is for the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency; £4 million for the Health Estates Agency and £37 million for the core department.
In Vote 18, £1,811 million is sought for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 7.3 per cent compared with forecast outturn for last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1999 but also an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In Vote 19, £373 million is sought to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, motability, housing benefits and the Social Fund, including substantially increased provision for winter fuel payments and payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
Finally, I turn to the new Northern Ireland Assembly vote where, as I have already advised, £14 million is sought to cover the initial costs of the Assembly in this financial year.
I hope that that short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order and accept the need for it. I also welcome in particular his announcement of the discussions taking place concerning the funding of the Assembly. The Minister will no doubt be taking action in due course and we look forward to responding more fully at that time.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise for being a couple of minutes late for the Minister's opening remarks. I was taken by surprise because the amendment which seemed to be debated for such a long time did not end in a vote. I have not contributed to the debate on Lords reform and that is probably why I made such a mistake.
The Minister will not be surprised that we welcome the extremely positive note which was struck in relation to the extra money provided in the order for education; namely, a further 6 per cent. I welcome too the positive news as regards the employment statistics which will go a long way towards increasing the future prosperity of Northern Ireland.

205
I have only one question on the order. It relates to the cost of the Assembly. The Minister stated that his honourable friend in another place will be dealing with that issue. However, we raised that matter on the last Appropriation Order because there seemed to be some difference between the Assembly's figure of £ million for its running costs and the £14 million which was put aside by the Government. The monthly expenditure of the shadow Assembly is running at £1.2 million. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the full Assembly could survive on a mere £14 million because that is what is roughly being spent at present. That has been highlighted also because the Scottish Parliament has produced very different figures for its running costs.
The Minister said that an accommodation is to be reached. It was envisaged, but unfortunately has not come to pass, that the Assembly would be up and running by June. Had that been so, there would have been some difficulty in relation to working within those figures. However, the Minister assured us that the situation is under control and is in hand. Therefore, I support the order.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I suppose that the drafting of the order in its present form is a sign of the times. Although the votes are numbered, they do not appear at first sight to relate to the Northern Ireland departments as we know them. Judging from the Minister's introduction, perhaps we may assume that that is because of the restructuring of the departments to provide justification for the appointment of up to a dozen Ministers. That implies that they will not work as hard as the noble Lord and his colleagues have done. They have had a much heavier load.
One disadvantage of the present layout is that although the votes cover a multitude of matters, apart from the welcome tally which the Minister gave of the amounts expended on each of the items, all we have in printed form is a collection of sentences. However, I do not complain because I expect that this is a one-off.
However, in this short debate, I wish to concentrate on only one department; namely, the Department of Finance and Personnel. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanatory letter of 3rd June. It is understandable that there is a problem caused by the fact that devolution has been delayed, and I accept entirely what the Minister said in that regard. Although the allocations to the Northern Ireland departments appear to follow the normal course, based, as they are, on the Northern Ireland main estimates, the uncertainty exists in relation to the new Northern Ireland Assembly. That has led to difficulty with regard to the provision of expenses of the Assembly for 1999–2000.
Hitherto, the estimates included a very modest vote to, for example, the Clerk of the Assembly. That has gone on for a quarter of a century, irrespective of the fact that no assembly existed, so at least someone is going to be made an honest man from now on as a result of the changes. But now there is a possibility of an assembly in that it may come into being—and I put it no higher than that—and the Department of Finance and
206
Personnel has budgeted for a sum of £14.3 million for the year 1999–2000—based, I suppose, on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The first difficulty is that the £14.3 million was extrapolated from 1998–99 shadow Budget with an uplift of round about 1.53 per cent, again, probably in line with Treasury figures for the UK. I do not complain about that modest percentage increase, but it brings me to a second problem which has nothing to do with the increased expenditure but everything to do with taking no account of the increases which were implicit in, and made inevitable by, the legislation in your Lordships' House which established the Assembly. That inevitable expenditure falls under what might be termed "under-estimated expenditure".
Under-estimates in the DFP figures account for most of the discrepancies between its estimates and those of the Assembly Commission and amount to around £17 million, of which the following are the most significant: secretarial staff salaries for 400 staff, £5.4 million; printing, publishing, and the rest of it, £3.9 million; committee costs, including travelling, which has not yet been estimated; subsistence, specialist advisers and Parliamentary Association duties, £2.4 million; Members' allowances, including office costs allowance, party allowance, temporary secretarial allowance, £1.2 million; Members' travel and subsistence, including staff and family concessionary travel, £1.4 million; IT costs—I am not quite sure what that is—£1.1 million; Members' salaries, of which -we would have some knowledge, come to £700,00 million; Library acquisitions and purchases of publications amount to £300,000, and stationery costs amount to £200,000. That makes a total of £16.6 million.
I turn now to the third discrepancy and cause for concern, which is the entire absence of provision under different headings. While the under-estimation to which I have just referred amounts to some £17 million—that is, the discrepancy between the DFP and the Assembly projections—the remaining £5.5 million is mainly attributable to the following expenditure areas, which, for some extraordinary reason, have been unforeseen by the DFP. They include Members' pensions at £1,350,000 and Parliament building running costs, including heat, light, rates, rental and outbuildings. I should have thought that someone would have had the foresight to come to the conclusion that such bills had to be paid. In total, they come to £780,000.
Then there is another curious area; namely, works to Parliament buildings (including maintenance, grounds maintenance, repairs, improvements, architects, and so on) which amount to £750,000. There is also catering (together with cleaning) which comes to over half a million pounds; furniture which amounts to half a million pounds and then another curious one—miscellaneous Westminster-style provision for Members (including insurance, winding-up allowance, resettlement grants, ill-health, and retirement grants)—which amounts to a quarter of a million pounds. That is followed by some relatively more modest publicity and educational material, specifying who is going to be

207
educated, which amounts to £100,000. There is also the cost of legal counsel at £100,000 and childcare at £25,000. All that makes a total of £4.4 million.
As I said, these are expenditure areas which are apparently unforeseen by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Taken together, the discrepancies between the DFP and the Assembly estimates for the year 1999–2000 of some £22.6 million can be accounted for as follows, under three brief headings. The department's estimate is £14.3 million. Under-estimates stand at £17 million and lack of provision for any allocation stands at £4.4 million, making a total of £35.7 million—nearly £36 million.
I have not included the considerable amounts which will surface as a result of decisions already taken in principle by the Northern Ireland Office and by the Assembly itself: additional recommendations in regard to Members and office holders; additional salaries of office holders who are designated; sound and vision contracts—greatly inflated by decision of the Assembly, not of the Government, to use English and Irish languages thereby doubling Hansard costs compared to those in Westminster—and proposed charges by the Department of Finance and Personnel; for example, charging a fee to the Assembly for recruitment, which is not as yet specified. There we have a whole range of expenditure actually approved, or committed, in addition to the £36 million that I have already mentioned.
The Minister was very frank and honest when he explained that the order before us is something of a holding operation—we can quite understand that—which does not breach the Comprehensive Spending Review but is in line with all the other main estimates. I do not intend to press the noble Lord for a definitive response this evening to these complicated matters. But I wonder whether it might be possible for the Minister to consult with his ministerial colleague Mr Murphy, who is in charge of the Department of Finance and who will be submitting this order to the other place next week. Perhaps the two Ministers could seek to reduce the gap between £14 million and £36 million before the other place debates this unsatisfactory situation next week.
In his opening speech the Minister gave a hint that the Government might be giving some thought to that very wide financial gap. I am not demanding that the gap be closed in the short period of one week in view of the fact that some items cannot easily be quantified. But is it unreasonable to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and his ministerial colleague Mr Murphy might compare the estimates of the department—which is Treasury linked—with the estimates of the Northern Ireland Assembly commissioners and, it is to be hoped, reach an agreement, albeit a modest one, on a more realistic presentation before next Monday?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise reluctantly to explain some of the deplorable consequences of the current change from ACE (Action for Community Employment) to "New Deal", being the somewhat Rooseveltian term borrowed by this Government for their latest proposals. As some of your Lordships may
208
know, I have the honour to be president of NIACRO. This voluntary organisation, together with Exturn, has for many years been providing training workshops for ex-offenders and others at risk of falling into crime. These workshops have often produced wooden play equipment, which is used by play groups and infant classes throughout Northern Ireland.
Over the years, most of our clients have been referred by the Probation Board. The work and instruction in the workshops have been specially designed for people who have not done well at school and who do not have high level manual skills. Dedicated teams of managers and instructors have been built up, willing to work with difficult people, some of whom need a period of sheltered employment if they are to lead crime free lives.
There has already been a year's notice of the change from one system to another. Both the organisations that I mentioned, with strong support from the Probation Board, have been moving heaven and earth to adapt the new system to the needs of our clients. The matter has been discussed with the Training and Education Authority and taken to the highest levels of the Civil Service.
I regret to say that all this negotiation has been to no avail. Sixty or so training workshop places have already been lost, staff have been made redundant and the remaining few places are likely to close by the end of July. A community asset is being lost which will be extremely hard to replace. We understand that in this respect Northern Ireland is being treated worse than England where better transitional finance is available.
It is therefore with regret that I have to ask why was no special provision made for criminal justice trainees in Northern Ireland? How will the rehabilitation through work of ex-offenders be protected in future? Are Her Majesty's Government still committed—as has been claimed in the past—to crime prevention? If so, what is their approach to people who are often virtually unemployable? If Ministers are not concerned about adults, will they at least devote resources to young people, particularly those suspended, or excluded or dropping out from school? Will the Minister try to convince his colleagues of the urgency of these issues? It goes without saying that such issues involve a considerable number of different departments. I trust that they will therefore be considered in the round.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for the thoughtful and detailed way in which he has introduced this appropriation order. We can well understand some of his feelings as, had circumstances been different, this discussion might have been more eventful. Along with others I regret that the order has been enacted in this way.
For some 18 years I sat on the Opposition Benches. I see some noble Lords on the other side of the House who were Ministers at that time. During that time we looked forward to these appropriation orders and the debates on them which gave us an opportunity to discuss

209
the affairs of Northern Ireland in some detail. That gave us the opportunity to have an input in those discussions. I feel sure that the new Northern Ireland Assembly will constitute a welcome change in that it will make the elected representatives accountable to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland. God speed that day and may it bring peace and tranquillity with it!
I have received two letters from the Minister on the matters of the draft appropriation order and the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments. Those matters are closely interlinked in many ways. The Northern Ireland estimates 1999/2000 are relevant to our discussion tonight. I have some three points to put to the. Minister. The estimates are much more detailed than the order itself. As I say, the estimates apply to the years 1999/2000. The estimates comprise a well produced document which is worthy of close study by all who are interested in the development of the Northern Ireland economy and in the social well-being of the people of the Province.
Section 5 on page 19 of the estimates explains the details of parliamentary accountability and the order of estimates. These estimates apply to this House, the other place and any of the other new devolved parliamentary bodies in the United Kingdom. The document states,
"The accounting and audit arrangements for grants in aid for certain subscriptions and international organisations are indicated by a common set of symbols which are illustrated on page 24. The normal accounting and audit arrangements will not apply in certain other cases".
I think that is a strange statement. If certain areas do not meet the standard requirements of accounting and audit arrangements, they should still be subject to parliamentary democratic procedures. The Minister has already mentioned the sums that are allocated to various departments. Section 2 on page 83 of the document refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It states,
"The provision sought for 1999/2000 is 5.8 per cent lower than the final net provision for 1998/99 of £328,000 and 23.6 per cent higher than the forecast outturn for that year of £250,000".
I believe this matter should be discussed tonight. An overspend has been mentioned in the document. As is the case with other parliamentary bodies throughout the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland Assembly must be accountable to Parliament and must not overspend its budget. That applies to present and to future circumstances.
Paragraph 2 on page 85 of the estimates states, with regard to the new Northern Ireland Assembly,
"The provision sought for 1999/2000 is £14,278,000 and reflects the initial cost of the new Ireland Assembly operating in the shadow form".
Apparently the new Northern Ireland Assembly has incurred an overspend of £6,628,000.
With those Northern Ireland citizens who believe in parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability I look forward to welcoming elected representatives who listen to the needs of the people who have elected them.
Like others, I feel sure that the Minister looks forward. He has spent a long time in Northern Ireland; I am sure he has learned many lessons and seen many challenging matters arising. We long for the day when
210
Northern Ireland Ministers will be accountable to the people of Northern Ireland themselves. At the same time we thank those who have filled the breach over the past number of years.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, in the short time available I should like to make a few points. First, can the Minister confirm that the Government have begun to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Strategy Review, known as Strategy 2010, which was issued by his colleague, the Minister for the economy, Mr Adam Ingram? Many of the recommendations are exhortations to industry to broaden horizons, play to strengths and tackle weaknesses. An Economic Development Forum has already been established but there are some particular aspects where the Government can act and act now to help Northern Ireland to mirror the great success already being achieved by our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.
I have raised before the serious problem of different rates of corporation tax across the land border—around 10 per cent in the Republic of Ireland against 30 per cent in Northern Ireland. I know the Minister will say, as usual, that that is the sacred turf of the Treasury, but the Chancellor made tax concessions for Northern Ireland a year ago on capital allowances. This has proved a valuable concession. The Minister referred to the successes of the Industrial Development Board. It has been valuable to those considering, inward investment.
But more needs to be done. Strategy 2010 emphasises that we must have a level or equivalent tax regime to our land neighbours. Will the Minister acknowledge this situation and flag it up as an issue which makes Northern Ireland uncompetitive; and, I might add, from which the Treasury is losing tax revenue from Northern Ireland companies which acquire manufacturing facilities across the border in the Republic of Ireland in order to maximise their tax liabilities in a more favourable regime?
Another cross-border tax leakage, estimated as a loss to the Treasury of well over £100 million, is currently being caused by the difference in excise duty on petrol and diesel—more than 17 pence a litre on unleaded petrol and 15 pence on diesel—which has led to widespread smuggling of road fuel. In border areas it is estimated that 48 filling stations have closed, with the loss of 250 jobs. Similar though smaller excise duty differences exist in the European Union. For example, the Dutch Government have introduced a subsidy scheme for road fuel retailers in border areas. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government, who are committed to further increases in these excise duties, will do about this real problem.
Another fiscal problem faces Northern Ireland with the proposal—or the "Marshall Plan" as it may be called—in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, on the business use of energy. He called for an energy consumption tax—to be introduced in next year's Finance Bill. The implications for energy-intensive companies such as Du Pont and Michelin and for textile processors, already suffering from Northern Ireland's

211
high electricity prices, are significant. It is important that the Government urgently address this further erosion of Northern Ireland's competitiveness by these proposals.
Perhaps I may comment on the funding situation for environmental programmes in the agricultural sector. I know that the Minister referred to some increases in this area, but it is rumoured that there is insufficient funding available to support the existing environmentally sensitive area schemes. Now we have the countryside management scheme which was announced in recent weeks. Will the Minister confirm that there will be adequate funding to support this and that it will not be rationed?
Finally, the Northern Ireland Office has, it is said, done a good deal with the Treasury to keep funds from the privatisation of Belfast Harbour for reinvestment in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us that the harbour commissioners will get more commercial freedom ahead of privatisation to develop their business and its value? Can he assure us that the huge and valuable city centre properties owned by the harbour commissioners will go to the public good and not into private pockets, as happened with the privatisation of Belfast international airport?
I apologise for raising so many points. As we are running short of time, I would be happy for the Minister to write to me and place a copy of his reply in the Library.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice briefly to the debate and thank the Minister for presenting in such detail these appropriation orders. I can certainly confirm what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. Perhaps he was referring to at least one of the former occupants of the position so ably occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I, too, recall fairly lengthy and detailed appropriation order debates.
Perhaps I may raise one or two points. One certainly may be in the line of an oration that I seem to remember giving when the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was present in the Moses Room in Committee. A certain musical item was classified as "It's fate was pathetic and tied to the stake and burned as heretic" I may inject a slightly heretical note into the debate. I see that the noble Lord has his thinking cap on.
We have had great support—I would add mine—for all the efforts of the Minister's right honourable friend across the water, which has been reflected in what we read in the newspapers and the electronic media throughout the world.
In the very first line of Vote 1 appear the words "Market support". At the end of that paragraph, on page 3, there appears "Market development". Perhaps I could once again ask the Minister to look at that as a matter of particular importance. This year is an odd year. I am sure that the Minister will know that one of the world's great food fairs takes place in Cologne in Germany; Its traditional acronym is ANUGA. I hope that the Minister, if still in post—or, one might say, to be announced or to be confirmed—or, if there is any
212
problem, the First Minister or someone of similar stature, will attend this clearly important world gathering in Cologne.
Certainly whatever the Prime Minister may be discussing and whatever one sees in the political development of Northern Ireland, it is just as important to present the very professional face of Northern Ireland—certainly of the farming industry, the market support industry and the food industry, let alone other aspects of Northern Ireland—to members of the public from all round the world. This is equally important and equally welcome. I hope that the Minister will pass on my hope that somebody—I hope that it will be the Minister, if his tenure can be extended—will be, I hesitate to say banging the drum but making a suitable fuss with ANUGA in October this year.
I am delighted to see in the vote that there is stress laid on the scientific and veterinary services in the Department of Agriculture, together with other "spin off' or complementary aspects of the marvellous scientific traditions in Northern Ireland. I was not sure which sub-total were referred to in the vote, but I hope that any sums expended in this area will not diminish. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to see that the proportion of the sums expended in this area will be maintained.
I am delighted to see in Vote 2 that the reference is still to "water course management". In my career in the Department of Agriculture it used to be called "drainage". It may be in tribute to me that it was expanded to "water course management". Never use one word where two will do. But that is particularly relevant.
I am delighted to observe sea defences. I do not remember too much flooding in my time in the north. I recall that there was some fresh water flooding when a river bank gave way because of an enormous colony of rabbits. We sent in local sportsmen and that disposed of that problem. I hope that the Minister will take care of water course management; I hope that he will add all his influence to scientific and veterinary services; above all, I hope that he or perhaps his right honourable friend the Secretary of State—someone of stature—will go to ANUGA and push for Northern Ireland's excellent food industry and everyone involved in it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I want to reinforce what the Minister said when he wished the new assembly success and hope that this will be the last time that we will have to debate a Northern Ireland appropriation order.
I have had the experience of debating appropriate orders in the old Stormont parliament, in the old Stormont assembly, in another place and in your Lordships' House. When an appropriation order was debated in the old Stormont assembly there were times when the debate lasted for two days. All the elected representatives from the various constituencies who were aware of the needs of those constituencies would have their say. I believe that Northern Ireland is the place where the vast amount of money allocated in the order should be debated. I have just had verified by one of the civil servants that the order covers expenditure of

213
£4.5 billion. That is a good deal of money by anyone's standards. I believe that the only place that that amount of money should be debated-where the money should be spent and from where it should be withheld-is Northern Ireland.
When, 20 or 30 years ago, Northern Ireland Members first raised matters at Westminster concerning their constituencies, the Hansard staff were nearly driven berserk. They were sending notes up and down to Members. They could not understand Members' pronunciation and they had particular difficulty with the Member for Antrim North. The number of place names that he mentioned in his appropriation speeches kept the Hansard staff going for two or three hours.
It is a long time since the elected representatives of Northern Ireland last had the opportunity to discuss an appropriation order and the expenditure of this money. They have not had responsibility for saying where that money should be spent—where a hospital should be built or where assistance should be given to some industries. An awful danger has arisen. A dependency culture has grown up in Northern Ireland. If you do not have responsibility for saying where the money is to be spent, it is all too easy to point the finger at British Ministers. We have seen that happen over the past 25 years. We have seen the various competing agencies in Northern Ireland demanding more assistance from the British Treasury, and sending people far offshore to demand money from the European Community. A dependency culture in any society is a very dangerous thing.
Northern Ireland has had to live without its own government. On the question of the £ million for the new assembly, it may not have been said in Parliament or in your Lordships' House, but on the streets of Northern Ireland, and in the bars and the pubs and the clubs, people are laughing about it. Who decided on this £ million? The figure was arrived at with gay abandon. They say, "Ah well, the British Government will have to pay for it". I believe that the increase in expenditure will prove to be totally unjustified.
I am saying to the Minister today, as I said to him when he first took on the responsibility for Northern Ireland, after congratulating him on what he had been able to do, that I hope that he will no longer be saddled with responsibility for governing Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland elected representatives, on the soil of Northern Ireland and in the constituencies of Northern Ireland, will take responsibility for an appropriation order such as this.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the many Members of the House who have contributed to this debate. First, perhaps I may say a few words about the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I know that lie wanted to be here but I understand that he had a prior commitment with the TA, with which he is very involved. It is only for that reason that he was unable to be present. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on the Opposition Front Bench.
Perhaps I may take up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Yes, the Government clearly want devolution to happen. It is desirable for many reasons,
214
not the least of which is that it is right and proper that local Ministers and local members of the assembly should determine expenditure and should determine how money is spent in Northern Ireland. That is a politically desirable thing to happen. It is one the Government want to happen. It will be one of the many benefits of a handover of power to the assembly and to local Ministers. The sooner it happens, the better.
I turn to the many questions raised by noble Lords. If I happen to omit any point that has been raised, I shall write to the noble Lord concerned. I shall do my best to answer the questions of which I have made a note.
The concern raised most often by Members of the House was funding for the assembly and the Northern Ireland departments. There is no question that the assembly will be funded to the level that it requires. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Paul Murphy, is at present discussing this matter and will be able to say something more when the order is debated in the other place. But we will not leave the assembly without the necessary money. The money in the appropriation order is the pre-devolution amount, based on some £40 million. When the assembly takes over responsibility it will need have to have a larger sum of money to deal with the extra responsibilities that it will have to exercise as a full assembly. That also goes for the need to change from the present departmental of six to the new structure of 10 departments, plus the department at the centre. We have to find that money because the assembly must be able to function.
My noble friend Lord Fitt suggested that there was concern among people in Northern Ireland about the amount of money involved. The assembly indicated how much money it would need. On devolution, it will have to accept responsibility and be answerable to the people of Northern Ireland for the money that it thinks it necessary to spend on its operations. We want to facilitate that process, but responsibility for expenditure in the full devolved assembly will rest with the assembly, However, in the meantime, we want to facilitate the process so that when the assembly takes over there is a smooth transition and the money can be made available. The 14 million for 1999–2000 is an interim figure. It has to be. The additional requirements of the assembly will be addressed through the normal monitoring arrangements where provision can be reallocated to the assembly from easements elsewhere within the Northern Ireland block. But I repeat: there is no question of our failing to ensure that the assembly will have enough money for its requirements.
The fact is that the assembly did not give the Department of Finance and Personnel time to examine its estimates of what was needed—hence the lack of an agreed figure at this stage. The matter will be resolved, so I do not think it would be useful for me to go into the detailed points at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made three points: about the assembly, the 10 departments and the absence of other provision. However, I think that those points have all been dealt with in what I have said. That is how those different headings of expenditure will be dealt with.

215
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked a number of questions. He referred to paragraph 5.4 on page 19 of the Estimates relating to the use of accounting symbols. The last sentence of the paragraph refers to the detail of the audit being carried out. A normal audit of a department may involve audit down to the transaction level. However, if it is grant-in-aid, the detail in the course of the audit in the appropriation account may not be at transaction level. In such cases the recipient body of that grant-in-aid will be subject to its own external audit arrangements and will therefore be accountable for the detailed way in which it deals with money that has been granted to it.
The noble Lord also asked questions about the figures for Northern Ireland Assembly expenditure at pages 83 and 85 of the Estimates. The figures relate to the residual expenditure of the old Northern Ireland assembly. If the noble Lord feels that it would be helpful, I am happy to write to him and give rather more detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about provision for integrating ex-offenders into society. He referred to a transition between ACE and the new deal. It may be necessary for me to write to the noble Lord. Ease of transition is a matter of concern to us; we want to make sure that nothing slips through from one system to another. We have tried to ensure an easy transition from ACE to the new deal. In relation to the noble Lord's specific point, if it is acceptable to him, I should like to write to him with more information.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, asked a number of questions. The first dealt with the implementation of Economic Development Strategy 2010. The review of economic development strategy announced by my honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister for Economic Development, on 29th January 1998 was designed to produce a new economic development strategy for Northern Ireland up to the year 2010. The review was carried out as a collaborative exercise involving both the private and public sectors. It is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider and implement.
The report makes over 60 recommendations for developing the Northern Ireland economy over the coming decade. While it remains a matter for the devolved government to take much of the strategy forward, the day-to-day business of government must go on. Some issues raised in the economy development strategy review must be addressed now and cannot be delayed. The Minister for Economic Development has announced that he will begin to implement a number of these key issues, including the establishment of the proposed economic development forum, which will give social partners a strong, effective voice and a meaningful role in influencing and monitoring Strategy 2010.
The noble Lord also asked about the difficulties concerning excise duty and the differential with the Republic of Ireland. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's concerns on the price differential in fuel prices between the Republic and Northern Ireland. These reflect national policies. While I realise that that is of little
216
comfort to those petrol retailers facing business difficulties, the wider benefits of the levels of public expenditure announced by the Chancellor are in no small way made possible because of the UK-wide national revenue generation policy.
I am aware that various groups have been pressing for a subsidy scheme for petrol retailers in the Border areas of Northern Ireland similar to that in the Netherlands. However, the European Commission has questioned the legality of that state aid, and any similar schemes will most likely have difficulty in meeting the European state aid rules.
As regards smuggling, HM Customs will continue to deploy resources against illegal trade, as they have done with good success in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, also asked about the port of Belfast. He asked whether commercial freedom could be given to the port of Belfast prior to privatisation. I do not think that that is possible, because it would require legislation to ease its transition from trust board status to the kind of status referred to by the noble Lord. We are moving with all possible haste to implement the privatisation proposals. The position at present is that the committee established by the Assembly to consider the matter is still examining the proposals of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. The commissioners have put forward revised proposals dealing particularly with the issue of the landbank. The Harbour Commissioners will meet later this week to discuss that development. I am scheduled to meet the Assembly committee later this week. So the matter is under active consideration. Clearly, the Government are anxious that there should be no delay and progress should be made as rapidly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, also referred to the effect of the energy tax in Northern Ireland. I recognise his concern. The matter has been raised with Treasury colleagues so that Northern Ireland interests can be taken into account when the levy is set.
As regards the funding of an environmental programme, the natural environment is one of the foundations on which we shall build the vibrant mixed-use rural economy to which the Government are committed. The new countryside management scheme which complements the existing ESA scheme means that we can now support farmers throughout Northern Ireland in adopting environmentally sensitive farming practices. We have been able to make £1.2 million available out of existing resources to enable the countryside management scheme to be introduced. That will allow up to 1,000 applications to be accepted. The case for additional funding for agri-environmental schemes will be considered against other priorities as part of the Government's implementation of the Agenda 2000 settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, stressed the importance of international food fairs as a showcase for Northern Ireland agricultural products. I know of the noble Lord's direct experience over a number of years as the Minister in Northern Ireland responsible for agriculture. The noble Lord referred to the ANUGA fair in Cologne. I have managed to attend a number of food fairs. I went

217
to SIAL in Paris and I have been a couple of times to the seafood fair in Brussels, as well as attending a number of events located in Northern Ireland itself. I am happy, if time allows and if my responsibilities continue, to support Northern Ireland agriculture in whatever way is possible. Having got the beef ban lifted for Northern Ireland, we want to ensure that Northern Ireland products are successful on world markets. That is the way to encourage and help Northern Ireland agriculture.
believe that I have dealt with all the main points. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Bill
8.47 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("by virtue of") and insert ("because he holds")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 81.
These amendments differ slightly from our proposals in Committee. They seek to leave out the words, "by virtue of', and to insert the words, "because he holds". The Bill as presently drafted states that,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I suggest that the words should be changed and the Bill should read, "No one shall be a Member of the House of Lords because he holds a hereditary peerage".
The words that I have suggested are far clearer. I do not know exactly what "by virtue of' means. If a Peer is to be excluded from the House of Lords, I suggest that he or she should be excluded because he or she holds a hereditary peerage. In fact, everyone is here not "by 'virtue of a hereditary peerage or "by virtue of' a life peerage; Members are here by virtue of the Writ of Summons.
This goes to the heart of the matter. I respectfully suggest that the Government are wrong. If we are all here, it does not matter whether we are life Peers or hereditary Peers. The reason we are here is that we have received a Writ of Summons. When you receive a Writ of Summons, it summons you to Parliament. Once you have come to Parliament, the Writ is, as it were, a spent bullet and it has gone. You are here in Parliament having obeyed the Writ. Later we shall come to an amendment which I suggest is also correct. Once a person has come to Parliament and obeyed the Writ it cannot then be said that the Writ of Summons applies to some people for the remainder of the Parliament but for others it can be truncated half-way through.
As I believe I suggested to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor last time, it is rather like buying a railway ticket that permits you to travel from
218
London to Edinburgh. If one is thrown off at Peterborough, one will feel that has one has had a pretty raw deal. The fact is that the Writ of Summons brings one to Parliament. All of us are here by virtue of that Writ, not by virtue of a hereditary peerage or life peerage. I do not seek to make life difficult for the Government, but to help them. It is not impossible that they may be challenged on this matter. If they were good enough to change the wording to,
"because he holds a hereditary peerage",
the Bill would be clearer and the Government would be much more in the clear. I believe that those are excellent reasons why the Government should accept the amendment.
I know that the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who I am certain is to reply, and all noble Lords on the Government Front Bench is to accept no amendment or argument, but the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a gracious man, a big person and sometimes overrides his brief. I believe that iii this case he should override his brief because my amendment makes much more sense. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I have enormous respect for the noble Earl. However, in my respectful opinion, the wording of the Bill as drawn is as plain as a pikestaff. There is really no profit in debating this matter at any greater length.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is with every proper degree of diffidence that I venture a slightly longer opinion than that which has just fallen—I believe that that is the right expression to use in these circumfstances—from the noble and learned Lord who sits opposite. I also venture to intervene very diffidently for fear of spoiling the marvellous impression given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in appealing to the better instincts of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
I simply did not understand the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor defended the wording of this clause as a tigress defends her cubs. He appeared to believe that the determination of the Government to hold to their election manifesto would somehow be judged by whether they stuck to this wording. He did not appear to understand that all we suggested was that in our respectful opinion there was a measure of doubt that could be overcome. We had substantial debates on this clause in Committee and tried in vain to make clear, as my noble friend just that we sought simply to avoid uncertainty. After all, that is part of the function of this House.
We went to the extent of furnishing the Lord Chancellor with an opinion by Mr Lofthouse, Treasury counsel in peerage matters. He set out an argument that gave powerful weight to the point that the present wording might be successfully challenged because what made one a Member of this House was not the holding of a hereditary peerage but applying for, receiving and returning a Writ of Summons. It is common ground that until one has gone through that procedure one cannot fulfil one's duty to attend, speak and vote in this House. If one cannot fulfil the duties of a Member of the House

219
of Lords there must, surely, be a sensible argument, to put it no higher, that one is not a Member of the House of Lords. It may be said that one's membership is inchoate and it is only when one has gone through that procedure that one can fulfil one's duties.
All that we were saying in the amendments proposed then, and all that my noble friend suggests now, is that we should use language that puts the matter beyond doubt. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of his reply pointed out that Mr Lofthouse was not a Queen's Counsel. He is not a Queen's Counsel because he is Treasury junior counsel. It may be a small point, but if one becomes a Queen's Counsel one cannot do that job. The opinion needed to be dealt with on its merits. I do not say that it is right. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I suggest that there is an argument to the contrary that can be supported by an advocate far more distinguished than myself, which is not a particularly high hurdle to overcome. Therefore, it is desirable to avoid doubt, if it can be avoided. That is exactly what my noble friend puts forward in his amendment.
For my part, I cannot see much difference between "by virtue of" and "because of". I believe that the Government have it well within their power to make absolutely clear that a person shall not be a Member of this House if, being the holder of a hereditary peerage, he has received a Writ of Summons. Of one thing I am sure: this matter will be challenged by a hereditary Peer at some time or other. Although it is always fun to see the Government with egg on their face, it is our function to avoid this happening as a result of uncertain drafting of legislation when that can be avoided.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the thinking behind this amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. An issue needs to be resolved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, may be right in one respect. This may not be the best place to resolve this matter. It may not have escaped the notice of the Government Benches that my noble friend Lord Kingsland has tabled a Motion, on which we shall ask the opinion of the House, as to whether this particular matter should be referred to the Committee for Privileges at the earliest opportunity. After all, the Committee for Privileges is probably the correct forum in which such matters should be decided.
It may well be that we could have amended this Bill in Committee, but at the end of the day it resulted in a legal argument between different sides. I believe that it is better for those legal arguments to be resolved in what is as near as possible a court of law; namely, the Committee for Privileges. I understand that that is one of the purposes of that great committee. Although I very much welcome the opportunity that my noble friend has given us to debate the issue again, I believe that there is a better place in which it can be done; but I entirely
220
support his intention. There is a doubt which can be easily clarified, and it should be done at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, invited me to overturn my instructions in the brief, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, appealed to what he described as my better instincts. It is notoriously well known that I am not let out unaccompanied to give vent to my better instincts or to overrule the brief. The noble and learned Lord said that it was always fun to see a government with egg on their face. He had many years to savour that experience when he was such a distinguished member of the former government.
What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, says is both short and correct. If I had ever had the prospect of sitting with him judicially, I would have been able to say that I agreed with everything that had fallen from my noble and learned friend and had nothing to add. There is nothing to add. It is perfectly simple. We have said that the disqualification arises in effect by virtue of a hereditary peerage, and that includes any holder of a peerage by virtue of acceleration and any holder of a hereditary peerage by virtue of the termination of a peerage in abeyance. We needed to find a proposition that would flexibly cover direct and indirect relationships with hereditary peerages.
There is the point about the Writ of Summons. But the Writ of Summons runs only for someone who has an entitlement to it by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Indeed, the Writ is not simply a summons to come and take the Oath. The Writ requires the recipient to attend and treat and give counsel upon the affairs aforesaid. No one can sensibly suggest that turning up, taking the Oath and never returning, would be a proper, faithful response to that summons.
It is perfectly straightforward and clear. No one is to sit here by virtue of an hereditary peerage. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is about the remind me, the Bill states,
"by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I think that we sufficiently knocked that argument about rather like a game of table tennis between us.
It is perfectly simple and perfectly plain. I cannot improve or further embroider upon what fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, began by saying, "I have enormous respect for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers," I thought that hell was about to open up; and sure enough it did! He said that we have discussed the issue; it is perfectly simple; there is no more to be said. That was a very perfunctory argument. In the days when people were hanged for murder, if I had been in the dock and the noble and learned Lord had been the judge and had said, "You're guilty so there is no point in saying any more. You will hang", I should have thought that that was a pretty rotten judgment.
Perhaps I may respectfully and gently suggest that the noble and learned Lord might have done a little better. He might have said why the amendment was so wrong

221
and so awful. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. This may not be the right answer but it is clearer and more satisfactory than the provision in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that my noble and learned friend said that we like to see the Government with egg on their face. My noble and learned friend did not say that. He said that periodically the Government have egg on their face and even we try to prevent that from happening.
It would be a great pity if there were a legal challenge and the Government were to find egg on their face. I should try not to smile and say, "We told you so". However, it seems, regretfully, that we shall not make this alteration. Whatever one says, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, says no to it, except that twice he referred to "an" hereditary peerage. I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue. But he had not the courage of his conviction at Committee stage to overturn his brief. When I tabled an amendment to change "a" to "an", the noble Lord said that we could not do that. What was the reason? Because the parliamentary draftsman has always put it that way. So we can change all the procedures for the opening of Parliament, and for introducing new Peers. We can change everything, but what the parliamentary draftsman says is sacrosanct. I should have thought that the noble Lord might have chased him and said, "You must be a bit more with it. Just use one more letter of the alphabet and make it 'an' instead of 'a", in particular when the noble Lord cannot stop himself saying "an" the whole time. It shows a defect in his character that he has not persuaded the parliamentary draftsman or the powers that be to accept that amendment. However, he did not do so and we have to live with that.
I suppose that we have to live with this provision, but I am tempted not to do so. I am tempted to ask your Lordships to consider whether it would be better to have "because he holds" a hereditary peerage as opposed to "by virtue of' a hereditary peerage. I am hesitant because my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that the right way for this issue to be decided is in the Committee for Privileges. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his usual skilful way failed to address that matter. Perhaps it was a little inconvenient for him. But if he were to say that the matter will be considered by the Committee for Privileges, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. If he says that it will not be considered by the Committee for Privileges, I might ask your Lordships to consider whether we should put these words in the Bill.
I am sure that the House will give the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, leave to speak again if he felt willing.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always say "an" just to tease the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to check that he is still awake—and he always is—in exactly the same way as he always says "a" to check that I am still awake; and unfortunately I normally am!
222
It is not for me to pre-judge the wish of your Lordships. Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that a Motion may be brought forward it would be quite wrong, unprecedented, and wholly disrespectful for me to offer a view.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that puts me in a fix, as the noble Lord expected. I think that it would be a good idea to see what your Lordships think. I believe that it would be better to have these words in the Bill. view.
9.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

contents

Ashboume, L.

Mancrofi, L.

Bathurst, E.

Mayhew of Tv/ysden, I. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Berners, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Boardman, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brentford, V.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montrose, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clinton, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Northbrook, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Falmouth, V.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Rennell, L.

Fisher, L.

Romney, E.

Forbes, L.

SL John of Fawsley. L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Sharpies, B.

Gray, L.

Soulsby of Swartham Prior, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Thatcher, B.

Iveagh, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Torrington, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgame, L.

Kintore, E.

Trenchard, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chandos, V.

Alli, L.

Chorley, L.

Amos, B.

Christopher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Attenborough, L.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blease, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Desai, L.

Brightman, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Burlison, L.

Dubs, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Eatwell, L.

223

Evans of Watford, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Fanington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Glanusk, L.

Newby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Peston, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grantchester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Putnam, L.

Hacking, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B,

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sewel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Kennet, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Thornton, B.

McInlosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Tomlinson, L.

Tope, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mackie of Beashie, L.

Walpole, L.

McNair, L.

Warner, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh, L.

Whitty, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Molloy, L.

Winston, L.

Monkswell, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We have had a serious, long debate. I do not think that anybody would criticise anyone from any quarter of the House for the time taken on this important Bill. However, here we have an example where, after a fairly long debate, a member of the Opposition decided that the opinion of the House should be tested—I suspect that he had the full support of the Front Bench—only to find that the Conservative Whips were active at the Door in seeking to persuade members of their party not to vote. Is that in the interests of the House and its proper consideration of the Bill? Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House advise us on this matter?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is not for me to offer advice to the noble lord the Leader of the Opposition or, indeed, the Opposition Chief
224
Whip, who I see is not in his place, on the way in which they advise their Members to behave when a Division is called.
My noble friend is right that this Division was called by a member of the previous Conservative government. I believe, however, that he was not speaking in a Front Bench capacity but in a personal capacity, as he has done at other stages of the Bill. It is therefore obviously open to him to ask the opinion of the House, if he so wishes. It is for the Leader of the Opposition and the other Members of the Front Bench to advise their colleagues. It is not for me to have a view on that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the most extraordinary debate that I have ever heard. I am completely amazed. Of course, what probably happened is that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, reminded himself just how awful it is being in government. He was probably just tucking into his main course downstairs in the Barry Room when the Division Bell rang and he had to struggle up here only to discover that the Labour Party had a majority of nearly 50. I understand his frustration at that, but that is what happens in government. It is not for me to give noble Lords opposite a lecture.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers did what was entirely appropriate as far as he was concerned. He was well within his rights. I am glad that he had so many people supporting him. I made my views from the Front Bench entirely plain for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to reflect at his leisure tomorrow when he reads Hansard that I did not seek to encourage the Conservative Party to vote. If the Opposition Whips were letting Conservatives know our view, I believe that to be remarkably sensible. I am glad that the machinery was as efficient as it clearly was.
I do not know whether it is the desire of the Government Front Bench to continue this debate or whether we can carry on with the business. I am rather keen to carry on with the business.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not so sure that I want to carry on with the business! The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was extraordinary. I tabled this amendment, which I thought to be a jolly good amendment; and I suggested we had a Division on it. That was perfectly reasonable. Whether or not my Front Bench colleagues joined me was entirely a matter for them. I wanted to test the opinion of the House. If the result of the Division had been the other way round and we had won by 120 and they had lost by 60, the complaint would have been that we had bussed everyone in. Of course, they bussed everyone in, ranks and all. They all came out from the woodwork for the vote. Of course, when the Government win, that is fine and dandy; if we win, that is a wicked and terrible thing. I think the whole thing is a total farce. My noble friend was quite right: seeking a Division was perfectly justified. I am glad that all those who supported the amendment did so, and I am sorry for those who decided to go in the

225
opposite Lobby, including the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I think he made a great mistake, but there we are.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in view of the advice that has come from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we should cut the cackle and get on with this damn Bill.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) But any holder of a hereditary peerage who has been elected to—

(a) the House of Commons,

(b) the European Parliament,

(c) the Scottish Parliament,

(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(e) the National Assembly for Wales,

(f) a regional assembly in England,

(g) the Greater London Authority,

(h) a local authority, or

(i) consecutively to any of the bodies listed in paragraphs (a) to (h),

for a continuous period of seven years shall be entitled throughout his life to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House by virtue of that peerage on the completion of that period or, in the case of a member of the House of Commons, on the day after he ceases to be a member.
(3) In subsection (2) "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England, a county, district or London borough council;

(b) in relation to Wales, a county or county borough council;

(c) in relation to Scotland, a council for a local government area, and

(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, a county, district or county borough council.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are having a bit more cackle, I am afraid. I hope that my Front Bench will give me equal support to that which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, received. I see that noble Lords opposite have been bussed in in large quantities, so I have not much faith.
I moved my amendment very late at night on our last day in Committee and was chided by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms on several counts. It is to those counts that I wish to revert. I may be accused of going over old ground, but I am merely trying to correct the argument that was put against my amendment.
In the first instance, the noble Lord was astonished that anyone who retires, leaves office or loses his seat in another place should be entitled to a seat in your Lordships' House. I can look around this House and see a large number of Peers who have come here as a result of a misfortune at the ballot box. The noble Lord could have added that the Peer may have been deselected by the constituency or by Millbank bosses; and that would be another excellent reason why he or she would be a suitable and important addition to your Lordships' debates as a representative of unfashionable views of which this House is the essential preserver. It was the
226
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who spoke so persuasively of the genetic pool and it is that genetic pool which I wish to preserve in this House.
My amendment requires seven years of public service which means that hereditary Peers will have been twice selected by the electorate. To be elected once may be a fluke; but surely to be elected twice is a stiff enough test of one's democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, spoke movingly of the automatic right under the gentle approach. This is one solution that reacts to the noble Lord's solution. To argue otherwise is simply to twist the reality: that a Peer may inherit many years after a period of service; he may inherit while he is a serving Member; he may indeed inherit after a general election at which his party receives a vote of no confidence. That appears to be the noble Lord's objection in chief. But in no way does it reduce the value of the Peer's service to the community in the past. He will, by means of this amendment, be a recipient of the privilege of his inheritance. That is the intention of this amendment.
I commend to the House the well argued defence of the hereditary principle which was defended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux.
The second complaint is that a regional assembly is included in the amendment. The noble Lord said that this is a concept that does not yet exist. I must disabuse the noble Lord of his error. He may not have been very happy with his memories of the recent election of MEPs, but I must remind him that the Government, at the behest of the Commission, have already divided the country into 11 Government Office regions to rearrange the voting structure of the electorate. It may be by the way and not particularly germane to this argument that the Government may be coming to regret the change in anticipation of the federal state of Europe to which we are being slyly encouraged. The regional assemblies do not yet exist, but it would be foolhardy not to include the prototypes that the Government have introduced in the drafting of this amendment.
Thirdly, we are told that it is not clear whether the Peer will sit for life or for one Parliament. As he will sit as a hereditary Peer, he will not therefore be subject to any future electoral event. As the noble Lord will recall, hereditary Peers have first to prove the legitimacy of their claim to their title and only then can the Writ of Summons be issued for that and succeeding Parliaments. I am advised that once a Writ of Summons is issued in a Parliament after the Bill is passed, then that Writ is for the life of that Peer. It can be claimed at the opening of each Parliament and cannot be abrogated except in circumstances of bankruptcy or "barminess".
Clause 4(2) says any Writ of Summons shall not have effect after the Session in which the Act takes effect. This amendment clearly and by implication addresses that clause in the instance of a Peer who has demonstrated his political and democratic legitimacy.
The noble Lord seems to have sought to rubbish my amendment and shows concern that a Peer who has been a Member of the other place could not seek re-election there. Presumably the speaking notes to which he

227
referred assumed that the Peer would only sit for one Parliament. It is therefore his notes that are rubbish and not my amendment. However, to make doubly clear I added to the amendment the phrase, "throughout his life". The Peer should keep his seat and his heirs and successors should have the right and responsibility to establish their own democratic legitimacy before claiming their own Writ of Summons for their own lifetime in turn.
I accept that this is in direct contradiction with the essence of the Bill, but it is a small concession to make to allow such a small band of exceptional hereditary Peers as will be enfranchised by this amendment to sit and vote and continue as representatives of an ancient and honourable past. This is my answer to the noble Lord's coup de grace when he explains that hereditary Peers are unacceptable in principle and in social or any other terms as a representative of the people of this country as a whole. My amendment raises the stakes to a level where the Peer has proven himself to be acceptable in exactly those terms.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked why there should be such discrimination. The answer is simple. Because he is a Peer whose rights in this House are immemorial, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, inferred in his acceptance of the genetic pool which they represent.
Amendment No. 21 is an amendment to the Weatherill amendment and will continue the element of hereditary peerage. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, sock it to them!
Lord Carter: My Lords,—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government Chief Whip was extremely quick on his feet. I was still wondering whether my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam was going to say something else; clearly not.
This is clearly an important and interesting amendment. It deals with issues that the Government Front Bench must resolve and answer. At Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that this Bill would end the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. A few days later that was changed. I very much welcome that change.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in speaking in support of the Weatherill amendment, said that the election of hereditary Peers as proposed under Weatherill would have the result that they would have greater authority. If we follow that logic through, how much more so would the election of Peers from high office. Would not the House benefit from the services of my noble friends Lord Stockton, Lord Inglewood and Lord Bethell and others when they finish their long and triumphant service in the European Parliament?
It is said that your Lordships are not representative. Is not election to high office and service in that office for a period of seven years, which must imply that they have been re-elected, the mark of someone who has
228
been judged worthy by the people to represent them? It is said that they are not legitimate, but has not the fact of the election given them authority, as the noble and learned Lord conceded, and that authority will be given to representative Peers in respect of the Weatherill amendment? This amendment would retain in the House Peers who have been elected to a range of democratic bodies. That is a good thing. The Government are falling into the danger, in a fit of ideological abandon, of clearing people out of the House whose experience is of value, not just to the House but to the whole nation.
There is a small group who have had the legitimacy proclaimed by an election, an election incidentally from which the Front Bench team opposite have not benefited. Might it not be right for the Government to consider this small number of people who might be included on the list that my noble friend proposes? It may be that the amendment is too widely drawn and that my noble friend would want to reflect upon that before he brings it back at Third Reading. I hope that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip who is clearly going to answer on this, will give an encouraging and constructive reply to my noble friend.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rises again, I hope he will give this consideration and not do what his noble friend behind suggested that he should do when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rose before. I do not know whether he was aware but the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, "Sock it to them". That is neither a very agreeable nor a very friendly expression coming from the noble Lord behind. It was rather like a schoolboy with a catapult. This expression comes out once every other meeting on this Bill. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will give a considered answer and a respectful answer and will not sock it to us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he is rattled.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said that he was chided by me at Committee. I have to tell the noble Earl that I propose to continue the chiding. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, appeared a little reluctant to come to the Dispatch Box and, having heard his speech, I can understand why. My noble friend Lord Graham always says "Sock it to them" when a Front Bencher rises.
A very similar amendment was tabled in Committee and one of the criticisms levelled at it then was that it was unclear as to whether a Peer who met the criteria would sit for life in the House of Lords or just for the duration of a Parliament. This amendment removes this ambiguity by stressing that the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords is for life, which makes the amendment more curious than it was in Committee. It will allow hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords as of right after serving on another specified elected body for seven years. This continues to contradict the manifesto commitment because it continues to afford preferential treatment to hereditary Peers on the basis of

229
their birth. No other individuals who serve as elected representatives for the necessary period will be admitted to the House of Lords as of right.
In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said the purpose of this amendment was to retain an element of the hereditary principle. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the Weatherill amendment, your Lordships' House will by now fully understand that we are unable to accept this amendment and why we are unable to accept it. It directly contravenes the principle of ending the automatic right of an hereditary Peer to sit and vote.
In Committee, we pointed out the effects of the similar amendment and they remain in the amendment before us today. I ask whether it is only the hereditary Peers who will be able to prove their democratic legitimacy. This scheme is extraordinary because hereditary Peers who have been elected to other bodies have the automatic right to return to the House of Lords. I ask why they should be favoured over other members of those elected bodies who may be considered for membership of the House of Lords. The same argument against including people in the legislature because of accident of birth rather than because of individual merits applies.
In allowing the bodies listed in this amendment to act as types of workplaces where hereditary Peers can spend a seven year apprenticeship before entering this House insults the standing of all those worthwhile chambers. If hereditary Peers wish to continue their public service and stand for election to another body, then all well and good. But to suggest that once they have completed the seven year stint, they can then by right return to this place, is, I am afraid, unacceptable.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, wants this amendment passed, in his own words, as a memorial to the service that the hereditary Peers have provided. I am second to none in acknowledging the public service of many hereditary Peers. This amendment is not the way to acknowledge that service. Therefore the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that the Government are unable to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I am most grateful for the support which I have received from the Front Bench and from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Certainly I cannot accept the contention of the Chief Whip. I know that the Government's requirement is the elimination of all hereditary Peers. However, I suggest that the Government should respect the valuable service which they have offered. If this is the only way to do that, then they should accept the amendment.
However, we shall later deal with Amendment No. 21 which provides for the retention of the hereditary principle in the Weatherill amendment. Therefore, I shall await our discussions on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 1
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to speak at any great length to this amendment. As your Lordships know, Clause 1 provides that no one shall be a member of your Lordships' House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. However, there is a respectable view to the effect that none of us is here by virtue of hereditary peerage or, for that matter, a life peerage either. Rather we are here because of the Writ of Summons which we receive at the beginning of each Parliament.
The advice goes on to say that the Writ of Summons, once answered at the beginning of the Parliament, is valid for the whole of that Parliament. Those of us who have already in this Parliament answered the Writ cannot be required to leave, at least not in the terms of the Bill as presently drafted, until the end of the Parliament.
By contrast, those of us who have not yet attended this House in this Parliament would not now be able to do so if the Bill is passed in its present form. I recognise that this is a highly technical matter relating to long-established law of great complexity. I do not, for one moment, claim to be an expert in those matters. A number of other noble Lords have expressed a similar view to mine and perhaps some of them may speak again this evening.
Indeed, my noble friend Lord Kingsland has tabled a Motion to refer this matter to the Committee for Privileges, although he has not yet decided when he may do that. I hope that even at this late stage, the Government will recognise the doubt that there is surrounding this matter. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as we have argued from these Benches more than once, we need to be sure that the Bill does, as intended, exclude hereditary Peers effectively. Mr Lofthouse has given his opinion that the clause is ineffective. If that is so, it can add nothing to the Bill. Therefore, it will have to go.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asserted, while admitting he did not feel able to enter into what he called arcane questions of peerage law, that the clause is effective. Even if it is not, he has declared that what he wants is clear enough to your Lordships' House.
It is well known that there are many in your Lordships' House who believe that a declaration of intent from the Government Front Bench on any Bill which comes before the House is not enough, especially as, in the case of this Bill, it started with the premise that the purpose of the Bill was to exclude all hereditary Peers. Now we are told that it has a different purpose altogether— namely, to exclude some hereditary Peers, while investing others with what the noble and learned Lord has said is the greater authority of election. It is not peerage law which is arcane; it is the wheels within wheels, within wheels behind which rests what I will flatteringly call the Government's constitutional strategy.

231
The Clause 1 that went through another place and which was introduced in this House is now vitiated by the Clause 2 that the Government voted against in another place, voted for in your Lordships' House and have pledged to vote for in another place, but now warn they might vote against in another place if your Lordships do not behave. Do I make myself clear? If not, that makes my point. What I have described is government policy on Clause 1 of the Bill in a nutshell.
The way forward is to clarify the matter in what I hope I can modestly say is a Motion, which I intend at some stage to put before the House, to refer the effectiveness of this Bill to the Committee for Privileges. This matter has to be determined in some way or other. Either the Government accept amendments which unequivocally, and beyond all doubt, achieve the declared purposes of the Bill—an approach with which we said in Committee we would co-operate—or it must go to the test. There is no third way. As the Government have said that they will not withdraw and re-write this clause in a way that will clarify it, and I fear that my noble friend will not persuade them to do so tonight, we must therefore look to the Committee for Privileges.
In his reply, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will not seek to resist the reference of this matter to the Committee for Privileges; indeed, to the contrary, I hope that that they will confirm that they will support my noble friend's amendment to clarify the ambiguities of Clause I by reference to the Committee for Privileges.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope to emulate the economy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. This is a wrecking amendment. No one can be in any doubt about that; there is no alternative put forward by way of substitution. I repeat what has been said so often before: Clause 1 is drafted in a clear way, it is clear as to its effect, and it is clear as to why it works. It is comprehensive and it is plain. Those are significant virtues.
I do not believe that there is any doubt about the effect of Clause 1. Therefore, we do not support the amendment. If it is put to the test, we shall invite noble Lords not to accede to it. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he wants the matter put beyond all doubt. We believe that it is. On a reading of the opinion of Mr Lofthouse, we believe that his opinion is not correct in law.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, then asked if I would say whether we would support his Motion. When I know the terms of his Motion and the date of it, and indeed have heard his arguments, I, or one of my colleagues, will give the Government's response. We do not believe that that is necessary. We believe that it is perfectly plain. I do not believe that the Weatherill amendment, of which, as far as I know, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a supporter,
232
vitiates Clause 1 at all. Indeed, I would ask, perhaps rhetorically, if it did vitiate Clause 1, why on earth did they agree to it in the first place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I listened with care to the Minister's answer but I remain pretty uncertain as to the response of the Government to the questions put by myself and more effectively, and more articulately, by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. There is a respectable view to the effect that Clause 1 is not effective as the Government propose. That respectable view is not confined to noble Lords on this side of the House; indeed, it is not confined to Mr Lofthouse. Other distinguished lawyers have expressed themselves to the effect that there is doubt.
Why do the Government persist with Clause 1 of this Bill which—whatever may be one's position—is not clear and is clearly in doubt? However, the Government persist with it. My noble friend Lord Kingsland is therefore right to suggest that perhaps this matter should be considered by the Committee for Privileges when he moves his Motion in due course. If he does, I shall support him and I hope that the Government will not oppose it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  (".—(1) From the day on which this Act comes into force, the members of the House of Lords who shall be entitled to sit and vote in that House shall be—

  (a) the Lords Spiritual;

  (b) any holder of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876;

  (c) not more than 700 peers who are elected in accordance with subsections (4) and (5);

  (d) any person who became a member of the House of Lords by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 in any of the four Sessions preceding the Session in which this Act is passed: and

  (e) subject to subsection (2) below, any person who receives a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after the date on which this Act is passed.

  (2) Any person who receives a writ of summons under subsection (1)(e) shall be entitled to sit and to vote in the House of Lords for a period of 5 years, after which he may stand for election under subsections (4) and (5).
  (3) From the day on which this Act comes into force—

  (i) all peers who would have been entitled to receive a writ of summons by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to attend the House of Lords but for the passing of this Act, and

  (ii) all peers who have been members of that House under subsection (1)(e) for a period of 5 years,

  shall be entitled to sit, but not to vote, in proceedings in that House.
  (4) The members of the House under subsection (1)(c) shall be comprised of not more than—

  (a) 240 Cross Bench peers elected by Cross Bench peers;

  (b) 200 Labour peers elected by Labour peers;

  (c) 200 Conservative peers elected by Conservative peers: and

  (d) 60 Liberal Democrat peers elected by Liberal Democrat peers.

  (5) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) and (4) shall he members of the House of Lords at the date on which the election is held who—

  (a) have attended at least 10 per cent of sitting days in each of the 2 Sessions preceding the election, or

  (b) if they have become a member of the House in either of the 2 Sessions preceding the election, have attended at least ten percent of sitting days since the day on which they were introduced.

  (6) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall certify—

  (a) the number of days of attendance of each member, and

  (b) the total number of days on which the House sat,

  referred to in subsection (5).
  (7) Standing Orders of the House of Lords shall make provision relating to the holding and conduct of elections under this section, and that such elections shall he held at intervals of 7 years.
  (8) Subject to subsection (10), the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend any number specified in subsection (4), but only to give effect to a resolution of the House of Lords.
  (9) An order under subsection (8) shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (10) The two political parties with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons shall be entitled to equal representation in the House of Lords.
  (11) Any question whether a person is elected under this section shall he decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is an improvement on the amendment which I tabled at Committee stage on 17th May at cols. 43–59 of Hansard, and which we discussed further on 25th May at cols. 908–914, when I moved that the new Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
  However, I am advised in no fewer than three memoranda from the Public Bill Office, signed by the Clerk Assistant, that the amendment is now prima facie hybrid, although I was not so advised when we debated its progenitor on 17th May in Committee. One of the three memoranda covers only Amendment No. 11; the other two cover also Amendment No. 20 of my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
  I have to confess to grave ignorance, in that I do not understand hybridity, and I fancy that I am not entirely alone in your Lordships' House in that incomprehension. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—if it is he who is to reply for the Government—understands hybridity. Therefore this is a good opportunity to ask the noble Lord to explain it to us in simple terms.
  Part of my confusion arises from the wording in the Public Bill Office's three memoranda, which is identical, and which I therefore assume has been carefully considered. That wording states that both this Amendment No. 11 and Amendment No. 20 of my noble friend Lord Coleraine are prima facie hybrid because,
  234
  "Each of these amendments, by including in the Bill a specific allocation to different parties within the House, affects the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers".
  So it would seem that this problem of hybridity arises when a Bill affects the private interests of some Peers, hereditary or otherwise, differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers in this case. If that is so, can the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, explain why the new Clause 2 does not make the Bill hybrid? Surely the private interests of the 542 hereditary Peers who are to be excluded from your Lordships' House are affected differently from those private interests of the 92 hereditary Peers who are to be allowed to remain. Surely it is anyway inescapable that the interests of those two hereditary Peers holding the offices of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, who are thus specifically identified and allocated for retention on the face of the Bill, must be affected differently from the rest of the 632 hereditary Peers who have to face election. In short, can the noble Lord explain why the new Clause 2 does not make the Bill hybrid?
  Can the noble Lord also explain another difficulty which I have with these memoranda? If hybridity occurs when one's private interests are affected differently from the private interests of others, surely Clause 1 of the Bill as originally drafted makes the Bill hybrid because hereditary Peers are excluded and appointed Peers are not. In that respect will the noble Lord explain the significance of the word "hereditary" in the memoranda? Does hybridity in this Bill occur only when the private interests of some hereditary Peers are affected differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers—as the memoranda suggest—and, if so, why?
  Finally, and more generally, before I leave the question of hybridity, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, to tell us why it matters if the Bill—
  Lord Acton: My Lords, it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise if I got that wrong. Of course I know perfectly well that it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I hope that I only got it wrong once, if I got it wrong.
  Lord Acton: Twice!
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in which case I apologise doubly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  Can the noble Lord tell us why it matters if the Bill is indeed hybrid? The last paragraph of the memoranda which I have mentioned says that were either this amendment or Amendment No. 20 carried the Bill would have to be referred to the Examiners, whoever they may be. Why does that matter? What happens to the Bill if the examiners agree that it is indeed hybrid? Can we pass it anyway or does it all have to go back to square one?

  235
  I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the answers to these questions will help me to decide whether to press the amendment to a Division today or whether to bring it back at Third Reading denuded of the elements which might cause it to be hybrid. I must confess that, with or without hybridity, depending on what the noble Lord may say, that might in any case be the better course for the amendment. As I understand it, it would simply require subsection (4) of the amendment to omit the specific allocations to different parties within the House and to follow instead the procedure set out in the new Clause 2 of the Bill, specifically subsections (4) and (5) of that clause.
  In other words, the allocations between the political parties and the Cross-Benches would be covered by Standing Orders and not placed on the face of the Bill. With that in mind, I will endeavour to put draft Standing Orders in your Lordships' Library for consideration, much in the same way as there are draft Standing Orders in your Lordships' Library for what used to be called the Weatherill amendment and which is now Clause 2 of the Bill.
  In addition, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for pointing out to me in a letter that subsection (10) of the amendment as drafted could lead to difficulty in the event of a coalition Government in the House of Commons. It may therefore be sensible also to leave to Standing Orders the aim of that subsection, which is to ensure that the two main power blocks in the other place should have equal representation in your Lordships' House. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, so succinctly put it in his letter to me—I hope he does not mind me quoting him:
  "The less the House of Lords has to do with political parties, the better".
  The noble and learned Lord will find exactly those sentiments expressed in our Committee stage debate on 17th May (Official Report, cols. 44–45), when I first introduced the amendment. They are sentiments with which the vast majority of the electorate of this country would agree, even if they do not play at all well here in the goldfish bowl of Westminster. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his advice.
  Perhaps I may now turn, finally and briefly, to the rest of the amendment. It is only a slightly altered and improved version of the amendment I moved in Committee on 17th May and to which I referred rather late at night on recommitment on 25th May. To give a very brief précis, it would leave all Peers with speaking rights for the duration of the interim House. On the other hand, while leaving the Bishops and the Law Lords as they are, it would remove the voting rights of all other Peers, both hereditary and appointed. The amendment would then set up four electoral colleges, one for each political party and one for the Cross-Benches, to elect 700 voting Peers. It thus avoids the contentious issue of how many hereditary Peers might be able to vote in the interim House because that number would simply emerge from the electoral process. There might be more than 92, but there might be fewer.
  236
  Other features of the amendment are that only those who had attended at least 10 per cent of the available sitting days in each of the two preceding Sessions would be eligible to vote, although all Peers could stand for election to become a voting Peer. Newly appointed Peers would be able to speak and vote for five years before they were required to face an election, which would decide whether they could continue to vote. The amendment suggests that elections should be held every seven years. However, new hereditary Peers would only be able to speak but not to vote unless and until they were elected in due course to do so.
  That, very briefly, is what the amendment would do. I submit that it has some clear advantages over the present Clause 2 of the Bill. I put those advantages to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal on 17th May, and more specifically to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 25th May. It is a matter of record that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made any attempt to answer at least five important propositions about this amendment which I put as questions to the Government as reported at col. 911 of Hansard on 25th May.
  I have today warned those who are advising the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and the Government that I would be returning to these questions and have to say that I hope for answers to all of them. I trust that the House will not find this hope in any way exaggerated or unreasonable. Indeed I should have thought that your Lordships would agree that it is the duty of the Government to answer pertinent questions during our debates. To refuse point blank to do so, as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 25th May, seems to me to be a serious abrogation of that duty. It may well be that the Government find the answers to the questions uncomfortable, because they expose how mistaken the Government have been to support what was the Weatherill amendment and has now become the new Clause 2 of the Bill, which this amendment would replace.
  By the same token, I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend Lord Strathclyde also to answer these questions when he comes to comment on the amendment. So far in our debates he has indicated that he believes that this amendment is indeed better than Weatherill or Clause 2, but for reasons which are not clear to me, he refuses to support it. Worse still, he has said that he would vote against the amendment if I were to press it to a Division, which does not exactly encourage one to do so.
  Here are the questions again. First, do the Government and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde agree that under Clause 2 as drafted a number of excellent hereditary Peers will be excluded from the interim House, while a large number of less than excellent appointed Peers will remain? What does that do for the quality of the interim House?
  Secondly, do they agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the present composition of your Lordships' House—perhaps the most unsatisfactory aspect—is the preponderance of Conservative Peers, and that Clause 2 prolongs that

  237
  preponderance? They will recall that the attendant draft standing orders to Clause 2 give at least 42 of the hereditary Peers who are to remain to the Conservatives, only 18 to the Cross Benches, only three to the Liberal Democrats and only two to the Labour Party.
  Thirdly, do they agree that by supporting Clause 2 the Government have abrogated that part of their manifesto which said that they would remove the right of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' interim House?
  Fourthly, do they agree that the power to legislate in your Lordships' House rests almost entirely upon the power to vote? That is a question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during the debate raised by his noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. I did not receive an answer to it then.
  Fifthly, do they agree that there is a possibility, however remote, that the interim House may last for longer than five years?
  Sixthly and finally, and much the most important of all, do they agree that we all share a clear duty to the nation to set up the best possible interim House, however long that House may last? Those are the six questions.
  Once again, I have to point out to the Government and to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that, if they answer those questions honestly, they will have no alternative but to agree that this amendment is far better than the new Clause 2, and that they should therefore support it.
  I would also remind them that at least 18 amendments to the Weatherill amendment, as it then was, were taken off the un-marshalled list in order to allow those amendments to be taken after the Weatherill amendment became part of the Bill. That is why the Bill returned on re-commitment on 25th May. So to me it is simply not acceptable for them to turn round now and say that, as the Weatherill amendment was so strongly supported, it cannot now be improved upon or replaced.
  The Weatherill amendment was indeed carried by 351 votes to 32. But, for reasons which I set out at col. 909 on 25th May and shall not repeat now, it is also clear that a number of noble Lords supported the Weatherill amendment precisely because they wished to encourage the Government to abrogate their manifesto commitment, as indeed they did.
  So I look forward to the answers from the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government and indeed from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, if he is to continue to oppose this amendment, to the six questions that I have put. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall speak on only one point. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, began by raising questions of hybridity. According to Erskine May, it is open to any Lord who considers that a public Bill may be hybrid or has become hybrid as a result of any amendment made to it, to move that the Bill be referred to examiners. There is no such Motion
  238
  before the House now. I suggest that in those circumstances it would not be in order for us to go into questions of hybridity now.
  Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has brought forward his amendment again in an improved form. I congratulate him both on his courage and on his good sense. I spoke in support of my noble friend's amendment in Committee and with the leave of the House I should like to do so again, although I promise to be briefer.
  I voted for the Weatherill amendment because I thought that it would make a bad Bill better. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, should we not try to build on his achievement and make the Bill better still—or rather, even less bad, depending on how you look at it.
  We are told that it is impossible to consider whether there are better ways to bring about stage one reform of this House because Weatherill represents the only compromise to which the Government are prepared to agree. However, it is fundamentally wrong, especially on a matter of such great constitutional importance, not to try to improve further on the Weatherill proposals. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is better from the point of view of all parties. It would certainly be better for the country. It has, as it were, something for everyone.
  Under my noble friend's amendment, the government party achieve parity with the Conservative Party immediately; the Liberal Democrats would have 60 voting Peers rather than 48 or so, which I believe is what the Weatherill amendment would give them; Conservative Peers would be able to elect the 200 Peers whom they want to represent them as voting Peers. The Government would have discharged their manifesto commitment in that no one would be a Member of this House only because he holds a hereditary peerage. Several noble Lords opposite have questioned whether other amendments debated today would satisfy the manifesto commitment, but the degree to which that commitment would be satisfied by my noble friend's amendment is rather greater than the degree to which many other manifesto commitments of all governments have been satisfied. The Cross-Bench Peers would be the largest group. They would be able to choose the 240 Peers they wished to represent them. Their presence would ensure that this House did not become too party-political. Under the Weatherill proposals, the Cross-Bench Peers will not be a large enough group to prevent the politicisation of the House. All elected Peers would have their authority enhanced, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us in connection with the Weatherill amendment. But under my noble friend's amendment their authority would he doubly enhanced, because they would have been elected by all their peers, not just by the hereditaries.
  My noble friend's amendment also permits all present Members of the House to continue to sit and speak. That has several advantages. First, if there were a second election before stage two was implemented the electorate would have a chance to get to know the

  239
  candidates. Secondly, the interim House would not be deprived of any of its present collective experience, skill, ability and knowledge. Thirdly, the link with the present House would be closer, which would be good for the continuity and functioning of the House. Fourthly, the link between the peerage and the House would be maintained in a way that better reflected our tradition of gradually evolving constitutional arrangements and paid greater regard to history whose importance we should not forget.
  I am no lawyer and certainly do not understand hybridity. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will enlighten us in his reply to my noble friend. I cannot understand the argument that my noble friend's amendment would make the Bill hybrid any more than it is already with or without the Weatherill amendment; rather, Peers would still be able to participate even though not all of them could vote. I therefore believe that the degree of hybridity in the Bill would he reduced by my noble friend's amendment. The effect of his amendment would be rather similar, at least in the short term, to that moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. Both amendments correct the substantial imbalance in voting strength between the two largest parties without depriving your Lordships' House of the benefit, if it be such, of the contribution that any one of your Lordships may bring to this place.
  I have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, although I believe that his weighted voting system introduces complications which the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson does not. The Bill incorporating the Weatherill amendment is not as effective in achieving parity of voting strength between the two major parties as either my noble friend's amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. In reply to his noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that the Government were unable to support the amendment because the actuarial calculation showed that the last hereditary Peer would die in 2068. But it is likely that under Weatherill the same actuarial calculation would predict that the last of the 92 exempted hereditary Peers would die not much earlier than 2068. But, surely, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, misunderstands that the amendments moved by his noble friend Lord Randall, my noble friend Lord Pearson and the Weatherill amendment, which is now Clause 2 of the Bill, are all proposals for the transitional House.
  The Weatherill amendment has made a bad Bill better and it is incumbent on your Lordships' House to try to make the Bill better still. The very sensible amendment introduced at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, which would have provided those of your Lordships who are Privy Councillors with a through train to the transitional House, would have been one way to do so. I am very sorry to see that so far he has not tabled that amendment again at Report stage. I hope that he will still do so or, if not now, at Third Reading.
  240
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde earlier this afternoon mentioned various other ways in which your Lordships could improve the Bill beyond the Weatherill amendment. I agree with him, and will give him my wholehearted support. However, I believe that the scheme introduced by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson would provide for a better transitional House than that which would result from any other amendment that your Lordships have debated during our deliberations on the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will support it.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I have added my name in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Like so many of us in this House, I am not legally qualified but do heed advice from those who are. I believe that the majority of noble Lords in the House have received a copy of counsel's opinion on this particular Bill.
  One of the pieces of advice that I have been given relates to a statement made in 1876 by Lord Cairns, who is well known to the legal profession, relating to the constitution. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer again to the opinion which I may have sent to many noble Lords. It may help them to understand why I put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. The point relates specifically to hybridity rather than numbers although the two issues are interrelated. Lord Cairns described public law. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, may wish to correct me if I am wrong. Public law is the law of the constitution, peerage law and the law of Parliament. The law of real property, that is to say land, is private law. Those are two distinctions.
  Noble Lords will understand that many hereditary peerages create private law as well as public law rights. All peerages originally created by Writ, and most peerages created by Letters Patent confer private property rights. The modern peerages created by Letters Patent, in particular those with no link to the land, probably do not create private property rights and are governed by public law only.
  It is clear that that differential impact probably makes it questionable as to whether or not the House of Lords Bill is a hybrid Bill. My convenor sits alongside me. However, I fear that by creating two divisions within the peerage—that is, Lords of Parliament as a particular class, and those without parliamentary rights as another—the amendment of my noble friend Lord Weatherill almost certainly makes Clause 2 hybrid. The same would be the case as regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. We shall all be interested to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to the amendment.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, at this time of the evening, we look forward with eager anticipation to the response—indeed, the dissertation—of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on hybridity. If the question of hybridity arose, we on these Benches would be opposed to it.
  The amendment drives a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill. Before it was changed as a result of the Weatherill amendment, its purpose was to end

  241
  membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The effect of the amendment is limited in terms of the way this House is composed. It has no effect on the Labour Benches. There would not need to be an election of the 200 Labour Peers because there are not 200 Labour Peers. There would not need to be an election on these Benches because although there are more than 60 Peers—there are 68 Liberal Democrat Peers—more than eight of those fall within paragraph (d) and would therefore be exempted from needing to stand for election.
  The only Members of your Lordships' House affected by the amendment would be the Conservatives—they would lose 250 Members—and the Cross-Benchers who would lose 75 Members. They would still be able to sit and speak in this House but would be unable to vote. It is a limited amendment which is completely at odds with the fundamental purpose of the Bill.
  It also has within it a number of anomalies for which in theory I should be grateful. As I fall under subsection (1)(d) of the new clause—I received my peerage under the Life Peerages Act in one of the four Sessions preceding the Session in which this Bill will be passed—I am one of the unique category of people who will never have to stand for election. The Bill provides that any person who became a Member of your Lordships' House during that period is in a separate category and in the same position as the Lords Spiritual and any holder of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act in not being required to stand for election under any circumstances.
  We believe that the amendment is wrong in principle and is full of anomalies in any event. Therefore, we oppose it.
  Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Pearson. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, seems to have been kicked into the long grass and the amendment tabled by my old friend Lord Pearson is our only alternative to Clause 2, the Weatherill amendment. On that score alone, it is worth your Lordships' consideration. However, I wish particularly to reinforce my noble friend's question to the Government Front Bench with regard to his six questions. It deserves the courtesy of a reply on those fundamental questions.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House should be indebted to my noble friend for bringing forward a comprehensive scheme for reforming the House. I know that he has always thought constructively and deeply on these matters and I recognise, as do many Members of this House, that his is a scheme with many merits. First, it meets the demand for broad parity between the parties, which the Government seek and which some feel is the motivation behind the Bill. But as I pointed out at an earlier stage—my noble friend agreed with me—I fear that 240 Cross-Bench Peers in a House of 753 is more than the Government would wish to see. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House expressed a certain restlessness about the 200 Labour Peers and the mechanism for reaching that. But who knows whether
  242
  in the next few weeks we shall reach the number of 200 Peers—or may be not. Indeed, it may well be that the desire to bring in new Labour Peers in tranches is one reason why this Bill does not include a statutory appointments commission, an omission that we shall seek to remedy next week.
  I am very much attracted to the idea that the House should be selected from the best and most able Peers, as my noble friend envisages. He is right to hark hack to those days, sadly not to be seen again, when no distinction was drawn between different categories of Peer. That particular poison has now been introduced into this House and I am attracted to the theoretical idea of a House chosen differently.
  My noble friend challenges me to answer the questions that he raises. Perhaps I may do him the courtesy of briefly running through them. First, he asked whether a number of excellent hereditary Peers will be excluded from your Lordships' interim House. I agree with him. The second question was whether one of the most unsatisfactory aspects about the present composition of your Lordships' House is the preponderance of Conservative Members. The answer to that is no. His third question was whether the Government have abrogated their manifesto. The answer to that is yes. The fourth question was whether I agreed that the power to legislate in your Lordships' House rests almost entirely on the power to vote. Yes, I agree with that; and I also agree with the fifth and sixth questions. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend, if not the rest of the House.
  I know that what I say next will disappoint my noble friend. We have to live in this world, which is defined by the huge majority in another place and a Government often with a narrow mind and closed ears on new and inventive ideas to reform this place. We have to live in a world where, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House told us only an hour or two ago, the Government are determined to proceed on this without delay. The reality is that this Government have declared that they will not accept this as an alternative to the Weatherill proposal. However heavily we may vote, however right we may be, the Government, as they showed on the matter of the closed list, will use their majority in another place to have their way.
  Your Lordships do not need me to say that if the Government are driven to this, we will see every hereditary Peer driven from this House. We will see pass a Bill that almost all your Lordships know in their hearts was, in its original form, one of the very worst ever to come to this House. We shall lose that continuity of tradition and good sense which allows your Lordships to exercise a mild, restraining hand on even such a doctrinaire government as the current one.
  I do not relish saying this, and my noble friend may consider it a weakness that I do, but I hope that he and others will do me at least the honour of understanding that the advice I give is the advice that I believe is in the best interests of this House and the independence of this House.
  This House has voted for the Weatherill amendment by an overwhelming majority. It is still open for us to seek, as this House must always seek, to improve the

  243
  Bill before us. That, I promise your Lordships, we will do. However, to seek to move what is in some respects an alternative Bill is, for all the merits mentioned by my noble friend and others, sadly, not practical politics. If we do that we risk losing what we have won so far—a massive repudiation of the manifesto commitment—and the prospect which we still have of using this Bill to impose a check on the power of the executive to misuse the power of patronage in the future.
  For those reasons, and also because the House has so recently determined the Weatherill amendment, I do not feel able to support my noble friend if he presses his amendment tonight, but I hope that he has some satisfaction in the knowledge that I much admire and respect the way in which he has brought this matter before the House.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I have understood the thrust of the observations and submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the questions divide themselves conveniently into three categories. The first relates to the text of the amendments, the second to the hybridity and the third to the five questions which are now six.
  I understand fully the advice given to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. However, the House, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is entitled to as competent an answer as I can attempt on the question of hybridity.
  As regard the amendments, it is desired that there should be a House consisting of 26 Lords Spiritual, any holder of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act—which means Law Lords and retired Law Lords—not more than 700 Peers who are elected; anyone who became a Member of this House by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 in any of the four preceding Sessions and any person subject to subsection (2) who receives a Writ of Summons to attend this House by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after the date on which the Act is passed.
  Furthermore—I am not sure that I understood any clear explanation of this—all Peers who have been Members of the House under subsection 1(e) for a period of five years would be entitled to sit, but not to vote, in our proceedings. I am not sure whether the noble Lord explained the rationale for that. If he did and I missed it, I am sorry, but I do not think he did.
  The noble Lord then goes into some detail, which has been touched on: 240 Cross-Bench Peers, elected by Cross-Bench Peers 200 Labour Peers similarly, 200 Conservative Peers similarly and 60 Liberal Democrats elected similarly by the Liberal Democrat Peers. Then there are various details about elections.
  None of the amendments is acceptable to the Government. They are not acceptable to the Official Opposition. Both the Government and the Opposition have said that to your Lordships, and therefore to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on two previous occasions.
  244
  My advice to my colleagues would be that we should vote against it. I understand quite clearly that that is the stance adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We simply cannot accept this. As has been rightly said from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, it drives a coach and horses through the point of the Bill. Certainly, it is wholly incompatible with the Weatherill compromise, for the reasons identified by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Those are our objections to the amendments.
  On the question of hybridity, Clause 2 gives all hereditary Peers the same chance. It does not specify any division. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gives Tory Peers a different chance of continuing membership from Labour Peers. The Earl Marshal and the Great Chamberlain are in a class of their own. It is, I readily concede, quite a small class, but it is in fact a class which is treated equally within itself.
  The same is true of Clause 1 in relation to all hereditary Peers. I see the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, smiling very charmingly, but he asked me this and I am telling him. I am assisting your Lordships in your deliberations. That is the short answer to the question of hybridity.
  If the question of hybridity arises prima facie—it does on Amendment No. 11—my advice, which I transmit for your Lordships' assistance, is that it would be necessary for the Chairman of Committees to table a Motion after the conclusion of Report stage to refer the Bill to the Examiners in respect of what is presently Amendment No. 11. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked what the consequences of that would be. Plainly, there would be a very substantial delay. He might be able to bear that with some fortitude; we would not. I hope I am putting our cards as clearly face upwards on the table as I possibly can. I further understand, if I have the advice correct, that there would be an opportunity then for Petitions to be made and there would be a very substantial delay. That is the problem of hybridity and the consequences are as I have described.
  Then there were the six questions, which I paraphrase. They are not in exactly the same form as they were earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked them, but they are generally in similar form. His first question this evening was: would some excellent hereditary Peers be excluded and would some less excellent life Peers remain? I do not think it is for me to say who I regard or who the Government regard as excellent or not. I hope not to appear to be using words inappropriately. I have said, as has the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor on many occasions—the Chief Whip said this earlier this evening—that of course there are many hereditary Peers who have given excellent devoted service to this House over a period of many years. There are also many hereditary Peers who have not graced us with their presence, until recently. I shall not put the goats on one side and the sheep on the other. Perhaps they divide themselves of their own volition. There are equally very many excellent life Peers.

  245
  The noble Lord spoke of the benefit of continuity and good sense. May I take a name or two at random? I do not even know, because I have not looked recently, whether the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is in his place. No, he is not. But does he not give us the benefit of continuity and good sense, abundantly so? Does not the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Has he not selflessly done that over many years?
  I can continue, but the point I think is made, if it is to be made at all. The point is not whether people have served well or ill; the point is the point of principle upon which we shall never agree. It is the same as the debate between the Flat Earth Society and those who prefer Columbus. We are not going to agree. I have said before, and I make no apology for repetition, that honourable people can honourably disagree on this matter, but our objection is to the capricious donation of birth which gives a hereditary Peer the right to take pail in the workings of this second legislative Chamber.
  The second question, as I had it noted, was whether the most unsatisfactory aspect of continuing the hereditary attendance in this House was the fact that there was a preponderance of Conservative Peers. My answer to that, curiously, would be the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. No, that is not the most offensive, unsatisfactory aspect. The reason for that is as I said a moment ago. We find it unacceptable as a matter of principle that the hereditary element should continue on the basis as I described. It would not matter tuppence to me whether all hereditary Peers, or 99 per cent of them were Liberal Democrats, Labour or indeed were Communists or Welsh Nationalists; the principle is wrong. That is the answer to the second question.
  The third question was put a little more harshly this evening than when the question was put by the noble Lord earlier. It was whether the Government had abrogated the party manifesto—clearly not. We have come to an accommodation which is a compromise judged to be necessary for a brief time only. It was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that the scheme of my noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux was for a transitional period. That is not so. If one looks at the terms of the amendment contained in the fourth grouping we considered this evening, even a moment's reflection shows that to be wrong. The noble Lord's amendment said,
  "Any person who, on the day on which this Act is passed, is a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage, shall remain a member of that House for their life".
  There is not much of a transition there unless one contemplates a transition going as long as 2068. That is that.
  Is the power to legislate almost entirely dependent on the power to vote? I, too, do not necessarily agree with that as a proposition. Many noble Lords are extremely influential and persuasive and are able to influence the House in a much more telling way than simply the possession that one vote implies.
  Is the interim House capable of lasting longer than five years? We have made it abundantly plain so often that that is not our intention. We set up the Royal
  246
  Commission with a tight deadline. We want the Joint Committee of both Houses and then we want Parliament to come to its own conclusion.
  Finally, I agree without any reservation with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the sixth question: is it our clear duty to ensure the best possible interim House? Yes. We made a compromise as an indication that that is our intention also.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially those who were good enough to support this amendment. I will not therefore comment on those who supported me more than to thank them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out what he regarded as the technical defects of this amendment; for instance, that there would not need in the first election to be an election at all for the Labour Party or for the Liberal Benches. That is so, but the noble Lord will see that I explained that that was the position and why that came about when I moved the amendment in Committee.
  The noble Lord also said that there was an anomaly in the wording which he did not understand because, as an appointed Peer who has not yet been here for five years, as far as he could see he would not need to stand for election. I am advised by those who helped me to draft it that that is not what the amendment says. As a new appointed Peer he could sit and vote for the first five years, but after that period of time, when the next election came along, he would be able to continue to sit but would not be able to vote unless he was elected 10 do so by his peers.
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde resists this amendment. I have to put it to him that later in our proceedings I understand he is going to move an amendment which will allow for hereditary Peers who die under the Weatherill agreement to be replaced. Perhaps his enthusiasm for this amendment or one like it will rise when he considers the question that, if all Peers are not left with speaking rights in your Lordships' House, how will your Lordships know how to vote when replacing those who may have died?
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde then said that 240 Cross-Benchers would be too many, but, as I suggested on recommitment or possibly in Committee, he would, would he not, because he was a former Chief Whip. Be that as it may, if the apportionment between the political parties and indeed subsection (10) of this amendment are to be taken out and put in Standing Orders, as is the position for the Weatherill amendment, then my noble friend would not need to hold that against this amendment in future.
  My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was then very generous, in that he agreed with Questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 almost without qualification. I think he misunderstood Question 2 a little, which is whether the amendment actually prolongs the Conservative preponderance in your Lordships' House. It does not really matter whether that to the Benches opposite is the most seriously disagreeable aspect of the present composition of your

  247
  Lordships House. The fact is that the Weatherill amendment—Clause 2—prolongs that Conservative preponderance which, to many of us, is in fact the most unacceptable aspect of the present composition of your Lordships' House.
  My noble friend then invited us to live in the real world and in effect to go along with the Weatherill amendment even though it does not fit with his answer to Question 6 which I posed to him. In other words, it does not set up the best possible interim House. I have to put it to my noble friend that the real world would also include the power of the Conservative Whip, and indeed many Cross-Benchers, who do have the ability to frustrate the Government's business until they agree to the best possible interim House, which is in the interests of the nation. However, for reasons which I and I think other noble Lords find completely incomprehensible, my noble friend does not wish to exercise that power, and I would like to put on the record that I very much regret that.
  Finally, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and he also, I think, is not quite clear on the meaning of the amendment. I would confirm to him that I believe it to say that newly appointed Peers could sit and vote for five years and then after that they would have to face election if they wished to go on voting. Hereditary Peers on the other hand would be allowed to sit but only to vote if they were elected. I see the noble Lord is nodding his head, which is very gracious of him, and I hope that that sets the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, at rest as well.
  When we come to the six questions, however, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a little more difficult. I do not think he really answered Question 1, which is quite simply whether he agrees that there will be a number of excellent hereditary Peers who are excluded—I think he agrees with that—and my question really was, would there not be quite a number, a larger number indeed, of appointed Peers who are less than excellent who would remain? Obviously I shall have to see what he actually said in Hansard, but I think he ducked that with a lawyer's skill and charm.
  As to Question 2, the Weatherill amendment prolonging the Conservative preponderance, I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has made the same mistake as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
  Coming then to whether the Government have abrogated their manifesto or not, I would only pray in aid what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said from those Benches in one of our earlier debates, which was precisely to the effect that they have abrogated that aspect of their manifesto by allowing some hereditary Peers to stay in the interim House. I do not have the reference here but I did hear the noble and learned Lord say that and I can find it if necessary.
  The fourth question, the power to legislate being the power to vote. I will simply have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It is of course true that the brilliant barrister can persuade the jury to deliver a verdict but it is the jury that delivers the verdict. If the very best of the hereditary and appointed
  248
  Peers in your Lordships' House were elected by their Peers to be the voting Peers, I do not think that they would be easily dissuaded from the right decision.
  Fifthly, I think the noble Lord admitted that the interim House could last for more than five years, which is simply a matter of fact.
  Finally, he was good enough to say that he agreed that it is our duty to achieve the best interim House we possibly can.
  As to the question of hybridity, I will defer to the noble Lord. I will have to have a look at it. In those circumstances, it would be better to bring this amendment back with the leave of the House because if it were to be denuded of the aspects of hybridity, I think it would, if your Lordships were to agree it, produce a very much better interim House than what Weatherill achieves. Weatherill is simply the result of a deal to which we all appear to be sticking for no very good reason and I hope that your Lordships will at least grant me the indulgence on Third Reading of looking very briefly at this amendment, denuded of any aspects of it which give rise to hybridity. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 12:
  After Clause I, insert the following new clause—

  LIFE PEERAGES FOR DISQUALIFIED PEERS
  (" . A peerage under the Life Peerages Act 1958 may be conferred on a person notwithstanding that he is disqualified under section I from attending, sitting or voting in the House of Lords, and, accordingly, section 1(4) of that Act shall not apply in relation to any such person.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill, I drew attention to what seemed to me to be a difficulty generated by the Life Peerages Act 1958. I confess to having been unpersuaded by the reply which I received on that occasion from the Government Front Bench.
  Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act provides that a life peerage—and I parenthesise slightly—shall not confer any right to attend or sit and vote in this House on any person who is disqualified therefrom by law. It seems to me almost self-evident that those hereditary Peers who are precluded by law from sitting and voting in your Lordships' House by virtue of the provisions of this Bill would be disqualified from receiving a life peerage, if subsequently they were thought appropriate for that honour.
  I must confess that I am slightly reinforced in that view by the knowledge, or so I understand, that those hereditary Peers of first creation—nine in number—who have quite publicly been offered life peerages, have been assured that their new life peerages will be conferred before this Bill becomes law. It seems that an alarm bell must have been ringing in government corridors somewhere to the effect that the difficulty to which I have referred is indeed real. Perhaps that is not so. Perhaps I am mistaken. I look forward to being told whether that is the case.
  It seems self-evident to me, as a simple, non-legal person, that the provisions of Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act generate a difficulty with regard to the conferring of life peerages upon dispossessed hereditary Peers, as we shall be as and when this Bill becomes law.
  I hope that the Government have given some thought to this matter and can produce a definitive rebuttal to the difficulty which I have perceived. If they are able to do that, I shall, quite happily, withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as my name is attached to this amendment, perhaps I may also add my little potted interpretation. I ask myself a simple question: what actually happens when and if the Bill is enacted in its current form? We have to take it on advice from the Government Front Bench that all members of the hereditary peerage, excepting those who are successful in the ballot arising from Clause 2, will be barred; in other words, they will be disqualified in law from being Members of this House. That is the purpose of the Bill. That is its intent. What therefore happens, say, five years after the Bill has been enacted? It may perhaps be decided, even by the current Prime Minister, that a member of the hereditary peerage should be made a life Peer on merit. That is all well and good. However, because of Section 4 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, that singular honour, granted, I repeat, on merit, could not and would not carry with it an entitlement to a Writ of Summons to be a Member of this House. The legal barrier—the barrier in statute—of the Bill would take precedence.
  In response to this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal suggested that there is nothing in the Bill which would remove the right of hereditary Peers to be Members of the House of Lords. I simply submit that that is absurd. That is precisely what the Bill does seek to achieve. Indeed, my interpretation is that that is the Government's intent, as has been stated on numerous occasions and in many different ways by all Members of the Government Front Bench.
  In Committee, the noble Baroness indulged in some linguistic gymnastics to justify the Government's position, but no amount of semantics can disguise the simple fact that, as drafted, the Bill does seek to disqualify members of the hereditary peerage from being Members of this House. As such, it falls within the terms of Section 4 of the 1958 Act.
  I dislike harping on about this point, but given the fact that the hereditary peerage will be barred from ever again being permitted to receive a Writ of Summons to perform the task of legislative scrutiny here, the Government really ought to think very carefully as to whether the Bill on this issue is properly and adequately consistent with their own Human Rights Act. My own judgment—and I freely admit that I am not a lawyer—is that, on strict interpretation, it is not.
  I return to my familiar theme. The Bill, on matters of substantive detail, is not the creature of exquisite simplicity that the Government claim. The particular
  250
  issue that the amendment seeks to address is a prime example of the lack of clarity and uncertainty engendered by the Government's approach to the Bill. Thus the purpose of our amendment is to plug what we perceive to be a specific gap in that approach. I can but hope that the noble Lord, or whoever is due to reply on the Government Front Bench, will, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked, be in a position to give us a reasoned and a reasonable explanation as to why our interpretation of the situation is flawed. In the absence of that, and with the agreement of my noble friend, I hope that the rest of the House might find favour with this small attempt to deliver that quality of fairness to which members of the Government say they attach so much importance.
  Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I know that I have been very impressed, and I believe that many other noble Lords on these Benches have been, with the assiduity with which my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Northesk have dug around in the nooks and crannies of this Bill, looking under all the stones, trying to find the inconsistencies and the flaws and suggesting improvements to them. Some of those flaws undoubtedly exist. By contrast, the Government seem to be saying, "Our Bill is perfect; it is very clear. It doesn't require any changes". Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that on numerous occasions. I think that some people call it "Pepper and Harting" the Bill; I tend to call it "Heckler and Koching" the Bill, or "Webley and Scotting" it.
  It is just possible in this particular case that my noble friends have stumbled on an important what I think lawyers call a "lacuna" in the Bill—I am not a lawyer but I believe that is the word—which may need repair. We seem to be left with the ridiculous situation that hereditary Peers, who may he perceived by the outside world as some kind of top dogs, could find themselves at the bottom of the heap. They could be the only people in this country who are not allowed to be Members of your Lordships' House. That would be an extraordinary turn of fate and I really think it should be attended to.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, as I understand it, is to clarify the ability of the Government to confer life peerages on disqualified Peers—something that after the commencement of the Act we are led to believe that they intend to do. The Government seem to believe that Clause 1 of the House of Lords Bill will have the same effect as a disclaimer and allow a former hereditary Peer to sit as a life Peer. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne is advised by contrast—and by Mr Lofthouse—that this may not be the case.
  Section 1(4) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 states:
  "Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law".
  My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has raised an important point; namely, whether or not Peers excluded by the Act could legally be brought back. It is essential that this point be clarified before the Bill becomes law.

  251
  As was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden in Committee, the concept of disqualification is known to the Bill. It is cited in Clause 3 and used as the description of the effect of the Bill. The matter is now complicated by the inclusion of the Weatherill amendment. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in her reply that the Bill did not uniquely disqualify hereditary Peers; rather it ended a situation where they were uniquely qualified.
  But that was before Weatherill. Now some Peers will be elected and qualified, other Peers will not be elected and will be disqualified. Will they be able to receive life peerages in the light of the 1958 Act? In her reply in Committee the noble Baroness also said that the Government had offered life peerages to some Peers. She cited my noble friend Lord Aldington. But with great respect to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, that is not the point. The point is not whether the Government can give life peerages now; it is whether they will be able to do so after the Bill becomes law.
  At an earlier stage we understand that some Peers on the Labour side were advised that it might need a separate Act of Parliament to confer life peerages on hereditary Peers after the Act was passed. I think we are entitled to ask the Government what is the position. The Government have a duty to make this clear beyond any doubt before the Bill passes. But so far, in my submission, the Government have not done so.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, of course,
  accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, said about the assiduity of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl in bringing forward a large number of interesting issues both in Committee and when the Bill was recommitted. I remember at some late point in the Committee stage personally congratulating them on their ingenuity in raising a particularly complex issue. I hesitate to use the word "arcane" as that has been attacked in the course of this evening's proceedings. The point they sought to raise in Committee, which has been emphasised by some noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate today, was that they genuinely believed (and they continue to be concerned) that there is what was described as a lacuna in the Bill on this question of the ability of this Government or any government in the future being able to confer life peerages on those who have been previously hereditary Members of this House.
  Perhaps I may refer to the question about Peers of First Creation and the moves made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to seek to invite Members of your Lordships' House who are Peers of First Creation to accept life peerages in this present stage of the deliberations on the Bill. That was done precisely because those people who were asked if they wished to accept the invitation were people who it was judged by my right honourable friend would, in normal circumstances, perhaps have been given life peerages in any case. It seemed to be legitimate that they should therefore be offered this alternative to the pursuit of an election, if that is what they wished to achieve, under the new Clause 2 of the Bill, or to retire from political
  252
  life. The idea was simply to offer them an additional opportunity since they might well, in the first instance, have been offered life peerages rather than hereditary peerages when they were first invited to join your Lordships' House.
  The noble Earl made much of the overall point of the Bill and, what he called the disbarring from the House of members of the hereditary peerage. He suggested that that was, as it were, a permanent gate coming down on their membership of the House. The point is that they were only disbarred, to use his expression, from membership of your Lordships' House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that, provided they are qualified in other respects—I will return to the question of disqualification later in my response—they are in any other way prevented from becoming Members of your Lordships' House as life Peers; they are simply and categorically disbarred from membership by virtue of their hereditary peerage.
  We have considered the various points made very cogently by noble Lords in our previous debate and we considered this question before the Bill was brought before your Lordships. As I hope I have explained, that is the reason why some Peers of First Creation were offered life peerages at an earlier moment. We seriously consider that the amendment is unnecessary; we seriously assert—we have of course had our own legal and constitutional advice on this matter—that all hereditary Peers will be eligible to receive life peerages. We have consistently envisaged that Members of your Lordships' House who sit now by virtue of their hereditary peerage may indeed become those who are most obviously eligible to become life Peers in some future incarnation. We checked that there were no difficulties raised by this under the Life Peerages Act. It was intended to ensure that the usual disqualifications for membership which apply to life Peers—being an alien, a minor or a bankrupt—continue to apply to life Peers. As the present Bill does not prevent hereditary Peers from being Members of the House—but, I repeat, only being a Member of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage—there is no disqualification on hereditary Peers which needs to be ousted or, to use the noble Earl's expression, barred.
  We have already in the course of the day's proceedings on the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, revisited the question of the significance of the expression "by virtue of'. As my noble friend Lord Williams said in responding to the noble Earl, its main attraction is the breadth which it encompasses. In this case there is another significance to it; if you like, a narrowing of the scope. The Bill does not say that no one should be a Member of the House of Lords if he holds a hereditary peerage. That would indeed be a disqualification for membership. But that is not the effect of the Bill.
  The Bill is not about disqualification from membership but about barring one of the routes to membership. The route to membership alone of holding a hereditary peerage will of course no longer exist after the Bill comes into force. But everyone still has the same rights as before to seek the remaining routes to

  253
  membership of your Lordships' House. For example, in the same way that after the Bill is passed a hereditary Peer who is also a Bishop in the Church of England will be entitled to take his seat on the Bishops' Bench if he holds one of the qualifying dioceses, so a hereditary Peer who is made a life Peer will be able to rejoin your Lordships. As I have explained before—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seemed to find this an unhelpful expression; to me it seems reasonably clear—they will not pass from being uniquely qualified to being uniquely disqualified.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also referred to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in our earlier debate and he did indeed point out that the Bill recognises at another point the concept of disqualification, and in its proper place indeed it does. Peers are presently disqualified from being Members of the House of Commons. It is an absolute bar. The Bill removes it where the disqualification is by virtue of the hereditary peerage. By virtue of the hereditary peerage, that disqualification from membership of the House of Commons is removed. But if the disqualification were accompanied by the fact that the Peer in question was a minor or an undischarged bankrupt, the Bill would not remove those disqualifications.
  I hope that noble Lord will not believe, as someone said in the course of our short debate, that that is playing with words. It does explain matters with some clarity to me, and I am not a lawyer. I think that it does suggest the difference between the disqualification in the appropriate place and the barring of one route to membership of your Lordships' House which does not cut off all other routes.
  A Peer who was a hereditary Peer, a bankrupt, an alien or a minor would therefore remain disqualified in relation to the House of Commons, and that is also the effect of the Bill before us read alongside Section 1(4) of the 1958 Act in relation to this House. The disqualifications that apply to membership of the House of Lords also remain. They are consistent with those that remain to disqualify anyone from being a Member of the House of Commons, but they do not include anything arising from this Bill.
  I hope your Lordships will feel that that is an understanding that I have attempted to put in the simple language I myself understand. It is slightly, I agree, a question of double negatives, as I said in answer to the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. But I also explained previously that the present amendment appears to override the disqualifications that I have just described, which do properly apply to hereditary Peers becoming life Peers, both now and in the future. It would therefore, to use the expression that I find helpful but the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, perhaps does not, continue to make hereditary Peers uniquely qualified. A bankrupt hereditary Peer could become a life Peer where a bankrupt commoner could not. The noble Lord's accompanying amendment, Amendment No. 82—the amendment to the Long Title—illustrates that.
  254
  I hope that I have made a little clearer, as I obviously failed to do when we discussed this point in Committee, the difference between disqualification, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, describes it, and what the effect of the Bill will be. I can only reiterate simply that there is no political intention to prevent hereditary Peers being eligible to become life Peers and no legal bar in this Bill.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may clarify one point. I agree with her that there is no absolutist doctrine about disqualification here. However, the disqualification by virtue of a hereditary peerage is nonetheless a disqualification in law. Therefore, the terms of Section 4 of the 1958 Act, under my interpretation, carry force because they include the phrase "disqualified therefore by law". Does she not accept that there is an element of symmetry which needs to be addressed?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is my legal advice that that is not the case and that the statute, in removing the disqualification for membership, for example, of the House of Commons, except in those instances of being a minor or a bankrupt, is different from that of this Bill, which requires that membership of your Lordships' House should not continue by virtue of a hereditary peerage. But I am advised that that does not override the Life Peerages Act, which enables anyone not disqualified by those other, more limited concepts from becoming a Member of this House. It simply bars one route to membership by virtue of a hereditary peerage, but no others except those limited disqualifications.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may quickly respond. There remains a fundamental point of principle. It is apparent that there remains a degree of uncertainty on this issue—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will explain. Is he intervening to ask the noble Baroness a question, or is he making another speech?
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I was simply intervening to ask another question on the back of what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal had said. It is simply this. Does she not accept that her reply indicates that uncertainty remains around this issue?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. I can only apologise to the noble Earl if he finds confusing my simple explanation using non-legal terms. I had hoped that by putting it in the way that I understand the points, I had made it as clear as I could. believe those points to be reinforced by the legal position. I have no hesitation in suggesting to the noble Earl that that is the correct interpretation.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I readily accept that the Government have a respectable point of view on

  255
  this matter, which the noble Baroness has enunciated. I accept that it is not their intention to exclude hereditary Peers from the possibility of receiving a life peerage as and when the Bill becomes law, if it does. But the fact remains that there is some doubt about the matter. The noble Baroness has repeatedly asserted that she believes that that is not the case, but she has not persuaded us that there is not some doubt about the matter.
  It is not right to pass legislation where there is doubt, which is therefore open to challenge as and when it becomes law, with all the uncertainty surrounding that. We ought to put this matter right. I commend the amendment to the House.
  11.7 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 110.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Berners, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Clinton, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Northbrook, L. [Teller.]

  Courtown, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Cross, V.

  Norton, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Devon, E.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Romney, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Sempill, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Swansea, L.

  Gray, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Henley, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Hooper, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Addington, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Ahmed, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Alli, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Amos, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Attenborough, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Bach, L.

  David, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Blease, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

  Bledisloe, V.

  Desai, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Newby, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Patel, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Rea, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Richard, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Sandberg, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

  Sewel, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Simon, V.

  Kennet, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Thornton, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  McNair, L.

  Warner, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Winston, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  11.16 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 13:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  RIGHTS OF DISQUALIFIED PEERS
  (" . Lords Temporal who are disqualified from attending, sitting and voting in the House of Lords by virtue of this Act—

  (a) shall not be entitled to receive writs of summons to attend any future Parliament; but

  (b) shall nevertheless be entitled to enter the Palace of Westminster and use the facilities of the Palace as if they were not so disqualified.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 and 49 which stand in my name, and in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk.
  The new clause makes it clear that in future disqualified Peers will not be entitled to receive Writs to attend Parliament. Again, this is intended to clarify what I believe to be the intentions of the Government enshrined in the Bill. The amendment provides that those who are nonetheless not entitled to receive Writs should be entitled to use the facilities of the Palace of Westminster as has been their right ever since the Palace was built originally, all those hundreds of years ago.
  It is an elementary courtesy to those hereditary Peers who have served with such distinction, as Ministers have readily recognised, over many years, not to say centuries if we go back to our predecessors.
  I hope that the Government agree that this will be a small, innocent, but welcome gesture in an attempt perhaps to smooth the passage of hereditary Peers away from the voting facilities of this House of Parliament. I hope that your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have a misconception as to why the facilities are provided. They are not provided in order to have an agreeable club here, but because it is a workplace. In the same way in any workplace canteen facilities are provided because one has to be at the workplace and work unreasonable hours. Today is a good example of that: The canteen facilities are provided so that we can be here at all times as our work requires. It seems to me that the noble Lord is entirely wrong about why these facilities are provided and for that reason I cannot support his amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply tempted to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, but I shall not do so. I was concerned because my noble friend Lord Trefgarne was flustered when he had to move his amendment—and understandably so because he was tied up with the previous Division. So flustered was he that he said he was speaking to Amendment No. 49 which was in his name. I should point out to your Lordships that it is in my name, and, with the leave of the House, I wish to speak to that amendment when we reach it and not tonight.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Indeed, this is a workplace, but surely those who are not to be allowed to vote and speak still have brains and something to contribute. Those noble Lords still left could gain a great deal of insight into all kinds of areas in life. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment has a great deal to offer on its own merits, never mind in the interests of the bar profits, which would suffer enormously!
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may intervene to correct what I said earlier. I had understood that my amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 49. However, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is not in his place and my noble friend Lord Ferrers has made it clear that he does not want to speak at this point, I withdraw that suggestion and apologise to your Lordships. My remarks therefore address only Amendment No. 13.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for whom I have the greatest respect, that I thought his intervention was uncharacteristically insensitive. The Members of another place, when they retire, have rights to facilities there—
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to correct the noble Lord on a point of fact, but anyone who has been a Member of the House of Commons and ceases to be so does not have the right to use the refreshment facilities of that House. The only right one has is to go
  258
  into the Lobby of the House of Commons, which does not fulfil any of the digestive needs of former Members. I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I went to the trouble of obtaining the regulation: as they affect former Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of this House. It may be of assistance to the House if I read from them. Former Members of the House of Commons may be admitted via St. Stephen's Lobby—that is, the public entrance and not the Members' entrance; they must wear a photo—pass and they are entitled to eat only in the Terrace Cafeteria and to use the Strangers' Bar. On Monday lunch-times only are they allowed to dine in the Members' Dining Room.
  In addition, the regulations state what former Members are not entitled to do. They relate to Members who have performed more than 15 years' service. If they have performed fewer than 15 years' service, they have no entitlements at all. They are not allowed to use any other facilities of the Palace; they are not allowed to entertain guests; they are not allowed to show guests the Line of Route; they are not allowed to use any of the car parks; and they are not allowed to cash cheques in the House's Post Office. So there are only limited facilities for long-standing Members of another place who have since left.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, purely for information, what about the Libraries?
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the regulations are clear that former Members of the other place have no rights to use the Libraries.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is not the issue somewhat more fundamental? This place exists for the purpose of legislating; for revising and scrutinising legislation. It is not a social club. Therefore, or the face of the Bill it would be nonsense to mention the provision of extraneous facilities for anyone. If someone wants a facility over and above what is being provided for in the Bill, that should arise as a result of negotiation and discussion outside the Chamber. One cannot possibly expect this side of the House to place this proposal on the face of the Bill because it would be an absolote nonsense.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I find fascinating the strength of feeling that this matter seems to have aroused on the other side of the House——
  A Noble Lord: It was a correction.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with great respect, it was not just a correction. I do not accept that because I think that Members of another place who leave that other place, at least in certain circumstances have certain rights in another place. Members of another place who come to your Lordships' House have rights in another place. So to exclude members of your Lordships' House from rights in your Lordships' House altogether would

  259
  be wholly inconsistent with the treatment of Members of another place who cease to be Members of another place.
  I understood that the purpose of the Bill was to deal with the political rights of hereditary Peers, not other rights which seem to me, with great respect to Members on the other side of your Lordships' House, to fall into an entirely different category. What political harm can former Members of your Lordships' House do either to your Lordships' House or elsewhere by coming to your Lordships' House and enjoying its non-political facilities? I do not understand that argument.
  The Opposition Front Bench does not advocate that this matter appears on the face of the Bill. To that extent, it agrees with the Government. However, it thinks that it should be dealt with in the Committee for Privileges. Indeed, we believe it would be both prudent and statesmanlike to address this issue now.
  The presence of the Bishops in your Lordships' House did not prevent your Lordships from conferring rights on Bishops who retire. Your Lordships should not be deterred from doing the same for those hereditary Peers who sadly may, as a consequence of the passage of the Bill, have to leave your Lordships' House.
  I hope that we can come together as a House to do that. I hope that this will not be a matter of continuing dispute. It would be inconceivable to think that at the beginning of the next Session the Doorkeepers would be instructed to exclude from your Lordships' premises my noble friend Lord Carrington; the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; my noble friend Lord Denham; or the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Does that really reflect the good will of the House?
  If Members of your Lordships' House on the Government Benches really believe that these former great men should be excluded, I really will believe that the Government are possessed of a tumbrel mentality.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have considered these issues several times in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill. I recall the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, stating eloquently on another amendment similar to this that he would much prefer to go to White's. I think that probably reflects the opinion of many in this House. As I have said, we have debated this on many occasions. There is really nothing new to say in response. Once again, I draw the attention of the House to what is stated in the Companion in reference to proceedings on Report; namely, that arguments fully deployed in a Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. Following, as I often do, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I intend to abide very strictly to the letter of the law on this amendment.
  The questions to which the amendment refers are matters for the House to determine. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland stated, the Front Bench opposite does not intend that they should be placed on the face of the Bill. They are not matters for government or Parliament as a whole to dictate in legislation.
  260
  Reference has been made to the arrangements in another place and to the arrangements made in your Lordships' House for the Bishops. Those are not laid down in statute but in arrangements made by the House: by your Lordships' House in the case of the Bishops and, in the case of the very limited rights described by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, by the House authorities in another place in relation to senior ex-Members of the Commons. I would point out that the present amendment appears not only to confer some types of rights on former Members of this House, but also on those who have never been Members of it. I wonder whether that is really what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had in mind.
  As I reminded the House in previous discussions about this and as has been reinforced by my noble friend Lord Haskel tonight, this place is not a club. I drew attention at an early stage in Committee, and shall take a moment to extend it slightly this evening, to the remarks of Lord Salisbury in the debate on the Life Peerages Act 40 years ago. I had not realised the context of that until I read Hansard. That is why I repeat it and admit that it is a form of self-indulgence. He made his remarks about this House not being a club in the context of noble Lords not being able to continue the exclusion of women as life Peers. He said:
  "This House is not a club; it is a place of legislation, and for women as well as for men".—[Official Report, 17/12/57; col. 1231.]
  I rest my case.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I had no intention in my amendment of treating those hereditary Peers who are also ladies any differently from those of us who are men.
  I too would be happy if this matter had any prospect of resolution in the relevant committee. I would be even happier if the Government would say that they will support arrangements being made by the relevant committee. Those of us who remember the White Paper and the various documents issued by the Government in connection with this matter formed the view—rightly or wrongly—that the Government were not in favour of any sort of continuing rights for those hereditary Peers, some of whom have served in this House for a great many years, who are suddenly excluded and cast out as the Bill proposes.
  That said, I recognise that there is another forum in which this matter can be discussed; namely, the relevant committee. I hope that it will be, and soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Exception from section 1]:
  Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
  ("() Standing Orders of the House shall provide that in any election held to determine who is a person to be excepted from section 1, the electorate shall consist of all peers.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 differs from the amendment I tabled at recommittal only in that it removes the necessity for any qualificatory

  261
  hurdle for membership of the electoral college. Heavyweight Peers zeroed in on the weaknesses that are inherent in any hurdle requirement. I listened to those arguments and fully accepted them. However, for the avoidance of doubt, this amendment does not seek to interfere with the principle of the Weatherill amendment—that there should be one system of election by which all parties shall elect the hereditary Peers.
  This simple amendment proposes that all Members of your Lordships' House shall be eligible to vote for the 90 excepted Peers in Clause 1 of the Bill. After all, as we have heard on several occasions this is a House of equals. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that at recommittal and the noble Baroness. Lady Gould of Potternewton, repeated it today. Of course, that is right. By definition, a House of Peers is indeed a House of equals. Why should some Peers be more or less equal than others? There is no segregation in this House as far as I am aware. There are no Benches marked, "For the use of life Peers only"; there are no gin bottles marked, "For the use of hereditary Peers only". Why should ballot boxes be marked, "For the use of hereditary Peers only"?
  At recommittal, my noble friend Lord Cranborne gently accused my amendment of being élitist. I cannot see how broadening the electoral college can possibly be considered élitist; rather the contrary. If élitism carries any connotation of exclusivity, it is the present electoral arrangements that are élitist in excluding life Peers from a vote in this matter.
  I also have some difficulty with the shorthand that my noble friend used for the club argument, that no assembly should have the right to select its own members. The element of "clubism" is inherent in the electoral arrangement as set out in the draft Standing Orders. If the timetable in the draft Standing Orders is anything to go by, it seems perfectly possible that those Peers who are to be electing the 90 accepted Peers will still be Members of your Lordship's House, as will the Peers for which they are voting, unless of course the Bill has received Royal Assent by the time that election takes place, and that is about as unlikely as England winning a cricket match.
  There will still be this element of Members electing Members, so on those grounds I cannot accept the strictures of my noble friend Lord Cranborne on my amendment. My noble friend Lord Kingsland said from the Front Bench on recommittal that he would be mercifully, or perhaps it was mercilessly, brief—telegraphic. He said that it is wrong in principle to have an election in which one cannot be a candidate; that is, it is wrong for life Peers to vote for the 90 accepted Peers. Life Peers do not need to be candidates in an election for this House because they are already Members. I hope that my noble friend Lord Kingsland will take that on board.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in answering my earlier amendment on recommittal, concentrated mainly on the numbers. I accept the fact that there is no real case for any number qualificatory hurdle. All he had to say about the principle behind my amendment is that it has been consistently made clear
  262
  that the election of the 75 will be of hereditaries, by hereditaries, for hereditaries. It has not been made clear. It has been made opaque. There is nothing in the Bill about who should constitute the electoral college. There are understandings, nods and winks, agreements in smoke filled rooms. Earlier this evening, I was speaking with a Peer from the Opposition who said how much he was looking forward to voting for his hereditaries in the election. I had to disabuse him; I told him that he would not be able to vote for his hereditary Peers. He was extremely disappointed. My amendment will allow him and every other Peer in every other part of the House to vote for their hereditaries. It is better that the whole House, and not just a part of it, should have a voice in who has seats in this House.
  I remind noble Lords that, after all, we are disposing of seats in Parliament. That is the purpose of this determinedly non-elitist amendment. I do not propose to divide the House this evening, but hope that the noble Lords who may support the idea behind the amendment will perhaps break cover to support it. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, made plain, this amendment differs from and is substantially better than the previous amendment which he moved in Committee because it concentrates solely on the question of who is to be the electorate. It does not muddle the issue or dirty the waters by seeking also to introduce a minimum attendance requirement. In principle, I strongly support the noble Lord's thesis that the electorate for the election under Clause 2 must include the life Peers. However, I remain of the view, which I expressed in Committee, as did many others, that this is not the right time to decide that matter. It must be decided upon when the report of the Procedure Committee comes before the House, when the arguments can be advanced in full in the light of that report.
  Notwithstanding that, I would like to say a few words on why I feel so strongly that the electorate should include all the life Peers and to deal with a few of the points raised by the opponents of that thesis in Committee.
  First, under Clause 2, the only way in which we can achieve an electorate which is both informed as to the quality of the people being voted for and disinterested is to have the votes of the life Peers. If one looks at the statistics, most of the hereditary Peers who have attended sufficiently frequently to know who is worth having will themselves be candidates—:not all of them but certainly the great majority of them. Therefore, inevitably there must be a temptation for those persons either to enter into electoral pacts with their colleagues—you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours—or to vote in a way which, even subconsciously, is affected by their candidature. If only the hereditary Peers can vote, there will be very few hereditary Peers who are not standing for election and who have attended the House sufficiently regularly in recent years to know the qualities of those for whom they are voting.
  Secondly, I suggest that it is wrong in principle to say that those 75 Peers are to be representatives of the hereditary peerage in the sense that they are delegates

  263
  sent by the hereditary Peers to forward the interests, whatever they may be, of the hereditary Peers. Those persons should be, and must be seen to be, which is very important, those who can contribute most to the House selected by those who know whether or not they can make that contribution.
  Also, the concept advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others that they are to be representative Peers is constitutionally fundamentally unsound. Clause 3 gives all those who are not continuing Members of the House the right to vote in and stand for elections to the House of Commons. That, which is a basic provision of the Bill, demonstrates that those persons cannot also have representatives in this House because it is a fundamental constitutional principle that no one can vote for representation in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, may have thought, his idea that those are to be representative Peers is a fundamental constitutional anomaly. Standing Orders which provided that only hereditary Peers could vote while they can also vote in and stand for elections to the Commons would be a constitutional anomaly.
  That also deals with the alleged analogy with the Scottish system. In Committee it was suggested that the matter should be dealt with in the same way as it was dealt with in Scotland. But Clause 3 does not provide that. The Scottish Peers who could vote for their representatives were all, whether or not they were themselves elected, debarred from standing for the House of Commons or voting in any parliamentary elections. That was the consequence of their right to vote for representatives here. Clause 3 makes it plain that Clause 2 Peers are not representatives and any principle which continues on a representative basis would be in direct conflict with Clause 3.
  Finally, perhaps I may mention to dismiss it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the club point. It seems to me an argument which only the ingenuity of a Cecil could produce to say that it is a club system if one allows all the members to vote, but if only some are allowed to vote that is not a club. Let us just think of how it will look to the outside world: all the old boys scratching each other's back, ringing each other on the telephone and saying, "I was at school with him. Let's have him". The people who can elect on merit and can be seen to elect on merit are the life Peers. When the matter comes before the House in relation to the report of the Procedure Committee, I hope that those arguments will commend themselves to the House.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord's amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. I have always thought that if the 15 Committee chairmen could be elected by all of us, so could the other 75. I see no reason why not. Indeed, I would even go as far as saying that all of us should vote for all of them, with the stricture that the numbers—for example, two for Labour, three for the Liberals, and so on—should be kept. We should all be invited to vote for 43 Conservatives or two Liberal
  264
  Democrats. Why not? As of last Thursday, we are now used to a large ballot paper. Indeed, we could easily do that.
  The principle is that, in a sense, we always say that there are no party divisions here—
  A noble Lord: Any what?
  Lord Desai: I said, no party divisions. We all sort of pretend that we do not really believe in parties, Whips, and so on. We all know about each other's work and, therefore, we ought to be allowed to vote. That is all I wanted to say.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I think it all comes back to how the original compromise was reached. I suspect that the idea of it was modelled on the Scottish system and that, in a sense, must have been what gave people the notion that it would be possible to retain some Members in your Lordships' House who are hereditary Peers. I personally strongly support the Weatherill amendment in its outcome form.
  On the other hand, I think that the legitimacy of those Peers, if they are elected only by other hereditary Peers, will be limited. They would, in a sense, lose some credibility. I should much prefer them to be seen, if you like, as concessionary Peers rather than as representative Peers. What we have to do is to wait and see whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might be prepared to reveal the way in which this all emerged during the discussions that he had with my noble friend Lord Cranborne when this, in my opinion, extremely good compromise was reached. Even if it was not part of the original negotiations, there is a strong case for extending the franchise, if only to give more credibility to the outside world for the compromise itself.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I wonder whether we are not making somewhat of a mystery out of this compromise. We should bear in mind that the Government put forward a Bill based on their manifesto commitment and then, for very pragmatic political reasons, accepted a compromise that was put forward in order to retain a certain number of hereditary Peers. That was based on a formula which will enable the Oppostion to have so many, the Government to have so many and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross-Benchers to have so many.
  We are making a lot of heavy weather about the formula. Once this compromise was accepted, the fact remains that each of the bodies concerned was entitled to elect its own representative numbers in order to keep a measure of stability through the transitional period of this House. We are going well overboard if we try to elaborate on the issue and make something out of it which does not really exist. Therefore, I think that this amendment should be withdrawn.
  The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I do not mind at all who the electorate is for the first set of Peers who stay here. I think that there are logical arguments on both

  265
  Sides. However, it would concern me if it were used as a precedent, because I feel that this transitional Chamber could well last longer than many people hope. If we have to start having an electoral system for electing hereditaries in, say, 20 years' time, it would worry me if the notion that life Peers—appointed and nominated Peers—should elect the hereditaries was used as a precedent. Again, we would have the influence of the nominating authority coming in indirectly. That would be very dangerous because they would probably pick the most amenable and the quietest hereditary Peers so that they would not stir things up. The whole purpose of leaving hereditary Peers here is to leave a difficult rump of people who will ensure that there is some independence in Parliament.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for introducing this amendment. Like every other issue that we have debated today, this is something that we have discussed at some length before, albeit on the basis of a slightly different amendment. I am not sure that these would be exactly the words that we would have put in an amendment on the point, but I find the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, and those advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in terms of ensuring that we get the best people judged by the largest number of their peers remaining under the Weatherill amendment, to be compelling.
  Equally, we on these Benches are not of the view that the concept of representative hereditaries is one that we would wish to support. That is exactly the debate that we had in Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained then that, under the Weatherill compromise, the concept of representative hereditary Peers had been accepted by the Government. We found that to be a depressing concept and we disagreed with the principle that lies behind it. We obviously accept that this is a matter not to be determined primarily at this stage and on the face of the Bill. Indeed, it is something which the Procedure Committee will want to consider.
  However, when the Procedure Committee considers the matter, I hope the Government will adopt a rather more flexible attitude. If the Liberal Democrats, who will have three Members under the Weatherill proposals, feel, as a group, that we would like all of us to elect that number, it seems to me to be unacceptable that we should be told that we cannot do so. There should be scope for us to decide how we elect our three. If the Conservatives believe that their number, how ever many it is, should be elected just by the hereditaries, it seems to us to be entirely reasonable that that should be done. As I say, we will find it unacceptable and unnecessarily prescriptive if the Government seek to impose on us a method of electing our three which we believe to be less satisfactory than another method. When the noble and learned Lord replies, I hope that he will be able to be rather more flexible in the attitude that he adopts towards this issue.
  Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment although the Procedure Committee is
  266
  soon to discuss this issue. It appears not just logical but also sensible that the electorate should, comprise both hereditary and life Peers. Clearly the objective of this Bill is to improve the efficacy of your Lordships' House and the objective of the Weatherill amendment was to select—I stress the word "select"—those hereditary Peers who will make the most valuable contribution to the work of your Lordships' House in the interim phase.
  I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that the Weatherill amendment does not seek to elect hereditary Peers to represent hereditaries. I do not intend to rehearse the many arguments that I am sure will be discussed once the report of the Procedure Committee is debated in your Lordships' House on Third Reading. However, my final point concerns public perception. Surely not just the public but also the Members in the other place—when this Bill is referred back to the other place—would consider it farcical if the hereditary Peers were to be elected purely by hereditaries. For this reason, I believe that the amendment enhances the logic of the Weatherill amendment and deserves the Government's support.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too support this amendment because, as other noble Lords have said, if all Peers are to elect those who will be staying, that must make for a more knowledgeable electorate and therefore for better qualified Peers. It seems to me that the trouble with the Weatherill/Cranborne amendment—with or without the somewhat inaccurate allusions of my noble friend Lord Cranborne to White's Club—is that many Peers will be able to vote who hardly ever come here and cannot know who they are voting for. By the same token, I should have thought that some minimum attendance requirement for the electorate would be a good thing because, once again, it would make for a more knowledgeable electorate and therefore far a better quality of Peer to be elected, which I am sure is what we all seek to achieve. As I say, I support the amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, an interesting argument is being put forward that hereditary Peers cannot possibly be trusted to select a number of their own to represent them in Parliament. That may be true—but if it is true, then let us say it. Let us say that only the life Peers can give this system any credibility. I find that mildly offensive. I find the thought that my future is to be decided by the life Peers rather odd; I object to it. I should much rather put my future in the hands of my fellow hereditary Peers.
  There is an argument that the hereditary Peers will get together; that there will be a "chums' pact"; that they will say "I was at school with you; therefore will you vote for me?" From my experience of people with whom I was at school—I am glad to say that there is no one in the House with whom I was at school—that may be a very negative argument to use. I sense no evidence to suggest that the hereditary peerage is unable to select a number of themselves to represent them in Parliament.

  267
  The argument that they will be delegates is absurd. The idea that an elected hereditary Peer will be a delegate of anybody is laughable. Peers are here on their own honour and merits and represent no one. That should continue.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said that he wishes to be chosen to represent the other hereditary Peers. Apparently he prefers to be selected by people who have never seen him perform rather than by the life Peers who have seen him perform. Now, a second later, he says that they would not be representing anyone. He cannot have his cake and eat it. If they are there to represent the other Peers, so be it; but then they are to represent someone. If they are not to represent anyone, they cannot be representative Peers.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was making the point about being a delegate. I understand that, under the noble Lord's terms, I would be elected by a group of people who would expect me to behave in a particular way. That is my understanding of the point that he was making. I refute that and reject it utterly. Any Peer who is elected by anyone else to come to this House is here to represent himself and to defend the decisions that he takes. The noble Lord's argument about being a delegate must equally be true whether one is elected by a group of hereditary Peers or by the whole House. I reject it as an argument which has no force.
  However, the argument that there needs to be some consequential amendments to Clause 3 has some force. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he can say when the consequential amendments to Clause 3 will be forthcoming, to make up for the deficiency quite correctly pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I hope that we shall have plenty of time to examine them.
  Something else is going on here—and I suspect that this is the real motive behind the amendments. It is a motive that I wholly understand; I have heard it many times. I have not heard it this evening, but I have heard it many times in private. The motive is this. "I am a hereditary Peer. I spend a lot of time in this House; I put in a lot of work. My friends are not hereditary Peers; they are life Peers. I wish to continue in this House. Therefore I would much rather that my future were decided by the life Peers than by the hereditary Peers".
  We need to have a little more confidence if we are to go into this brave new world. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was entirely correct that we should not use this to set a precedent for the future if by some small chance this stage is to continue for some time. Since I believe that there should be a proper and fundamental reform of the House, if it is seen that there is something faintly illegitimate—I do not believe there is—in the hereditary Peers continuing to select a certain number of themselves to represent them in the House of Lords, then perhaps that may hasten stage two, which will be in the interests of Parliament and the people of this country.
  268
  I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should not be uniformity and I find it interesting that the Liberal Democrats suggest that there should not be an election—perhaps he did suggest that there should be an election but not just an election of the hereditary Peers.
  I have another way. We should ask the Chief Whips and the Convenor to select who they think would be right. That would be a good alternative, except that I have suddenly remembered that I am no longer the Chief Whip, so perhaps the leaders of all the parties who should do it!
  I finish where I started. We should have more confidence in ourselves. The hereditary Peers need to get a grip on themselves. They should stick to a system which has been tried and tested in Scotland and in Ireland when the English and the UK Peers did not have a say in those elections.
  Midnight
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no doubt that when the so-called "Weatherill amendment" was being discussed behind the scenes before it became public knowledge, it was intended that the Peers so selected would be representatives—or however one may describe it—of the hereditary peerage as a whole. That was right and it was on that basis that I was persuaded to agree to the Weatherill amendment; namely, that we hereditary Peers would choose 75 of our own number to represent us here in this House. I would be very concerned if the Bill were to be changed so that my original perception was wrong and the 92 would be elected by a much wider electorate, including large numbers of life Peers. That was not the basis on which I was persuaded to agree to the Weatherill amendment. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I believe that I made the Government's position on this matter perfectly clear when we debated this very same issue in Committee. The noble Lord has now removed his earlier minimum attendance qualification for Members of the House to be eligible to vote for excepted Peers. But the key question remains the same: should life Peers be allowed to vote in the Weatherill elections?
  I can do no more than repeat what I said in Committee when I was describing the agreement that has been made. It has consistently been made clear—I repeat that to the noble Lord: I do not know how often I need to say it for him to hear it—that the elections for the 75 within the party and other groups will be of hereditaries, by hereditaries and for hereditaries. As has been said many times, the election of the 15 is a different matter as they are to be elected to stand ready to serve the whole House as office holders. It is therefore wholly logical that all Members of the House should be allowed a say in choosing them.
  The amendment also conflicts with the Weatherill proposal because it allows every Member of the House to vote for each individual excepted Peer so that there would be no distinctive electorates, according to party

  269
  or Cross-Bench affiliation, to choose the allotted number of excepted Peers in each of the four main groupings. As the amendment acknowledges, this is not a matter for the face of the Bill but for Standing Orders; and for the reasons given, we may have to debate this further.
  I can only repeat that the relevant electorates as envisaged under the terms of the agreement underlying the Weatherill amendment are provided for in the Standing Order as presently drafted. To include this provision on the face of the Bill would be a clear breach of that agreement. For my part, and for the Government's, we intend to honour the agreement. We therefore cannot accept this amendment.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he says that it has consistently been made clear that the election is to be by hereditaries and for hereditaries. By whom has it consistently been made so clear, and when, and where?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on every occasion when this matter has previously been considered in this House, it has been made clear both by myself and, as I recall, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. All that we are doing is reporting the terms of an agreement. None of the parties to the agreement is disputing it. I do not see how the noble Viscount can dispute it.
  Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It seems that there is interest in this proposal. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I obviously did not make myself clear on a couple of points. Perhaps I may elucidate them now.
  First, I attempted to say that my amendment did not seek to overturn the party arrangements that were agreed so that each party and the Cross-Benchers would continue to elect their own Peers as was set out in the Weatherill amendment. It is simply that I believe it is much better that they should be elected by all Peers, not simply by hereditary Peers.
  I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for his intervention. It is also abundantly clear that there are widely differing views on this matter. We have heard that from all sides of the House—from the noble and learned Lord and from Members on his own Benches, from the Liberal Democrats, from my own side, and from the Cross-Benches. So there may be abundant clarity between certain parties in the House, but it is by no means uniform. It is a perfectly valid point to debate. I hope that the Procedure Committee will take the points that have been made during the course of the debate and will consider them.
  I was also surprised by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. He seemed determined to misunderstand what I said. There was absolutely no question that hereditary Peers should be elected only by life Peers. I made it perfectly clear that they should be elected by the whole House. That would be an improvement. The noble Lord did not seem to understand that and purposely put words into my mouth that I did not utter.
  270
  My point was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and I am grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, simply said, "Let's leave well enough alone. We do not want to fiddle with it". However, I am rather surprised, in view of the fact that he would have the opportunity to vote for his own hereditaries and is not going to take the chance. Of course, that is his choice.
  As I said, I do not intend to press this matter to a Division. I am glad to have had the opportunity to hear the discussions. They have been valuable. I remain disappointed with the reactions of my own Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
  Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move manuscript Amendment No 16A:
  Page 1, line 9, leave out ("90") and insert ("165")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I ask forgiveness of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I recognise that to table manuscript amendments hurriedly on matters of this nature can be rather irritating and that it does not give the Government much of a chance to think about them. Perhaps I may say in self-defence that I noted from the Marshalled List that I received at home in the North of England that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was new, or had been altered. I felt that there was a need to press him on the figures that he arrived at. Following the Weatherill amendment, the amendment does not seem to have been tabled at Committee stage. As a result of that, Amendment No. 20 et al rather drives this amendment as it presently stands. I believe that it would be impolite and discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to pre-empt the substance of his remarks. With the leave of the House, I should like first to listen to what he has to say and then speak to Amendment No. 20, which drives Amendment No. 16. If that is accepted, at this stage I shall not move Amendment No. 16A.
  [Manuscript Amendment No. 16A not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for the fact that his name is spelt wrongly in the Marshalled List.
  The Earl of Erroll The Earl of Erroll moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 1, line 10, after ("Marshal") insert ("of England")
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that apology. I note that Hansard also mis-spelt my name at the time that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made reference to me when I was unable to attend on re-commitment.
  Amendment No. 18 is just a drafting amendment and in many ways is not a big matter. I am very concerned that an Act of Parliament may come into being that does not accord the proper title and dignity to two of England's most respected offices of state. In all commissions and other documents that have passed the

  271
  Great Seal of England these two offices are addressed by their lawful and correct titles. Therefore, I am concerned because in this most solemn document they are not accorded their proper titles.
  If we consider the roll of the Lords, we see that it makes reference to,
  "Norfolk, Miles Francis Duke of (Earl Marshal of England)".
  If we look at the Home Office memorandum of 1906, reference is made to the Earl Marshal of England, where it will be observed that, by the terms of the Patent, the office is that of Earl Marshal of England only, and no change is effected in its powers at the Union either of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland or of Great Britain and Ireland. It is clear that reference is there made to the Earl Marshal of England.
  Next, we see that the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords considered claims for the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain of England in January 1902. If we consider the supplement to the London Gazette of 1911 for the coronation, we see that, in order, the great hereditary offices of state by the Sword of State next to the King are: the Earl Marshal of England, the Great Steward of Scotland, the Lord High Steward of Ireland, the High Constable of Scotland and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, who comes last. It is quite clear that they have territorial designations, and those are the correct and lawful titles by which they should be referred to.
  Further, the office of Earl Marshal of Scotland is subject to attainder. The appropriate heir male of the body of the first Earl Marshal could submit a claim to reverse that attainder. Attainders have historically been reversed. I am told that it is not the policy of the Government to continue to reverse attainders, but I do not believe that it is correct for the Government to try to bind a future Parliament by making it more difficult to reverse the attainder by having only the title of Earl Marshal in this Bill and not putting in the correct title of Earl Marshal of England. I believe that that could cause complications in future.
  I have two questions. First, do the Government agree that the lawful and correct titles are those of Earl Marshal of England and Lord Great Chamberlain of England? The noble and learned Lord may need to resort to Pepper v. Hart yet again should this matter be challenged in the courts, and therefore perhaps he should assert the point publicly. Secondly, do the Government agree that the jurisdiction lies solely within England, or is this a quiet effort by the Earl Marshal via the UK Parliament to annex Scotland and Ireland?
  Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 do not affect the Government's part of the Bill but only the amendment inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and I do not see how they can cause the Government a problem. I beg to move.
  12.15 a.m.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on these amendments which are similar to those I introduced on recommitment. When I spoke to those amendments, I received a gracious reply
  272
  from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It is a great comfort to hear from the Benches opposite a spokesman with such a good grasp of Scottish titles and genealogy and—dare I say?—as a Welshman possibly a great understanding of the sensibilities of the history of some of our more remote areas. As a footnote, perhaps I may add that I thought I detected a nice little genuflexion to the hereditary principle in that he believed that he had learnt some of this from his father.
  I do not wish to bore your Lordships by repeating my remarks on the previous discussion. However, I pointed out that the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain of Scotland was resigned into the hands of the sovereign in 1706. But, having made inquiries, the nub of the argument I made rests on the fact that there is still, as always, a Scottish office. It was revived by a sovereign of the United Kingdom; namely Queen Anne in 1711. It is therefore perfectly capable of being further revived.
  As regards the office of Earl Marshal of Scotland, the procedures required have been explained to us by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I do not need to go into them. However, those arguments are all concerned with the possible confusion which hereditary Officers of State of Scotland might introduce into the Bill unless Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are adopted.
  I hesitate to enter the field of lawyers. As a lay person I often use different ways of describing the same thing or the same person. But that is not the way of lawyers. However, the other argument is that in any Act of Parliament, which is a most solemn instrument, the description of an office should reflect the description contained in the Letters Patent of the sovereign creating the office. In the case of the Earl Marshal of England, I have been given a copy of the Letters Patent—I have them here—from 1672 granting that office. They are in Latin; I shall not attempt to pronounce them. However, they state clearly that the office is that of the Earl Marshal of England. They were followed by a petition in February 1732 by the then Duke of Norfolk describing himself in the instance of that petition as the Earl Marshal of England.
  I cannot at present go back that far with the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, but noble Lords will be aware that there are two volumes of proceedings of the Committee for Privileges beginning in 1901 and continuing to 1902, no doubt presided over by the predecessor of the great office now occupied by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which was the office described throughout as the Lord Great Chamberlain of England.
  I believe that these arguments support the need for the amendments to be agreed to.
  The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, for a number of centuries before the 1707 Act of Union, the honour of Earl Marshal of Scotland rested with my family. Despite our Jacobite indiscretions of the '15, the '19 and the '45, we retained it until 1746, when we were attainted. The tenth and last Earl Marshal and his brother had to go abroad.

  273
  I feel therefore that the honour is now vacant in Scotland and does not attach to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a brief word. In Committee, the noble Lord, Williams of Mostyn, said that his advice was that there was no ambiguity in the Bill. With respect to his advisers, no one who heard the immensely authoritative speech of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose on that occasion could assert that with any confidence.
  This Bill may well have to last and it would be right as a courtesy to the knowledge of my noble friend, and to the history and traditions of England and Scotland, and no disservice to the Bill, to accept the amendment to which the noble Earl has given his authoritative support. I very much hope that the Government will have the good grace to accept it.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when we last discussed these matters, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, had cast his net much wider and had included the Lord Great Chamberlain of Scotland as someone whose interests should be considered. We had an interesting discussion about Sir fain Moncreiffe of that Ilk being 28th hereditary Lord Chamberlain in the absence of the noble Earl who moved the amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond doubt the identity of the accepted Peer office holders, Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain of England, on the basis of the Weatherill compromise. There is no doubt—
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, it is not to put the matter beyond doubt. We are not in doubt as a result of the Minister's previous comments. It is in order to accord them their correct and lawful titles.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention, which is most helpful. If there is no doubt, there is no need for these amendments. They can be referred to properly and correctly in alternative ways. There are two references in other legislation to the Earl Marshal, only one of which contains the words "of England". That is Section 4, as your Lordships will readily recall, of the House of Lords Precedents Act 1539. From recollection—
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, that was when England was England and Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom, so the reference could have been only to one Earl Marshal. I cannot believe that that Act referred to Scotland.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, since it is necessarily 1539 followed by 1707, and there could not have been any ambiguity or difficulty, the words "of England" would not have been necessary at all in that context.
  The question is: do we need to alter this Bill? I am the last person here not to have a consciousness of different traditions. I am grateful to accept what the noble Duke said about my experience in Wales, although I do not accept that either Scotland or Wales are remote parts of
  274
  the United Kingdom and certainly not backward. The amendments are not incorrect, but they are not necessary and they are not of any real substance in the context of this Bill. They cannot affect precedence in Scotland, which is important; they have no relevance as to whether or not an attainder could be overturned; it is not a question of whether they are lawful or correct but of whether they are required in this Bill.
  There is no possibility of the Earl Marshal (of England) attempting to impose or extend his jurisdiction to Scotland. I know that these are important historical matters and they are important matters of description and precedence in Scotland, but they do not bite upon the content of this Bill. Therefore, not being unsympathetic—I genuinely find these issues of interest—they are not of relevance in the context of this Bill.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may explain that we are not trying to extend the influence of the Earl Marshal of England. It is simply that if someone claims the title of Earl Marshal of Scotland there will be two Earl Marshals. There is no indication which one is referred to in the Bill.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Duke entirely mistakes my point. My reference to jurisdiction was in specific reference to the noble Earl's point, which was that unless one had the description in this Bill "Earl Marshal of England", there might be the prospect that the Earl Marshal of England might try to extend his jurisdiction to Scotland. My response was to the noble Earl's specific point that this description, or non-description, in the Bill would have no relevance in that context.
  Everyone, with or without Pepper, or Hart, or both, knows perfectly well what is referred to. It is otiose, though of historic and heraldic interest, that they be included in the Bill, but this is not a vehicle for the protection of historic heraldic interests, which are rot impeached, impugned or attacked in the slightest way in this Bill.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I do not know what to do. I find it quite ridiculous. I presume, therefore, we will now see the references to "of England" removed from the Roll of the House of Lords and "of England" removed from all future references to these hereditary great officers of state.
  I find it quite incredible that the Government cannot get it right. This is not even in the words of their own Bill, which they produced from the Commons, but in an amendment inserted by Cross-Benchers and by agreement, so it does not even affect the position of the Government. I hear other words used strangely in this regard. People keep referring to the fact that I am "illegitimate" when I am quite legitimate here. What might be illegitimate is the fact that the wrong titles are used for two of the great officers of state. That is far more illegitimate than perhaps the fact that I may not be

  275
  democratically representative which is what is normally meant when the world "illegitimate" is used to refer to me.
  I know that sounds rather muddled. However, I do not suppose that, with the number of Government troops sitting behind the Front Bench, it is worth calling a Division. On the other hand, I feel for the sake of the Scots that I should.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down or withdraws the amendment, I find it strange that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. Let us suppose that by chance a spelling mistake had crept into the Bill. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that there is no ambiguity, no confusion, that it does not really matter; yet I cannot believe that a spelling mistake would not be perfectly happily corrected. What is the problem with being accurate in legislation?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the legislation is not inaccurate; nor is it ungrammatical. The only grammatical errors that I have detected have been, on occasion, in amendments moved by some noble Lords on the Benches opposite, although I have not pointed them out on every possible occasion.
  It is not a question of what is correct or incorrect. Both are correct, as Alice said, or should have said. There is no ambiguity and therefore one does not need to amend the Bill. However, I stress that it has nothing at all to do with attainders, possible revivers, historic precedence or anything to do with heraldry in Scotland. It is absolutely correct to say that it is of validity to say "The Earl Marshal" or "The Earl Marshal of England". We have chosen the phrase which is well known. Both the noble Duke and the noble Earl readily recognise this. There is no difficulty of understanding. There are alternatives. We have chosen the simpler and shorter, knowing that they would irresistibly, on those two grounds alone, commend themselves to your Lordships.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in order to help my noble friend on what he may or may not do about this, I would rather like to know the views of the noble Earl the Earl Marshal and the noble Lord the Lord Great Chamberlain. It may be relevant and helpful to know that. I certainly would not know which way to go if this was pressed to a Division. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. However, I see that the
  276
  ambiguity is not perhaps as great as is made out. I think we should find out what the noble Earl the Earl Marshal has to say about this.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I find it absolutely astonishing that we do not even try to get legislation accurate any more. I am afraid to say that I know that if I was to go to any of the proper legal authorities—forget about heraldic; this has nothing to do with heraldry; one is the Earl Marshal "of England" and the other is the Lord Great Chamberlain "of England"—there would be no two ways about it. To describe them as anything else is inaccurate and illegitimate. That is the illegitimacy. However, I shall not win a Division so there is no point in pressing it. It is quite late enough. I find it astonishing that we try to pass laws like this in which we are historically inaccurate. However, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 20:
  Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
  ("() Standing orders of the House shall provide that the excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories—

  (a)(i) 2 peers elected by Labour hereditary peers;

  (ii) 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

  (iii) 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers; and

  (iv) 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers;

  (b) 15 peers, elected by the whole House, from among those ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or in any other office as the House may require; and

  (c) any peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment tonight. Since I tabled it, I have been advised that in some respects it is defective. I propose to take it away, reconsider it and possibly bring it back at a later stage.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 20A to 20D as manuscript amendments to Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  House adjourned at half past midnight.