Lords Sitting of 22 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 Bristol.

Lord Trotman
Sir Alexander James Trotman, Knight, having been created Baron Trotman, of Osmotherley in the County of North Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Renwick of Clifton and the Lord Butler of Brockwell, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Strategic Rail Authority
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to reorganise the rail network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are committed to legislating to set up the strategic rail authority and to establish more effective and accountable regulation. The authority will ensure that the railways are run as a coherent whole, not just a collection of different businesses. It will mean an integrated network with the interests of passengers and freight safeguarded.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that Great Western Trains was once known as "God's wonderful railway"? Now, according to the rail regulator, it has the worst record of delays in the whole of Britain, yet annual subsidies to the industry are running at £2 billion—twice the pre-sel-off level. Has the Minister also noticed that Railtrack recently announced an annual profit of £428 million while failing to meet the regulator's targets for capital investment and reducing delays on the crumbling infrastructure? Does the Minister agree that this is an extremely serious situation? I shall be glad to know what the Government are doing about it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, regulators are exerting their powers in this respect. It is true that not long ago Great Western was one of the worst performers in relation to reliability. It has improved its reliability over the past year and we hope that that improvement is sustained. Nevertheless, I recognise that in relation to both the operations and the track in the Great Western zone there remain serious problems. I am sure that the franchising director and subsequently the strategic rail authority will be looking at those.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn identified the bad reliability of the Great Western
778
zone of Railtrack. According to Railtrack, other zones have a much higher reliability. Does my noble friend agree that it would be a good idea to suggest to the rail regulator that Railtrack should split up its zones into separate companies, as was done in the gas industry, so that there can be some benchmarking of best practices and a little bit of competition between them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the regulator. As my noble friend will know, there will shortly be a new regulator who will look at the management performance of Railtrack and its reliability—and, indeed, its access charging. Therefore, all of these things could be subject to review. At this stage, I do not consider it sensible to make such a recommendation from government; the regulator will have to consider it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Government are worried about congestion on the roads, will they do everything that they can to revive the motor rail service to enable cars to be carried for longer distances by rail?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the number of motor rail services has indeed been reduced over recent years. There are some services which are still running and which are both profitable and attractive. However, I have to say that the price involved must be quite a disincentive, unless one is taking one's car somewhere for a long period of time. As a contribution to reducing the very substantial amount of traffic on our roads, it would be a relatively minor one. Nevertheless. everything helps. It is important, therefore, that rail companies should, where appropriate, consider this means of transporting cars in a way which is off the road.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I travel regularly to Kingham on the Hereford line. It is a very good line and punctual. However, is the Minister aware—and, if he is, I wonder whether he thinks it odd—that on the train which arrives at Hereford at 8.30 p.m., the bar is closed at 6.15 p.m.?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I deeply regret the inconvenience caused to the noble Lord of which I was, unfortunately, unaware. I assume that the bar closes because there is insufficient custom. I am sure that the noble Lord and his fellow passengers could see to it that perhaps a larger demand ensured that such catering facilities made a profit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the rate of subsidy to the rail network in the UK compares with that in other countries in the European Union?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; not instantaneously. The figures are complex because we have a very diffuse and privatised rail network, whereas in most European countries there is still a single operator which, in most cases, is either state owned or partially state owned. I shall look at the relative figures. I suspect that the

779
noble Earl will discover what he believes to be behind his question. However, until I see the figures I shall not venture an opinion, but I shall write to him.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, as a business, Railtrack has wide experience of signalling. Will that experience be brought to bear on London Underground and, if not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I believe we announced last week, Railtrack is in discussions with London Underground about the sub-surface lines. Clearly use will be made of expertise of all kinds. Experience of signalling systems that are appropriate to the Underground is not necessarily unique to Railtrack. As the noble Earl will know, major advances in technology are now available which could involve many companies and areas of expertise in improving the signalling system on the Underground network.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the privatisation of the rail network was one of the most grievous mistakes of the post-war era? Will not the Government consider some kind of committee of inquiry to look into the situation and to make recommendations on the future organisation of the rail network?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of examining history I am not sure that a committee of inquiry could throw up anything we do not already know; namely, that the privatisation was rushed, botched and too expensive, and was carried out under a political deadline which all of us—probably even the Opposition—regret. We are left with the results of that. As I said in response to the first Question from my noble friend, the strategic rail authority will be set up to consider a more strategic approach for the future of our railways, which the country richly deserves.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if you regret something the answer is to change it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely what we intend to do with the establishment of the strategic rail authority.

Sports Clubs: Rating Assessments
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many rating assessments on sports clubs have been reconsidered and reduced to reflect ability to pay since November 1996.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, assessments for rateable value are made by the Valuation Office Agency. In November 1996 it issued guidance notes on the assessment of sports clubs which identified the cases in
780
which the ratepayer's ability to pay should be reflected in rateable values. I understand that several appeals were made to reduce assessments following this guidance, but we do not hold centrally information on the number of appeals made by sports clubs or the results of the appeals.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he join me in congratulating Camp Hill Old Edwardians Cricket Club in Solihull on obtaining a reduction in the club's rateable value from £3,800 to £1,500? Does the noble Lord know whether tribunals have been reminded that they must take account of the fact that a sports club may be the only possible occupant of a property, as the Court of Appeal has directed? Will the Government publicise the need for clubs which suffer from an excessive valuation at the present time to apply for refunds of rates immediately as the deadline for doing so is approaching?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as is the case with other organisations, sports clubs can at any time contact their local valuation office about their rating. As the noble Viscount will be aware, the guidance provides for the valuation office to take account of a ratepayer's position where there is no market for his property as a sports club is the only conceivable occupant of that property. In that situation the valuation office needs to take account of the rates that are paid for such a building, and thus, indirectly, the occupant's ability to pay. Valuation offices follow that procedure. I believe that sports clubs are aware of that procedure.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as sports clubs, particularly amateur sports clubs, provide an important social function and also an increasingly important part of the physical education in this country, there is a strong case for removing them from the rating system altogether?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should make it clear that I am talking about non—commercial sports clubs in this connection. A significant number of sports clubs—including many gyms—make a profit and therefore are not covered by this exemption. As well as approaching the valuation office for a reduction in rateable value, there is the possibility of applying to the local authority for discretionary rate relief. I understand that a number of sports clubs are among the non-profit-making organisations which apply to local authorities for that benefit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said that there was a deadline before which applications for revaluation had to be made. Will the Minister kindly tell us what that deadline is so that this can be in the record and widely distributed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it relates to the previous valuation. The new valuation will be made in the year 2000. Appeals against rateable values are re-evaluated every five years. This modification relates to the

781
previous valuation. The next one will occur in the year 2000. We shall shortly consult on the basis for that new valuation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not get out of that when the deadline is in relation to the earlier valuation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the deadline applies for as long as that valuation lasts. The new valuation will occur in the year 2000.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether there is any guidance to rating authorities on the use of their discretion in cases of small sports clubs, which so often—particularly in the more rural parts of the country—provide more of a social service than a sporting facility?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, every valuation office has the guidance and the Valuation Office Agency has worked closely with the Central Council for Physical Recreation to ensure that sports clubs in general know that the facility exists. Although we do not have a comprehensive list of those clubs which have benefited from the measure, I understand that a significant number of them are village clubs in rural areas.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, with regard to the question of my noble friend Lord Elton, is it not true that appeals for amendment for the period between 1990 and 1995 have to be lodged by 5th August this year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord may well be right. However, those appeals relate to a valuation which was established five years ago.

Ofsted Inspection Teams: Lay Leaders
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the use of lay persons as leaders of Ofsted inspection teams.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the registration of inspectors who conduct school inspections contracted out by Ofsted is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. He has opened a route for experienced lay inspectors with appropriate skills to progress from team member to team leader. To date, 16 lay inspectors have successfully completed the rigorous process of selection and training and are now registered inspectors.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, does she not agree with me that professional judgment is at the heart of any credible system of inspection? To use lay people without any professional experience of teaching, or any professional qualifications, to make judgments
782
which can affect the future of a school. and indeed the careers of the teachers and the pupils within it, is an insult to the teaching profession and to HMI. Does she not also agree that to use lay people to make professional judgments is to take away from them the value which put them on the team in the first place; namely, that of being independent of professionals?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on this matter. I think that lay people can make a good contribution to inspections. I have to remind the noble Baroness that it was the previous government who introduced lay people to inspections. The 16 lay people who have become registered inspectors have been through a rigorous selection process. Rather more than a quarter of those who went through the process failed to make the grade. Those who have led inspections have been carefully monitored by professionals in HMI and have emerged with flying colours. The view is that the inspections they have undertaken as team leaders have been well conducted.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government's new policy of naming and shaming schools based on inspectors' reports aids much greater force to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Perry? The effect will be to damage future careers, particularly those of young teachers. Does the Minister accept that the principle of teams being led by lay inspectors casts doubt on the value of the inspection system as a whole? I accept entirely that lay members being a part of a team is different.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we should keep this in perspective. Out of a total of 2,100, there are only 16 lay registered inspectors; they are a tiny minority. As I said, they are people who have all demonstrated a great deal of relevant knowledge and experience. As to the noble Baroness's comment about naming and shaming, that is not a term the Government ever use. Our policy is to put children first. They have only one chance of a good school education and it is very important that we work to raise the performance of schools that do not come up to scratch after inspections.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the survey commissioned by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which was published last week? It shows that 48 per cent of teachers feel that they do not gain anything professionally from dialogue with Ofsted inspectors. Can she explain to the House how the appointment of lay members to lead the inspection teams will increase the confidence that teachers have in those teams?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the evidence from the ATL survey does not in any way line up with other evidence we have. Our evidence is that nine out of 10 schools are satisfied with their inspections. Of course there is a minority of schools that are not. The Government do not wish to be complacent; we are working all the time to try to improve the inspection

783
process. We are working with Ofsted—which of course has responsibility as an independent inspectorate—to do just that. I do not believe that there is any evidence that teachers have been critical of the small number of lay inspectors who have taken on the responsibility of being team leaders.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us about the rigorous training of inspectors that she mentioned? Who conducts the training? How long does it last?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend about who conducts the training. I think it is conducted by HMI and carried out by people who are already inspectors and who therefore have the kind of experience necessary. I shall also let her know the precise length of time. I think that it varies quite considerably, depending on the particular needs of those who have put themselves forward. I should say to my noble friend and to the House that the Government and Ofsted are not taking on any more lay inspectors as team leaders. We now have a sufficient number of registered inspectors for the foreseeable future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer the Minister gave to the last question flies in the face of her earlier answer that the training is rigorous. If the noble Baroness does not know how long the training takes, who carries it out and to what quality, how can she say that the training is rigorous and of good quality? Secondly, perhaps the noble Baroness will cast her mind back to when the Bill was passing through the House. Does she agree that the intention was for lay members to provide an independent voice on inspection teams and that it was never envisaged that they should lead teams or replace, or substitute for, the professionals? Does she further agree that 16 people trained in this way brings them into the ranks of professionals but without their qualifications?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, the noble Baroness is not putting the matter into perspective. The contribution of professionals to inspections will continue. Where a lay team leader leads an inspection, there will be more professionals. This is to ensure that the number of professionals carrying out an inspection is adequate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one person's perspective is another person's distortion?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the professions in this country too often have it their own way in regulating their own professions? Would it not be in the interests of both good professional standards and the quality of education
784
received by our children if there were a higher commonsense lay input into the inspection process rather than one which seems now to be pegged?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. However, we should have a balance between the valuable contribution that lay people can make and the professional background and experience of those who have worked in the education service in various different roles for a very long time. That is exactly what Ofsted is seeking to attain.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the report in The Times Educational Supplement of 27th December 1996 is accurate? The report states:
"OFSTED has confirmed that lay inspectors with 'significant experience' of school inspections will be invited to take a four-day training course next year, and that lay inspectors should be taking charge of some inspections by September".
If that is accurate, does the Minister regard a four—day training course as adequate?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I never believe what I read in the newspapers, including The Times Educational Supplement.

Balance of Trade Deficit
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures, if any, they are proposing to take to counter the growing deficit in the balance of trade.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the global downturn has had a significant impact on UK trade performance, with lower exports to South-East Asia accounting for more than half of the widening in the UK trade in goods deficit last year. However, other areas of UK trade have continued to perform strongly, with record surpluses on both trade in services and investment income in 1998. The Government are continuing to encourage policies underpinning economic stability so that all businesses, including exporters, have a firm platform for long-term sustainable growth. They are also pursuing a wide range of measures to help increase UK competitiveness and promote UK exports.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware of the depth of the problem? The current deficit on the balance of trade is £27 billion; it is forecast to be more than £30 billion next year, 5 per cent of GNP. Large areas of this country are still dependent on manufacturing industry and it is on manufacturing that our trade depends. Is not the Minister concerned about the degree to which the high level of the pound is currently dividing the country between the haves and the have-nots and about the deprivation that that is causing in some areas which are

785
losing jobs rather than gaining jobs? Is he not also concerned about the long-term effect this may have upon growth in this country?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. There are always regional disparities within a national economy. As I said in my Answer, while we are aware of the difficulties that the high exchange rate is causing exporters, particularly to Europe and South-East Asia, we wish to ensure that the long-term stability, low inflation rates and sound public finance that the country desperately needs are achieved. I, as a former industrialist, know that we need to achieve that. We do not want to take short-term palliatives which will blow us off that fundamental course. There are many ways in which we can help the regions without losing our overall approach to stable economic management.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our balance of trade depends largely upon the value of the pound and that if we replace the pound by a common European currency the Government will lose a large part of their power to help our balance of trade?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree. My memory of industry is that our exports largely demand skills on the part of people, quality goods, great marketing, and a great deal of enthusiasm and technical knowledge. To rely on the exchange rate of the pound is a chimera that is long past.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as regards imports, does the Minister know of timber and wooden products entering this country at prices that constitute dumping?
Lord Simon of Highbury: No, my Lords, I am not aware of that particular sectoral problem. If there ever is evidence of that being the case, the courts, and indeed the European courts, are the places to look on issues of dumping policy. I should be happy to accept a letter if there is evidence of that kind, and we shall take the case forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, in 1972, manufacturing in this country accounted for 32 per cent of GDP, and in 1997 the percentage was 20.7? Is he aware that that enormous, and serious, reduction in the capacity of our manufacturing industry has taken place against the background not of a rising pound, but in general of a falling pound? Is it not therefore merely an excuse on the part of manufacturers and traders that the high pound is hurting their export potential, when in fact a little more effort on their part would achieve a lot more?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, there is something in what my noble friend says. It is clear that in almost all sophisticated industrial regions, whether the USA, the UK or continental Europe, the share of manufacturing and the total GDP is now broadly around the 20 per cent mark as manufacturing has shifted to lower cost areas; and, as I said, we have had great
786
success in developing service industries. There is no doubt that our manufacturing will always need to rely on greater flexibility, better products, better quality, better sales abroad and sustained investment. The greatest weakness in our manufacturing sector has been too little investment, which has come about largely because we have not had the stable economic environment that our policies now seek to maintain in place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is not the Minister just a tiny bit worried about the decline in manufacturing industry, given that closures and job losses are still being reported, including one this morning? Despite the Minister's previous answer, will he agree that the high value of sterling is at least one of the factors? Will he share with the House his view on the remarks made by Sr. Prodi in Italy regarding the likelihood that Italy may have to consider leaving the euro and the consequence of the continuing weakening of the euro, leading to a further increase in the value of sterling and causing yet more damage to manufacturing industry?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I am always concerned where we appear to lack competitiveness. Manufacturing is a sector where our relative competitiveness, not as far back as 1972 but certainly over the past 20 years, has been a worry to all of us. So I share the noble Lord's concerns. Much of our competitiveness White Paper and the sustainable economic policy that we are putting in place are aimed precisely at rectifying our weaknesses. Like the noble Lord, I am aware that a strong pound does not help. However, I am absolutely certain that a weak pound would not be the answer to that problem. We have to work on the constituent parts of competitiveness in a much more effective way in the partnership that we have set up between management and the workforce throughout the country.
As to Sr. Prodi, his remarks were in Italian and were addressed to the chemical industry. The noble Lord's grasp of Italian chemical knowledge may be better than mine. I believe that Sr. Prodi was saying that the Italians, too, require long-term sustainable growth and that double the inflation rate in the rest of Europe would not be a good position for Italy over the long term. I fully agree. His comments were reported quite differently—but then my Italian is also specious.

House of Lords Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exception from section 1]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert —
("() If a vacancy arises by reason of the death or disqualification of an elected hereditary peer excepted from section 1 the vacancy shall be filled—

(a) until the end of the first Session of the Parliament after that in which this Act is passed, by the unsuccessful candidate who obtained the highest number of votes in the election at which the deceased or disqualified peer was elected; and

(b) for any subsequent Session of Parliament, by the holding of an election conducted in accordance with provision made by virtue of this section.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of an important series of amendments which will be moved from the Front Bench. Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House to mention them briefly.
Amendment No. 21 has been tabled to insist on the long-term replacement of what we now call the Weatherill Peers in a by-election. Secondly, Amendment No. 25 would bring in an independent appointments commission—something that the Government have promised for over two years but have not yet delivered. Then, possibly next Wednesday, we shall debate a related amendment, Amendment No. 52, which would limit the size of the House to 659, the same as another place, and so place a cap on the overall extent of patronage. I also commend to the House Amendment No. 46 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft, Lord Goschen and Lord Renton of Mount Harry. The amendment would limit the ability of any future Prime Minister to flood the House in a bid to extend the life of a Parliament.
I must say at the outset that none of these amendments threatens the Bill. Taken together, they do not cut across its objectives, certainly not in the way that the Weatherill amendment, which has already been agreed and commended to the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, did. They do not delay the Bill. They do not modify the composition of the House. They simply place safeguards around the exercise of patronage by any future Prime Minister. They also—and this applies particularly to Amendment No. 21—ensure that we do not find ourselves drifting down a slow road to an appointed House. That could happen if the principle of replacement is not included on the face of the Bill.
In the interim House, taking into account the Bill as amended and last weekend's creations, there will be some 218 Conservative Peers and 236 Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers, taken together—a Lib-Lab majority. It is also true that there will be 150 or so Cros-Benchers. But it will be far easier than we may now assume for the Government, who are creating a primarily appointed House, to gain control of procedure and the workings of the House. It would be wrong for the radical step of the creation of an appointed House to be brought about by sleight of hand through Standing Orders. Such an extraordinary step, which would create a hand-picked Chamber, almost unique in the world, should only come about openly, in the full glare of public debate, by primary legislation.
The original Bill before the House was such a Bill. It was universally condemned by commentators, right, left and centre, as a quango too far. So the Government retreated. They accepted the Weatherill amendment; and so, in honour, as I, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, feel bound in honour, there they should stay.
I do not think that there is a disagreement in principle between this side of the House and the party of government on this amendment. There should not be. We have always made it clear that we should have preferred a single stage Bill. "No stage one without stage two" was not only a good slogan; it was a good constitutional principle. But that battle is now gone. We have this dismal johnny of a Bill before us and we have to deal with it.
I accept that the noble and learned Lord and the Government intend to move on to a second stage Bill. But his and the Government's lips are sealed on what that second stage should be, and those of his colleagues likewise. So do they want to shake the comfortable nest that they will be taking over as life Peers by bringing in elected Peers? I look across the Chamber and do not see a reformist stage two gleaming in Members' eyes.
I accept the good intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that regard, but he is not immortal in his high office and cannot necessarily command a future Cabinet, a future House of Commons or a future Parliament. So we must treat the Bill as a stand-alone Bill, one that may last 10, 20 or even, as the current proposals have done, nearly 90 years. That means that if we are not to drift into the quango House that no one wants, we must have a system of replacing the 92 hereditary Peers as they die off.
In my amendment I have given the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or my colleagues in the next Conservative government time to move on to stage two; time to pass a Bill in the first Session of the next Parliament. In that time I have gone along with the noble and learned Lord's view that empty places be topped up from the election roll of 1999. But I have added the tiny insurance policy of writing it onto the face of the Bill. In the long term—and we must conceive of the long term—the top-up scheme is not a secure or stable system. Shall we say, for example, in 2020 that Lord X must come into the House because he was 132nd on the Cross Bench list in 1999? That is a nonsense and we all know it.
The best way to fill a Weatherill place in the long term is to follow the practice the House has had the wisdom to use twice previously for the Irish and Scottish representative Peers. That is by election. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself referred to the greater authority that will come to hereditary Peers who remain in this place because they have been elected. Those who come here afterwards by election will have the same authority. The system will have the logic and certainty that the House requires.
I have made my view clear that I would prefer by-elections in future to involve the whole group of hereditary Peers in the party college so that they are truly representative of the hereditary peerage. In

789
Committee, the noble and learned Lord appeared to hint that he might favour what the Romans called "adlection", election from the body of hereditary Peers by those hereditary Peers already in the House. I am less attracted to that approach, but I do not rule it out.
Those kinds of matters are far better resolved by the Procedure Committee and ultimately, of course, the House. They are matters which would fall to be debated and decided on the report of the Procedure Committee when it comes to your Lordships' House.
On behalf of these Benches, I must say how grateful I am for the firm assurance given by the noble and learned Lord in Committee that the debate on the Procedure Committee will be held before Third Reading. That was a wise and statesmanlike undertaking. The amendment is therefore simple. It does not seek to anticipate the details of a by-election system in the long term. That will be for your Lordships on another day. It is also non-prescriptive. It goes with the grain of all that is implicit in the Weatherill arrangement. It is common sense, and it provides, as a wise revising Chamber must, for stability in the long term if stage two never arrives.
I hope that the Government's response will be positive and that they will think carefully on the matter. I was disappointed to read the words of some unnamed spin doctor who claimed that the Weatherill Peers would be excluded if the House insisted on the amendment. I would like to think that that spin doctor was not speaking with the authority of the Government in this House.
I know that there are those outwith the House who do not understand the duty of the House to improve legislation and to guard against every eventuality, however unlikely it might appear. I know that there are those who do not understand the will of the House to be satisfied on the point. The amendment goes to the heart of sustaining the Weatherill arrangement and avoiding a totally appointed House if the second stage never arrives. I hope, therefore, that the Government can reflect on it. I hope that they understand its importance and that the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box this afternoon with a positive reply. If the noble and learned Lord cannot do so, I must warn him and the Government that I shall be obliged to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the words of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I made it clear during the course of some of the debates in Committee that this was one of the matters in my recollection which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I had raised but had deferred as matters for consideration in further detail. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also be able to confirm that as his recollection. It is a matter of detail, but, I submit, of extremely important detail.
I shall once again trespass on your Lordships' patience by reminding the House of what I saw as the purpose of the agreement I came to with the noble and learned Lord and the Prime Minister. The purpose was to try to pour some sand into the Government's shoe. It
790
would be an irritation to them. Those of us who suspected—no doubt entirely wrongly—that the Government all along wanted to stick at a stage one nominated House saw it as an incentive to ensure that that intention never materialised.
It is against that background that I suggest we should consider my noble friend's amendment. If the Government mean what they say—and I have absolute confidence in the noble and learned Lord when he says it—that they intend to proceed with all due dispatch to stage two reform, I suggest that there is no difficulty from the Government's point of view in accepting my noble friend's amendment. After all, by the time of,
"the first Session of the Parliament after that in which the Act is passed",
according to paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 21, if that time comes, and the Government mean what they say, it seems to me that we shall be well on the way at least to incorporating stage two on to the statute book. If that is not so, we would have accomplished it. So if the Government mean what they say, they would surely not be taking any risks in terms of by-elections. There would be no call for by-elections.
However, if the Government resist the amendment. it would confirm in the unfortunately suspicious minds of some of us that there are some elements of the Government—I am sure, not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—who have always wanted an entirely nominated Chamber. They could clearly not get it by passing the Bill in its original form. That is something which they accepted would prove enormously difficult in the absence of the compromise which your Lordships have approved in principle.
It would imply that they could also not rely on the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Wakeharn. Those suspicious spirits might feel that he could have been relied upon by the Government to recommend an entirely nominated Chamber. Your Lordships have been repeatedly assured by my noble friend, as is no surprise to those of us who know him, that a nominated Chamber is only one of the options that his Royal Commission will consider and that of course he will be entirely open as to his reasoning behind any recommendations he gives.
So, if the suspicious are right, then the Government would not be able to achieve a wholly nominated Chamber by that route either. If the Government were to resist this by-election amendment, the suspiciously minded would then be driven to the conclusion that if the first two routes had failed they would be driven to a third expedient, and that expedient would take a little longer than they had originally planned but they would still get there in the end. The phrase that has come to be recognised to represent this tactic in your Lordships' House is "withering on the vine". Clearly, if no by-elections were to be held, and this stage one Bill were not to be replaced by a stage two Bill, it would be clear that the 92 would be allowed to wither on the vine and the Government eventually would manage to have achieved their nominated Chamber. In fact as the withering took place, the nominated Chamber would

791
become increasingly a reality, as those of your Lordships who were lucky enough to be elected as members of that group of 92 gradually died off.
It seems to me therefore that what is at stake here is the Government's credibility. I have no doubt at all, as I have said before, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has bent over backwards to be honourable in keeping to the agreement that he and I came to. I have already said that this detail was one over which we did not agree and which we merely raised in passing, as I understood it, for future agreement. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given, it seems to me that this is a detail of considerable importance. If the Government really do mean to go to stage two, there seems to be no necessity to oppose my noble friend's amendment, because the by-elections will never be called upon to take place. If, on the other hand, they do not mean to proceed to stage two, then the sand in the shoe will become an ever2014;present reminder to whatever government are in place at the time of by-elections that something must be done to complete the process which Parliament has started in the present Session.
I would submit to your Lordships that this amendment is integral to the tactic which lay behind our motives in coming to this agreement. If Your Lordships do not accept the amendment, then the whole reasoning behind the Weatherill amendment begins to fail. I would suggest to Your Lordships that this will prove to be a test which it is only sensible for your Lordships to set the Government. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for repeating the arguments that he made on an earlier occasion on this amendment. I find the amendment rather curious. The argument is made that, if we are going to have a reformed Chamber and a second stage, then this amendment is harmless and that therefore we should accept it; but if it is not going to be like that and the transitional House will last a long time, then of course it is absolutely crucial, and the Government must accept it.
I would say exactly the opposite. If noble Lords are right and we accept the Weatherill amendment in order to entice or encourage the Government to have a stage two and stage two is going to happen, the amendment is unnecessary. So why burden the Bill with an unnecessary amendment? If, however, for some reason or another, we are going to have a long transitional stage, which will change the nature of this House in the much longer run, we need to think very carefully about how we will replenish the numbers in that continuing House.
One argument I would make, which is a very strong one, against putting such a provision in the Bill is that at present the rules for electing the 90 are not on the face of the Bill; they are in the Standing Orders. Any amendments to those rules should be left to the
792
committees of this House in the future rather than be put on the face of the Bill, which would allow another place to amend them. We do not want another place to determine by what rules we elect Members of this House. In order to do that, we must leave this question off the face of the Bill. That is one argument for rejecting the amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I voted for the amendment to Clause 2—the so-called Cranborne/Weatherill compromise—for three reasons: first, it will provide some continuity with the existing House; secondly, it will retain in the House more knowledge, experience and diversity than would otherwise be available; thirdly, it will provide an elected element and therefore greater authority for the Peers who are elected and for the House as a whole. Those seem to be substantial reasons in favour of the amendment. Therefore, I judge all amendments, including this one, by one test: is the amendment in keeping with the compromise or not? In my judgment, the amendment moved by my noble friend is in keeping with it. In fact, I believe that, without the provision for by-elections, the amendment which your Lordships' House accepted in Committee will not be wholly effective.
I realise that the Government will say that provision for by-elections is not required because the second stage reform is coming quickly. I do not doubt for one moment that the Government are genuine in their belief, but I do suggest to your Lordships that both time and political imperatives will be against them. The Royal Commission is due to report by the end of the year. That is a very tight timetable. There is no guarantee that it will achieve that timetable. After that, the Government, to their credit, have promised a Joint Committee of both Houses. Anyone who has studied the history of House of Lords reform will realise how difficult it will be for that Joint Committee to achieve agreement. It will certainly need a good deal of time to deliberate. After that, there will be the reaction from the Government. Who has ever heard of a Government coming up to a general election and introducing a Bill for which there is little demand in the country? Of course, the Government will inevitably say—any Government would say it in such circumstances—"We are far too busy with legislation for which there is great demand among the public and legislation which will stand us in good stead for the next general election". Any government would do that and no-one can blame them for so doing.
I suspect that, when we reach that stage, the Government will say, "We are very sorry but we do not have time to introduce the Bill in this Parliament". Then, of course, the general election will take place. Who will win it? Who knows? What will be the form of the next Government and the next Parliament? What will be their attitude to stage two? No one knows. It is at least possible—I say probable—that the interim House will last for a very long time. It is for this reason that

793
I believe we should legislate for that possibility, and I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I had no intention of taking part in this debate for a variety of reasons, but a misunderstanding may well have emerged. It has already been stated twice that this particular amendment, which may be good or bad, is a crucial part of the agreement. I am perfectly prepared to give way to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, if he seeks to deny that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, obviously I have not made matters clear to the noble Lord in particular and the House in general. What I hoped I had made clear was that I regarded the question of by-elections as a crucial detail. However, if my memory serves me right, that was not a matter upon which the Lord Chancellor and I were at one during the course of agreeing the overall Weatherill amendment. That matter was left for future resolution.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, then there is obviously no need to make the point that I intended to make. This amendment may be good or bad, but it certainly was not agreed by some parties to the Weatherill amendment. Notice of that was given to both sides some weeks before the Bill ever entered the House.
Having risen to my feet, I should like to say a few words about the amendment. One fear that has run throughout the debate is that the Government have some reason for wanting to kick the ball into touch and move to a wholly appointed House. I and many other noble Lords are very much in favour of a largely appointed House. Other noble Lords take a fundamentally different view: for example, that it should be overwhelmingly an elected Chamber. That is precisely the key issue on which the Royal Commission has been set up to make recommendations. It seems to me to be, sensible to wait until that point before we decide.
How valid is this fear? We are talking of the possibility of a considerable number of those who remain being struck down by bubonic plague or some other illness. One by one they go down like skittles until we run out of people to whom we can turn. But everybody in the House knows that—I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition agrees—the likelihood is that the Conservative Party will win the next election. In that case there will be no problem. Even in the unlikely event that the Conservatives did not win the next election and the Labour Government were returned with their majority, together with the Liberal Democrats who support them on this issue, cut to less than 100, for what possible reason could they fail to proceed with the intentions of the Bill?
Scottish and Welsh devolution arid the Greater London Bill would be out of the way and this one issue would remain. Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House come before the House and say that they were terribly sorry but they could not do anything further about the removal of hereditary Peers from the House of Lords because the Scottish (No. 2) winter feed-stuff
794
Bill was holding up the programme? They would have to deal with it. Therefore, I believe that this is a false issue.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, almost invariably in this debate I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. However, on this occasion I believe that his normal lucid grasp of affairs has slightly slipped. Harold Macmillan said, "Events, dear boy: events, clear boy". The 1911 Act was supposed to lead to proper reform. I take noble Lords through the following possible scenario. The Royal Commission is split. Historically, Royal Commissions have not always been unanimous. That holds up the matter. A joint committee of both Houses then considers the matter. As has been said, such committees are not renowned for being smooth-talking bodies that produce agreements fairly easily. It does not happen like that.
I try my hardest not to make any party-political points. I am interested only in what comes after me. I want the future House to command respect and authority and be able frequently to kick any government where it hurts most. If the then government have to use the Parliament Act, so be it; let them. If this House in its new form can throw out delegated legislation, so be it. The government will then have to justify themselves.
As I understand it, the reform of the House is intended to give this place greater authority. My noble friend Lord Cranborne has done his country an enormous service in ensuring that stage one will have more authority. Noble Lords opposite will not be able to say that all the hereditary idiots like Onslow—there are lots of others, but I shall not name any names—are in the House. This is the sand in the shoe if they do not proceed with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said at Committee stage that he did not like the Weatherill amendment but saw it lasting. The Government have nothing to lose either by accepting the amendment or giving a rock solid undertaking to put a proper by-election procedure into Standing Orders. I see the force of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about putting the matter on the face of the Bill. There is much greater force in putting the commitment to a by-election procedure on the face of the Bill. That does not go against anything that anybody has said before. I hope that Fabius Maximus Cunctator does not have to come out of retirement, but I remind noble Lords that the football season starts fairly soon.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am surprised by the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that a second stage Bill will follow shortly after the passage of this legislation. I am now allowed to refer in debate to what has been said in another place during this Session. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, perhaps has not read the report of the debate in another place on 9th June. Mr Robert Sheldon, a former colleague of the noble Lord, is a man of enormous experience in these matters. Those of us who were in the other place in 1968 will clearly recall how Mr Sheldon was one of those who engineered the government's discomfiture and forced them to abandon

795
all progress on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. Perhaps we should consider what Mr Robert Sheldon said in the other place:
"My view of the proposed legislation, as it comes back from the House of Lords, is that it would produce a transitional House; these are the first steps. My expectation is that that temporary scheme is likely to become permanent. I am sorry to disagree with some of my colleagues, but, as time goes on, the enthusiasm for constitutional reform is not likely to increase. In my experience—I have seen a fair amount of such matters in my time—that enthusiasm is likely to terminate fairly early on".—[Official Report. Commons; 9/6/99: col. 668.]
Noble Lords would be very foolish not to heed the words of that acknowledged expert.
When we are considering all the amendments before the House, we should proceed on the assumption that, whatever may be the intentions of the Government, there is no way in which the Government can guarantee that there will be a second-stage Bill because the matter is not entirely in their hands; and there are a great many experts in the other place and here who have experienced Bills designed to bring about constitutional reform who recognise the difficulties with which the Government will be faced, and know perfectly well that governments tend to have other priorities. I therefore support the amendment.
Noble Lords: The Lord Chancellor!
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, in the light of the contributions your Lordships have made, and with the leave of the House, it might be for the convenience of the House—I shall not give way at the moment—and of assistance to the House to know the position that the Government are minded to adopt.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not making a winding-up speech because, this being Report stage, if it is a winding-up speech no one can speak after it, so the debate could not continue after the noble and learned Lord speaks.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to indicate the position that the Government are minded to adopt in the light of the various useful speeches that have been made.
Let me make some things absolutely plain. As I have said many times before, the Weatherill amendment is a purely transitional measure. It was on that basis that the Government supported it; and if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, will forgive me, no matter how loudly he may whistle in the wind, it is to be hoped that that is the position. He may find that activity of whistling in the wind sustaining for the present, but I can assure him that it will not sustain him for very long.
I also have explained that Clause 2 of the Bill is not about keeping open the principle of hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. That is why, as
796
a matter of principle—and I want to make this absolutely plain at the outset—we do not accept by-elections in which all the hereditary Peers, including those by then excluded from the House, could vote. But perhaps it would be convenient if I indicated my position in relation to what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said.
All that we ever agreed in terms of replacements was fastest losers. We did not get further than that. So I can confirm that what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said is correct. We did not proceed in our discussions beyond that stage. We did not discuss a point in time when fastest losers might cease to be an effective proxy for contemporary popularity, precisely for my part because I contemplated, and do contemplate, phase two preceding that time. It is not for me to say what was in the noble Viscount's mind, but I can confirm that we did not discuss the subject matter of this amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could also confirm that at a later stage we discussed in principle the matter of by-elections, but came to no conclusion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if the noble Viscount recalls that, I would not call it in question. Certainly we arrived at no agreement about by-elections.
The question therefore arises: if on the expiry of the first Session of the next Parliament there has been no stage two, then the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says fastest losers by then surely cease to be an effective proxy. Let that be. The Government are willing to proceed on that hypothetical assumption. So let us look carefully at what the amendment says. It recognises the topping-up procedure currently provided for in the draft Standing Orders as an acceptable scheme to generate replacements until, and only until, the end of the first Session of the next Parliament. Thereafter, it provides that replacements should be decided by means of by-elections.
The noble Lord suggested that fastest losers may by that time no longer be considered by their hereditary colleagues to be the most suitable candidates for the post. I am willing to accept that that is a reasonable proposition on the assumptions on which it is based. I do not need to share the assumptions in order to accept that it is a reasonable proposition based on these assumptions, and that by-elections would be a reasonable alternative to fastest losers after the lapse of a few years. I have no objection to the suggestion that the end of the first Session of the next Parliament is a suitable cut-off point. This is a matter of judgment, of course. The contrary could be argued. But for myself and for the Government, the noble Lord's judgment on this appears to be reasonable and therefore one that we can accept.
The Standing Order, as presently drafted, does not rule out by-elections; and of course the Standing Orders have the great advantage of allowing the House maximum flexibility in the matter of replacements, both in deciding the method to adopt to replace excepted Peers once there are no available runners up, and in

797
deciding the right time when to introduce a new method for replacement. That is why we have always believed, as a matter of principle, that such matters are far better dealt with in Standing Orders. But the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has explained that he wants a measure of certainty; that he wants on the face of the Bill an express provision for by-elections to kick in at a predetermined point in time.
As for the detailed mechanics of the by-elections, the amendment appears to reflect the Government's view that the mechanics, the details of the by-elections, are not matters for the face of the Bill because the amendment which the noble Lord has brought before the House appears to envisage that the detailed provisions should be made elsewhere; and that, of course, is in Standing Orders.
So the Government's position is this. Against the possibility, which we do not accept will become reality, that the transitional House will last for longer than on many occasions I have indicated that it will last, and because we are persuaded to accept the proposition that after the passage of the period of time denoted in the noble Lord's amendment, by-elections are a reasonable alternative to the initial topping-up procedure for filling vacancies, we could be persuaded in favour of an amendment in relation to by-elections, but we could only accept an amendment coupled with Standing Orders which provided that hereditaries outside the House may of course stand, and only they may stand, but that they may not vote in the by-elections.
I want to make that point absolutely clear because it is the key to our willingness to entertain any amendment along the lines proposed on the face of the Bill. What we propose is that there will be in-House by-elections and no excluded hereditary Peer will have a right to vote in them.
The voters in a by-election to fill a vacancy arising among the 75 Peers elected in the first instance by the four party and Cross-Bench groups will be the excepted hereditary Peers in the relevant grouping. Thus this matters remains exclusively within this House.
By contrast, the voters in a by-election to fill a vacancy arising among the 15 elected to stand ready to serve as office-holders will be, as in the initial election for the 15, all Members of the House, in this case all life Peers and all excepted hereditary Peers. That is the rational and logical constituency, since any replacement in this category will be expected to stand ready to serve the whole House.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will accept my assurance that the Government themselves will bring forward at Third Reading an amendment which gives effect to the proposition that I have outlined, I hope clearly, to the benefit of the House, and that he will therefore, when the time comes, withdraw his amendment. I can further assure the noble Lord that if this course is acceptable to him, then, once the amendment is in draft, we will discuss its terms with him.
The proposition that I have outlined, to be reflected in that amendment to be brought before the House by the Government on Third Reading, will of course also
798
need to be reflected in draft standing orders to be considered by the Procedure Committee, and I would hope that that state of affairs could be achieved before Third Reading.
Those are the fullest assurances that I can give the noble Lord to encourage him to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept that a large number of noble Lords on this side of the House have genuine fears that the interim House might go on very long indeed. We are very grateful for the assurance that the 92 hereditary Peers will carry on until stage two eventually comes.
Just suppose that that House goes on for a very long time and the party opposite get fed up with it. If it wanted to get rid of those 92 before stage two came, and it hit on the idea of getting rid of them by giving them all life peerages, although that would no doubt fulfil its commitment in its manifesto, I believe that it would be a breach of the Weatherill agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord agree?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor responds to the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, perhaps I may put this to him.
I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I listened with some concern to my noble and learned friend's response to the amendment before us, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It seems to me that there is a simple solution that would meet the point made by the noble Lord in his amendment and the feeling that seems to pervade the House. I refer to the principle that we in the Labour Party follow in the election of Members to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union and the appointment by the Conservative Party of Members to serve on those two bodies. We select so many pool Members and so many alternate Members.
I think that the Conservative Benches are to elect 42 Members to continue in the interim House. It seems to me a simple proposition that they should also elect 42 alternate Members at the same time. Then when it was necessary to consider a replacement the replacement would come from the 42 alternate Members who were elected at the same time as the substantive Members.
I think we are drifting into very difficult waters, when a very simple solution could be introduced on Third Reading. I ask my noble and learned friend to consider it before that stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Ewing is aware that an alternate Member does not exist only to inherit a membership. but has the right to participate in the proceedings of assemblies, or a board, because he or she is the alternate

799
and can therefore participate in the proceedings prior to any death, resignation or whatever. That obviously is not what anybody wants.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, that my experience of alternate Members in Europe is that they replace those who are absent. And there is no more certain absence than the certainty of death.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, are we still continuing with a mini-debate, or have we returned to the main debate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to respond to the two points that have been made, dealing first—
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart asked a question which is very relevant to the ability of other noble Lords to participate further in the proceedings. There was considerable concern in all parts of the House when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rose, as Members believed that that might put an end to the debate under our rules of order. I understood him to say that that was not the case, and that he was intervening. I should like to have this absolutely clear, so that there will be no further misunderstandings. When the noble and learned Lord has said what he wants now to say, will other Members of the House be free to speak in the normal way, if they wish? I understand that the Chief Whip is nodding assent. If that is confirmed, there will be no further problem.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that it was clear to everyone in the House that that was the position, and I see that everyone is nodding agreement. On the other hand, it might be of assistance to the House if, before other contributions were made, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt able to indicate whether the course of action that I propose is acceptable to him. That, of course, does not shut out other noble Lords, but it might persuade them to abbreviate their contributions if I have secured a favourable response from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course, I say out of courtesy to my noble friend Lord Ewing that I will consider his proposition of an alternate system, but, for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I think it is an unnecessary complication; it is not proposed by anyone by way of an amendment; and it steps completely outside what has already been agreed in the Weatherill amendment, that there should be a defined number. The notion that that defined number could be represented by an equal defined number of alternates to participate in our debates does not appeal to me.
Nothing I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, can bind a future Parliament, nor, indeed, a future Government. That is obvious. But I say quite clearly
800
that it is the Government's intention that the position of the excepted Peers shall be addressed in phase two reform legislation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to give a response to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The House is very full this afternoon. We have witnessed a most extraordinary event, one which I think will become extremely memorable. The dramatic entry of the noble and learned Lord in this debate was extraordinary, but most welcome. One of the excitements of this House is the unpredictable nature of interventions from the Front Bench. I have to say that I suffered a frisson of excitement as the noble and learned Lord spoke and he has given me great pleasure. If I had known that he was to reply quite so quickly, I should have asked for a lot more!
I believe that the noble and learned Lord has come to a statesmanlike conclusion. It is sensible. It is consistent with the arrangements in new Clause 2, on which this House has already voted. It is a victory for common sense. I understand that the noble and learned Lord has committed the Government to coming forward with an amendment at Third Reading. It will be discussed between the Government and the Opposition so that a format can be agreed. He has accepted that there should be on the face of the Bill an assurance that any replacement for the 90 Peers will be by election and that there should be agreed Standing Orders to ensure that those elections can take place.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, for the sake of the record, all that is correct, but upon the expiry of the first Session of the next Parliament.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with that. It was contained in my amendment and I welcome confirmation of it. However, the noble and learned Lord would not want to see the whole of the hereditary peerage being part of the electorate, although they could all be candidates. That is an important consideration. The electorate would be the limited 90 or 75 Peers as per the arrangement in Clause 2.
Of course, I should like to consider that in greater detail and discuss it with the noble and learned Lord. However, I hope that the House, and particularly Members behind me from my own party, will recognise that it would be churlish to take the matter further. I very much welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord and, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Goodhart: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is out of order because the Companion states

801
clearly that on Report only the mover of the amendment speaks after the Minister, save for short questions for elucidation before the Minister sits down. My noble and learned friend has sat down. However, where the Minister wishes to speak early, that does not prevent subsequent debate.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that is completely consistent with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. He said that he was making a brief intervention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is always flexible in its procedures. The Question has not yet been put. I suggest that we hear only briefly from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the Question should then be put.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that from the Cross Benches I had wanted to make a brief point and I had understood that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was making an early intervention. I had one brief comment to make and I had not expected the debate to be wound up quite so quickly and abruptly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it will obviously be worth hearing one or two Members of this House speak to the amendment. In that case, I shall withdraw my withdrawal of the amendment so as to hear those valued contributions. However, perhaps I may indicate to the noble and learned Lord that I have no intention of pressing the matter to a Division.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, on a point of order, all this has been extremely satisfactory and everyone is quite content. However, almost everything that has happened has been out of order! At Report stage, no noble Lord can speak more than once and there should be no interventions. There have been a great number of speeches from various noble Lords on the same subject and I suggest that if we stick to the rules of order, we shall get on very much quicker.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what we have just seen in the past few minutes, in a somewhat peculiar procedure, is a cosy get-together of the two Front Benches. I regret to say that I have to be the bad fairy at the wedding.
As has been made perfectly clear, the by-elections were no part of the Cranborne/Irvine concordat. So far as we are concerned, as we made clear during the debate on recommitment, we oppose the filling of vacancies. If they must be filled, we accept filling by runners-up. We cannot accept the by-election system. To begin with, it is pointless in principle. The 90 Weatherill Peers would no doubt be those who are currently active. They will stay until they die or until stage two. Certainly, for up to 10 years it will be practicable to use runners-up to fill the vacancies. Eventually, there will be difficulties, but so what?
802
The purpose of the Weatherill amendment is to put pressure on the Government to proceed with stage two; as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, graphically put it, it is the sand in the shoe. If, in 20 or 30 years' time, we still have not reached stage two, it will mean that the whole purpose of the Weatherill amendment has failed and that successive governments will have found it easy to ignore the sand in their shoe. We believe that there is no justification for keeping the Weatherill amendment alive by a system of by-elections. That would simply be keeping it alive on a lire-support machine without any hope of recovery. It is better to let it die with dignity.
There are, of course, questions about how the by-elections would work. Who would be the electorate'? Who would be the candidates? One point which is not unimportant but has not been considered is the position of the 15 who are to be elected by the whole of your Lordships' House on the footing that they are willing to serve as Deputy Speakers or Chairmen of Committees. The candidates for those 15 vacancies will obviously not be serving Members of your Lordships' House. but will have to be willing to serve as Deputy Speakers or Committee Chairmen. How can someone who has not been in your Lordships' House for years, may perhaps never have been in your Lordships' House, be qualified to serve? How will their ability to serve be tested? Will it be by some kind of election campaign or by a mock Sitting of your Lordships' House to test the capacity of the candidates to chair it? That is completely absurd. I suggest that it is quite impossible to have by-elections for the 15.
As regards the party group Peers, we have been told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the electorate will be the hereditary Peers who belong to the party group in which the vacancy occurs. That would be unworkable in the case of the noble and learned Lord's own party where, on the death of one of its two elected Peers, the survivor would simply have a right to nominate the successor to the other. It is almost equally unworkable in the case of my own party, where we have three. There would be two survivors. Given that even among the Liberal Democrats there are from time to time disagreements, if those two were to disagree the system would become totally unworkable.
The alternative favoured by the Official Opposition—election by the body of hereditary Peers connected with the party—is unworkable in any circumstances. Who would the candidates be? Would they include those who succeed to their peerages after the Bill comes into force? Presumably they would. But if their successors can be candidates, it means that some man, or very occasionally some woman, who had never been a Member of your Lordships' House could stand for election to your Lordships' House simply as a representative of a section of the hereditary peerage. How would the candidates be elected? Clearly, the group which would be elected among the Conservatives would be far larger and more diverse than the pre-1968 electorate for the representatives of the Scottish Peers or pre-1921 electorate for the representatives of the Irish Peers.

803
Even if we accept that there will be 90 Weatherill Peers, even if we accept the election of 90 Weatherill Peers with reserves, we cannot accept a system of by-elections. In practice, by-elections must mean that if stage two is deferred for any length of time, there will be brought into your Lordships' House hereditary Peers who have not previously sat here. Once we start looking at the mechanism for these by-elections, the absurdity of the idea becomes obvious.
I repeat that the purpose of the Weatherill amendment is to shame a recalcitrant government into proceeding with stage two; and if that does not work within 10 years, there is no reason why it ever should. By-elections to fill the vacancies will not be needed to make the Weatherill amendment work; they will prove that it has not worked. It is arguable that some hereditary Peers should continue to sit until stage two, but I can see no argument for bringing in their successors who have no experience of this House. They will be merely phantom Members of your Lordships' House, elected by a phantom electorate. This is a stitch-up between the two Front Benches in which we have no part and wish to have no part.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what experience do new life Peers have when they come to this House?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, life Peers come here because they have had experience in many capacities in public service.
The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I wish to make one point. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to 75 Peers. I suspect that there will be some difference as to whether there are 90 or 75. The House should continue to have the option of being able to elect 15 hereditary Peers who probably have a greater sense of tradition and ceremonial because some of us take part in it every day or in our general lives. That option should be kept open. We should not be talking about 75 Peers only being included in a by-election. I disagree with everything that the previous speaker said.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not believe that there is very much more to add after the response of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to my question. On the basis that I have said everything that I need to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 21B:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("() If Standing Orders provide for any people to be excepted from section I in consequence of an election the method of election shall be determined by each party group and by the Cross-bench peers.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having listened with great interest to the debate on the previous amendment, I have to tell your Lordships that there
804
have been no exciting overnight meetings between myself and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At the same time, I hope that his accommodating position on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be regarded as a precedent and that he will have no great difficulty in accepting in the same kind of spirit the amendment which is now before the House.
During the course of the Report stage and Third Reading, we on these Benches do not intend to re-open the central issue of principle or detail of the Weatherill amendment. We have made our position very plain indeed. The House has decided and we do not intend to re-open those matters on which the view of the House has been plain, even where we have disagreed with it.
I believe it has been clear from our debate so far today that there are matters which were not covered by the agreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. This amendment deals with one aspect of that.
In the course of the debate in Committee on 25th May, I referred briefly to the matter. That was the day when the Bill was recommitted, with the Weatherill amendment becoming Clause 2. I explained then that, on the evidence available to me, it was clear that there had been no agreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Therefore, it was a matter to be settled by the House without the noble and learned Lord saying, "We fully understand that it was part of the agreement, whether or not the House likes it and whether or not I believe that it is sensible. This is part of the agreement and I am sticking by it". That is a perfectly tenable position, even though an unsatisfactory one from the point of view of most of us.
As I say, this matter does not fall into that category. In the course of my brief intervention in that debate, I referred to two papers. I wish to refer to them again today. As the House will recall—certainly those who follow these matters in detail will—earlier this year, sometime after the Weatherill amendment had been promulgated but long before it was included in the Bill, the Lord Chancellor very reasonably convened a meeting of what was known as the "O" Committee under the principal official concerned in the Cabinet Office, Sir Quentin Thomas. The instructions of the committee—I am not in any way disputing them—were to try to decide how the framework and the detail of the Weatherill agreement could be embodied in Standing Orders if that seemed to be the best way to proceed. They were the terms of reference and, in effect, they formed the text from which the "O" Committee worked.
I have before me a paper Lords Reform: Cross-Benchers' Amendment: Description of Material for a Resolution. That paper was prepared at the behest of the Lord Chancellor. It was put before the "O" Committee on or about 15th February for discussion by the group at its first meeting, which was later in the month.
Paragraph 4 of the paper said quite plainly that,
"The method of election may be determined by each party group".
What is not in dispute is that the elections within each party group will now be by the hereditary Peers. That is not what we prefer, but that is what the House decided. That is not in dispute and I do not require any comments from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on that.
What is also not in dispute—it was the purpose of another paper to which I shall soon refer—is that, whatever form the elections take, they would be supervised by the Clerk of the Parliaments and his staff. That is not in dispute either. The point at issue is very simple: should the three parties and the Cross-Benchers decide for themselves what the method of election should be?
I have referred to the paper prepared for and put forward by the Lord Chancellor. In confirmation of that, I wish to refer to another paper circulated by the Clerk of the Parliaments on 24th February. In paragraph 4 on the conduct of elections he said:
"Two approaches to the elections of the 75 party peers are possible. One is that each party should conduct its own elections according to its own rules and inform the Returning Officer of the result. The other is that the Returning Officer should conduct all the elections according to common rules".
In each of those alternative propositions there are two ideas. The first is the role of the returning officer and whether the groups should conduct their own elections and inform the returning officer of the result; or whether he should conduct the elections. I have made it absolutely clear that the view from these Benches is that the returning officer should conduct the elections.
The second idea contained in paragraph 4 of the Clerk of the Parliament's paper is whether the election should be conducted according to common rules or whether groups and the Cross Benches should decide how they want to choose. The hereditary Peers should decide how they want to choose those who are staying on.
That is the point at issue. All I have sought to establish so far is that these were not masters determined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. These are outside that territory. All those on all sides of the House who may have had reservations in the past as to whether they could vote against anything that was included within the agreement need not fear on that account. These matters are outside the agreement.
In the debate to which I referred earlier I hoped that, following my intervention—I refer to the day on which the Bill was recommitted—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would reply and make clear the position. But he did not reply during the course of the debate. I waited for some time because, following the normal practice of your Lordships' House, Ministers often write to us from time to time saying, "You raised a matter during the course of the debate and here is your reply". But one day and then another passed and the Lord Chancellor did not reply. There is no suggestion of discourtesy. I can only believe that it was an oversight.
So on 10th June I wrote to the noble and learned Lord drawing his attention to what I had said at cols. 839 to 840 of the Official Report of Tuesday, 25th May 1999. I ended by saying,
"I would be very grateful if you could let me know before next Tuesday"—
that was Tuesday of last week—
"how you now see these matters".
The noble and learned Lord did not reply. I do not believe for a moment that that was through a lack of courtesy. I do not believe that it was through oversight. The noble and learned Lord is highly competent, as the whole House knows, in the conduct of his affairs and he has a distinguished staff to serve him. I believe the only reasonable assumption is that the answer to my question is, "Yes, you are right and, yes, it is for the House to decide that matter." I do not believe that there is anything that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can now say that would persuade me otherwise, in view of the passage of time—a full month—since I raised the matter in the House.
The question is a simple one. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to deal with it in a relaxed manner. Should the House dictate, should the House determine, should the Lord Chancellor instruct each group—the Conservative Party, his own ranks, the Cross Benches and the Liberal Democrats—should the House instruct us, on the way in which we should elect our hereditary Peers? Or should there be some degree of freedom?
This is a rare occasion when the House can make a legitimate decision on this important Bill in a painless way. My view is that the House should say, "Live and let live. Do it the way you want, subject only to making sure that events are conducted by the returning officer in such a way as to satisfy the natural criteria". The amendment says that. I hope very much that the House will be sympathetic to it. It does no harm to anyone. It does not infringe the Weatherill amendment. I t stands on its virtue and I hope that your Lordships will believe that it deserves to be supported.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as so often happens, when listening to the noble. Lord, Lord Rodgers, I am for a moment seduced by the power and charm of his argument, particularly his peroration this afternoon. However, in spite of the seductive way in which he put his argument, I find myself in strong disagreement with the spirit and the letter of the amendment. As the noble Lord said, the "O" Group made clear in its report that there were two ways of approaching this question: whether the parties should be left to decide how they would elect the hereditary Peers to represent the hereditary peerage in your Lordships' House during the transition phase, or whether the House as a whole should agree on one method of election that would be followed, slavishly, no doubt, as the noble Lord may think, across all four categories—the three main parties and the Cross Benches.
I believe that before pursuing his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, may want to consider the distinction between election to a party organisation and

807
election to a House of Parliament. It seems to me that election to a party organisation is of no moment except academically or for purposes of derision by any other organisation. It is a matter exclusively for the party. However, at stake here is membership of a party group but a party group that is part of a House of Parliament. I believe that there is a crucial distinction between a party which is an important part of the political mechanics of the way in which we conduct our affairs in this country and the integral part of the constitution which is how we select people to serve in either House of Parliament.
Therefore, it seems to me sensible that in another place there should be one way of electing people. In the past I have been attracted, and still am, to the idea of once again introducing university members, but I let that pass.
The approach in your Lordships' House has been more eclectic in that we have more than one way of selecting people for membership of this place: by virtue of hereditary peerage, by another method introduced in 1958 of life peerages, and by the way in which Bishops serve in the House. None the less, it is clear that no matter what the political allegiance of the membership of your Lordships' House, whichever route is chosen should be a route that is common to all Peers of that particular category, which does not take account of their party allegiance.
Therefore, that is an important distinction which is worth preserving. It is not election to a party committee, but election to membership of your Lordships' House during a transitional phase, which all of us hope will be short, but nevertheless must be taken seriously while it lasts. For that reason alone—there are other reasons—I feel that the first option, so rightly pointed out and described by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, should be rejected.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that when we discussed this matter during the course of our conversations in the run-up to concluding our agreement—the degree of harmony of our conversations has been the most agreeable feature of our debate so far—he and I agreed that this was an overwhelming reason for rejecting the first option and that all Members of your Lordships' House elected under these transitional arrangements should be elected in the same way. I hope that your Lordships will see that there is force in that argument, and that in spite of the seductiveness of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, noble Lords will nevertheless reject his amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, while the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is a reasonable one, in the light of what happened on the previous amendment, and especially considering what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, it becomes somewhat anomalous. If I have understood what my noble and learned friend said, a consequence of this Bill will be to disenfranchise the hereditary Peers who are not excepted by Clause 2 from voting in further elections to this House. If that principle is accepted, and
808
it has to be accepted, the matter cannot be left to the individual parties to choose the method of election because they may choose to violate that principle. It would be open, for example, to the Liberal Democrats to decide, whatever the Lord Chancellor says, that they want to have the non-excepted hereditary Peers as part of the electorate. We cannot have that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I understand that the spirit of the amendment is to enable the life Peers to be elected. My proposition may be carried out by the Conservative Party. If we accept what my noble and learned friend said, that restricts the freedom of parties to choose how they elect other hereditary Peers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I just correct the noble Lord, Lord Desai? If he looks carefully at the amendment he will see the words "the method of election", not "the electorate". It does not go wider than the simple question of the method of election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have been puzzled by this amendment. I thought I understood it when I read it initially, but clearly I must be too stupid or something to have understood it properly. However, I am satisfied that I am not too stupid when I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, shares my puzzlement. When I read this, I thought that "the method of election" meant not just whether it would be by proportional representation or whether all hereditary Peers would have a vote, but that it might mean that life Peers would also be allowed to vote along with the hereditary Peers. So I listened with some interest as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, if I may say so, narrowed down his amendment. I understand now what he means, but I suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may say that this amendment is defective and that it goes a good deal wider than the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, seemed to imply in his speech. If the noble and learned Lord does say that, I have to say that I agree with him. I had come prepared to discuss whether or not we life Peers ought to have a vote in our respective parties. Now I am told that the amendment does not call for that, although I actually think it does—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be good enough merely to read the amendment, he would see that the point he is making is nonsensical—
A noble Lord: So there!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I accept the reprimand that I am not being sensible but I am afraid that, like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I actually interpreted the phrase "the method of election" rather more widely than the originator of the amendment intended. I am just making a simple point; I do not need

809
a little lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I think that the amendment goes much wider. However, I will narrow the issue to the method. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, did not explain to me why his amendment wanted the possibility of different methods. He did not explain what different methods would be available, and that has left me in some difficulty to understand what he is seeking to do here. It seems to me that certainly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not going to dictate to us—to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross-Benchers—how they should actually conduct the election. The people who are going to dictate that are the Members of the Procedure Committee and the House. As an election would be an election to the House, I think it is right that the House should decide the method of election.
I am not going to argue which method should be chosen. I think the method should be the same for all the parties involved. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne, that although it is perfectly right for a party inside its own organisation to decide on its own different methods to elect party executives and to choose election candidates, when it comes to the actual election—for example, to the other place—the electoral procedure is the same for all who stand. All those who stand will participate in a first-past-the-post election or, if I may just whisper it, an extraordinary list system like the one we have just adopted for the European Parliament. Everybody has to stand on the same basis. I could not say during the European parliamentary elections that I did not approve of the system and so would it be possible for the Conservatives to have a different electoral system. That would not work. When it comes to elections to this House, although I understand that we can argue about what method should be used, it should be a common method and therefore I hope that the Government will not be minded to accept the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment, as I understand it, replaces an earlier one which said that any elections provided for in Standing Orders under Clause 2 must be conducted by the single transferable vote system. Presumably, the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches decided that STV was unlikely to gain the support of the House—I rather think they are right on that score—and instead proposed to allow each grouping a choice of electoral systems.
I have to say, speaking for myself, that the answer offered by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is absolutely correct. This is plainly a matter for the Procedure Committee. I would be astonished if the Procedure Committee supported the proposition that each party or grouping could go it alone. I confidently predict that a uniform election procedure will emerge from the Procedure Committee, if for no other reason than to ensure that each individual excepted Peer chosen by the respective groupings has precisely the same legitimacy as all the others, having been elected by the same means. I really think that a common system of election is required, and that is what
810
is reflected in the Standing Orders as currently drafted. Also, from the point of view of practicality, I do not: believe it would be fair to impose on the Clerk of the Parliaments the burden of administering possibly four different electoral systems. I would suggest that this is really not on, from the point of view of principle and practicality.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in going through his paper trail on this matter, demonstrated that he would have made a rather good member of the Bar had he chosen that vocation. But let me do the best that I can from my own recollection. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I certainly discussed at length the composition of the electorate. We came to the view that it would be right that the election should be by hereditaries of hereditaries for hereditaries.
I entirely accept that there is a reasonable argument on the other side, which is that life Peers should have the opportunity also to vote in an election for who their hereditary colleagues should be. I do not reject that argument as an unreasonable one: it can be reasonably entertained and there are equally strong arguments the other way, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I agreed.
My recollection is that since we took the view that there should be symmetry in the matter of the electorate, we contemplated that there would be overall symmetry because of the principal justification for that: namely, that Members of a House of Parliament are being elected, and there should be a uniform method of election. I am sure that is what we contemplated. I cannot recall any detailed discussion about it, and so I am not saying that those who want to maintain the contrary view are precluded from doing so by reason of the agreement. Those, on the other hand, who maintain the contrary view, whether on the amendment or any part of the agreement, are not precluded from testing the opinion of the House—although of course I do not invite them to do so.
Certainly, it is the case—and I reproach myself for the fact—that I did send to the various parties concerned, which includes all the political parties and the other groupings, a paper prepared by the Constitution Secretariat, which included the paragraph to which the noble Lord referred, which stated that the method of election may be determined by each party or group. I am afraid that I simply did not spot that one line in the paper, but I can certainly say chat the noble Viscount and I contemplated symmetry across the groupings, as evidenced by our clearly expressed agreement in relation to the electorates. For my part. I see no reason why we should agree symmetry for the electorates and not contemplate identity of electoral methods and procedures.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for the fact that by today, 22nd June, I have not replied to his letter dated 10th June. If he will retire with me to my room, he will see the size of my in-tray and will perhaps forgive me for saying that his letter has not yet reached the top of it. I looked at the reference in Hansard where the noble Lord raised this point. If he checks cols. 839–840 of 25th May, he will see that he did not ask me

811
the question which in fact he asked in his letter of 10th June. However, I apologise for not replying to it formally before now.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, there is no great point in pursuing the final remarks of the noble and learned Lord in relation to the circumstances in which he did not respond on this matter; that is now part of history. I had hitherto believed that he took the closest interest in matters of detail. I know from experience that he is extremely good at replying to letters. If he looks back to the Hansard to which we have both referred, he will discover that I gave him the opportunity over the dinner hour to reflect on what I had said so that he could tell the House the outcome of his thoughts when the House reconvened. However, we all make mistakes and fall short from time to time and I would not hold that against a Member of this House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that there was a distinction between election to a party or organisation or to a parliament, though he did not make clear precisely what that distinction was except in the most routine and obvious way. However, I remind the noble Viscount that during a period in which he was in government, the United Kingdom chose to elect its representatives to the European Parliament by the first-past-the-post method, while most of the other members of the European Union elected Members by proportional representation.
I am not saying what is right or wrong. I shall be happy to give way to the noble Viscount if I am wrong about the issue and if he can point to an occasion when he spoke out against that arrangement, but if he is not disposed to contradict my understanding on those points, I shall continue.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I will be corrected by the noble Lord, but can he say whether all the countries which elected Members of the European Parliament by proportional representation used the same method of proportional representation? I would infinitely prefer that they were all elected by the first-past-the-post system. It would be much more sensible. I have always made clear that that is my view.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Viscount has always made it clear that he prefers the first-past-the-post method. But what is absolutely plain is that the government of which he was a distinguished member—this applies also to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—were not only happy with, but were intent on maintaining, a first-past-the-post system of election to the European Parliament where all our partners took a totally different view.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was seeking information. Do all the other members use the same method of proportional representation?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I did not say that. My point—I shall not repeat it more than a
812
third time—is that the government of which the noble Viscount was a member were happy to maintain a quite different method of election, knowingly, from that of our partners in the Community. Nor am I aware that he protested about any differences between the methods of election used by other members of the European Union.
It is true, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, that at one stage we thought of an amendment which might require all groups to elect their members by STV. But that was an unreasonable proposition. We saw it to be unreasonable and decided, on the contrary, that we would prefer every group to choose for itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked what methods might be available. It would be for every group to choose. I would not want to anticipate what my noble friends might prefer. But whatever may be the case, I do not believe that it would be an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the Clerk of Parliaments to proceed with one different system from those used by other groups. That is not an argument which stands up.
The Lord Chancellor said that this was a matter for the Procedure Committee and that he would confidently predict what would emerge. He may be right. But that is a matter, first, for the Procedure Committee to decide and, secondly, for your Lordships' House. In the meantime, though it may well be that your Lordships are not immediately attracted by the amendment, I intend to press for the opinion of the House.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 335.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Bath, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L. [Teller.]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Razzall, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Gage, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hampton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Swansea, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L,

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Leathers, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thurso, V.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

813

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Ackner, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Acton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Addison, V.

Crawley, B.

Ahmed, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Aldenham, L.

David, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Davidson, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Coity, L.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Amos, B.

Denham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Derwent, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Desai, L.

Annaly, L.

Diamond, L.

Annan, L.

Dixon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Donegall, M.

Arlington, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Astor, V.

Dubs, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dudley, E.

Attlee. E.

Dundonald, E.

Bach, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Eccles, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Barnett, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elles, B.

Bathurst, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bearsted, V.

Elton, L.

Bell, L.

Erroll, E.

Belstead, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Berners, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Exmouth, V.

Blatch, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blease, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Feldman, L.

Blyth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Borrie, L.

Fisher, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Foley, L.

Bragg, L.

Fookes, B.

Brentford, V.

Forbes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bridges, L.

Gainford, L.

Brightman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bristol, Bp.

Garel-Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Geddes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Glanusk, L.

Burlison, L.

Glenamara, L.

Burnham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Burns. L.

Glentoran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Butterworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goudie, B.

Campbell of Croy. L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carew, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Grantchester, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Chalfont, L.

Gregson, L.

Chandos, V.

Grenfell, L.

Chorley, L.

Hacking, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Elanworth, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hardie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cobbold, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haslam, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hawke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hayman, B.

814

Hesketh, L

Morris of Manchester, L.

Higgins, L.

Mountevans, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Moyne, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Naseby, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Newall, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Nicol, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Norrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Northbourne, L.

Hughes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Hylton, L.

Onslow, E.

Inchyra, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Orme, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Islwyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Patel, L.

Paul, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Peel, E.

Jeger, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Perth, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Peston, L.

Jopling, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Judd, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Kennet, L.

Plumb, L.

Kenyon, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Kingsland, L.

Prior, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Puttnam, L.

Kintore, E.

Radnor, E.

Kitchener, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Knollys, V.

Rawlings, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Long, V.

Romney, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

St. Davids, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Savile, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sawyer, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Seccombe, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Selsdon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sempill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Serota, B.

Marsh, L.

Sewel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shepherd, L.

May, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Slim, V.

Milverton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mishcon, L.

Somerset, D.

Molloy, L.

Stair, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Stallard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stewartby, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monson, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Strange, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Montrose, D.

Sudeley, L

Moran, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Swinfen, L.

815

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Vinson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Waddington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Tenby, V.

Warner, L.

Teynham, L.

Waterford, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thornton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Thurlow, L

Westbury, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Whitty, L.

Townshend, M.

Wilcox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Trenchard, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wolfson, L.

Tryon, L.

Wynford, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Young, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Uddin, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Varley, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we proceed with the rest of the Report stage, I have been asked by a number of your Lordships to remind noble Lords of the rules for speaking on Report. On Report, no noble Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply; or a noble Lord who has obtained the leave of the House, which may only be granted to a noble Lord to explain himself on some material point of his speech. no new matter being introduced, or to a Minister of the Crown.
Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report, save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down; except that, where the Minister wishes to speak early, this does not prevent subsequent debate. Arguments which have been fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 21C:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("() Standing orders of the House shall provide that the 90 excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories—

(a)(i) 2 peers elected by the 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; and

(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.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment No. 21C. I see from the grouping list that Amendment No. 58D has been grouped with it. However, apart from the fact that both amendments are tabled in my name, I cannot see much connection between the two. Therefore, I propose to speak only to Amendment No. 21C this afternoon.
I can explain in one sentence why I propose that this one significant part of the Weatherill amendment at least, if no other, should be on the face of the Bill. To reserve to Standing Orders provisions which relate to
816
the election of Members of a House of Parliament would be a constitutional aberration, a direct assault on the rights of the other place and an affront to the parliamentary government of this country.
I have received a note to the effect that Amendment No. 21C is, prima facie, hybrid in the opinion of the Public Bill Office. It is right, therefore, that I should say a few words on this topic, although I suspect that others more knowledgeable and learned than I may dwell on it, and rightly so, at greater length. According to Erskine May,
"The Speaker has defined a hybrid Bill as 'a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class"".
In this case the private interest in question is, as I understand it, that of a person, a hereditary Peer, to be elected to be a Member of this House by one of four electoral colleges according to his political allegiance, or, as the case may be, his lack of allegiance. This would give, for example, an independent Peer a different chance of successful election than a Conservative Peer, notwithstanding that we are told that one-tenth of each electoral college will be eligible for election. This fine point seems to me to be very much on a par with the question: how many angels can dance on a split hair?
I have my own doubts as to whether agreement to the amendment should make the Bill hybrid. I have had no advice and I put my doubts before the House as a complete amateur. But I find it peculiar indeed that the right of a Peer to sit in this House of Parliament is considered, "a particular private interest". If any right was a matter of solely public interest in the context of this Bill, I should have thought that this right was. But there you are. That particular reservation on my part, I hasten to add, has no bearing at all on this debate, for the purposes of which I freely acknowledge the full import of the Clerks' advice. What is relevant is that the hybridity rules are for the protection of private interests, so that it can be no proper objection to this amendment that agreement to it might make the Bill hybrid unless it can be shown that there are no compelling reasons why the amendment should not be pressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who I do not see in his place, when he introduced his amendment in Committee said,
"why have we left so much to Standing Orders? We did so because we envisaged that the arrangements would be temporary and that this would be the most convenient way of making provision. This method has the advantage that more detailed provision on the face of the Bill would have to be agreed by another place, which would therefore have as great a say in determining the process as the House of Lords. Of course, another place could be trusted but in this way we order our own affairs in the matter".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; cols. 1091–92.]
I cannot accept this analysis. Thirty months cannot properly be described as a temporary period. The retention of some hereditary Peers in this House by virtue of their hereditary peerages for even 30 months—which is my best estimate of the time after which the Weatherill amendment will be shown to have been spent—should not be dealt with by transitional provision. This is not a transitional measure.
But what concerns me most is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that the other place should not be concerned with the election of hereditary Peers under his amendment. That seems to me to be not just a gratuitous insult to the other place, of which he was for many years the distinguished Speaker, but an affront to Parliament itself and to parliamentary democracy.
I need hardly point out that if this amendment is not on the face of the Bill, it will be technically possible for a later change in the Standing Orders of the House to change the political balance of this House.
I shall not detain the House further except to add that White's is but one of a multitude of clubs of which I am not a member. But to put it in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, put it is to treat this House as a club. Of course, a club can order its affairs, but this House is a House of Parliament and provisions affecting the election and political balance of about a sixth of our present membership can and must be decided by Parliament itself and by the Sovereign. They should not be dismissively treated as mere tedious administrative detail, suitable for rules and regulations. I ask your Lordships to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is a perfectly sensible amendment in principle but I have one or two problems with the idea of putting it on the face of the Bill. I have always believed that many of the Weatherill propositions should go on the face of the Bill, particularly those which concern the by-elections that we discussed earlier this afternoon. However, I wonder whether the specific numbers in the current compromise are ones that the House would want to fix for all time, or until that day—mythical perhaps—when stage two will be delivered. This may be one matter that is best left to Standing Orders which can be changed only by leave of the House.
However, it is always good to have an opportunity to debate these matters. That is why I laid the whole draft Standing Order for debate in Committee, although I regret that few noble Lords took part on that occasion. But it may well be that before the course of stage one and a half is run, there will be good reasons to change the numbers or the political balance between the parties. There may be other reasons for that, for example—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a simple question. In what circumstances would he imagine it right—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip earlier read out the rules for Report. We should follow them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, I was merely asking a question in the course of a debate in which I had not spoken. I feel I am entirely right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, a very simple question. In what circumstances does the noble Lord think it would be right to change the proportion of party and Cross-Bench representation in the House?
818
I do not necessarily disagree with him in terms of his conclusion about the amendment. Nevertheless, I am a little puzzled by what he is saying.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, a situation one might envisage is if, in many years to come, there is a complete collapse of the Liberal Democrat Party. It might then be difficult to justify it having three seats at all. There might be an arrangement to renegotiate the position. The same would apply, of course, to other parties.
Another issue with which the noble Lord might have some sympathy is the future of the 15 above the 75 who are now to be selected as Deputy Speakers. For example, they could be subsumed into the rest of the 90; the House might want to consider that in four or five years' time. For my part, I see some attraction in that.
My noble friend should consider those points carefully before pressing the amendment any further. We are looking for an element of flexibility. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was probably agreeing with me about that. It is worth discussing these matters but, on this issue, the Standing Orders are a good place for the numbers to be.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government's firm view, too, is that the detail of the Weatherill amendment and its consequences are not a matter for the Bill but for Standing Orders. The amendment does not make straightforward statutory provision for the numerical breakdown of the 90 excepted Peers between the different groupings or the different electorates. Instead it imposes a requirement that such provision shall be made in Standing Orders. To have the provision in both places renders the Standing Order empty, making it no more than a rubber stamp.
More substantively, there are two other major objections to the amendment. First, placing these provisions on the face of the Bill would remove the flexibility of the Standing Order in respect of the system for filling vacancies among the excepted Peers. This provision in the Bill would mean that we could not have the fastest loser system currently provided in the draft Standing Order because any replacement excepted Peer would have to be elected. It also means that excluded. hereditary Peers would continue to be able to participate in the by-elections for replacements. That is not acceptable to the Government as a matter of principle, as I explained in giving my assurance about the amendment that the Government will bring forward on Third Reading, against which assurance the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his Amendment No. 21.
There is also a very serious hybridity point. The effect of the amendment would be to include in the Bill a specific allocation to different parties within the House. This would affect the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers. A question of hybridity would arise, at least prima facie, if the amendment were to be passed. I must advise the House that if the amendment were agreed to, it would be necessary for the Chairman of Committees to table a Motion after the conclusion of the Report stage to refer the Bill to the Examiners in

819
respect of the amendment, with all the consequences for the timetable of the Bill and the legislative programme that that would entail. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to give great weight to that point and not to press the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to the two Front Bench spokesmen who have spoken in the short debate. I do not need to detain the House for very long now. The main objection to the amendment is that it deprives the House of the flexibility which the Front Benches feel it should have. On the other hand, my argument in favour of the amendment is that there should not be that kind of flexibility in the way that Parliament conducts its business. I have no doubt that the Weatherill amendment may go along very neatly for a long time without change, but any change should be a matter for Parliament, not just for this House. In those circumstances, I cannot agree with what has been said and I seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 21D:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("() If, at any time, there shall have been, for more than 30 days, fewer than 90 people excepted from section I pursuant to subsection (2) above, the Lord Chancellor shall thereupon take all such steps as may appear to him to be necessary to seek to ensure that the number of people so excepted becomes 90 as soon as may be reasonably practicable.
Provided that the validity of anything done by the House of Lords shall not be in any way affected, or open to challenge, by reason of the fact that, at any time, there are less than 90 people so excepted.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21D stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Lucas. I propose the amendment with the greatest confidence for two reasons. First, it gives effect to the policy expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when we debated this matter in Committee on 25th May; and, secondly, it is brought forward pursuant to the express invitation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should at the outset say that, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord said in answer to Amendment No. 21, it may well be that if he can give me sufficient assurance it will not be necessary to press the amendment at this stage.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Lucas, moved two amendments designed to ensure that the 90 was not just a maximum number but was a number to be maintained at all times. In answer, so far as concerns policy, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave the most categorical answer. He said:
"The 90 is intended to be both a ceiling and a floor … Peers will remain at 90 … That is certainly the Government's intention. I have given a 100 per cent assurance that that is so".—[Official Report, 25/5/99; col. 877.]
That is why the amendment gives effect to government policy.
But the noble and learned Lord went on to say—quite rightly, in my humble and respectful opinion—that in the form in which they were drafted the amendments
820
were unacceptable, particularly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which forbade any one of the 90 to die at any stage. It was a little optimistic of him to think that even legislation could achieve that. In answer, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"In my view, until someone comes forward with something better than this amendment, it should be left on that basis".—[Official Report, 25/5/99; col. 879.]
This amendment is my attempt to come forward with something better than that basis.
The amendment merely provides that if a vacancy has existed for more than 30 days, the Lord Chancellor shall take such steps as may appear to him to be necessary to seek to ensure that the number goes back up to 90. He has to take only such steps as he considers necessary when the vacancy has existed for more than 30 days. If, for example, a vacancy occurs during a Recess, he may consider that no steps are necessary because the matter will be resolved as soon as someone comes back to do the work. He has only to seek to ensure that the number is topped up; therefore if no one is willing to serve, he has not in any way failed in his duty.
The noble and learned Lord was also concerned that if too absolute a duty was placed on the Bill, there could be some challenge to procedure of the House when the full 90 did not exist. For the avoidance of doubt, I have sought in the second paragraph to make it absolutely plain that that could not apply.
I therefore venture to hope that this amendment is acceptable both in principle and in technicality, because it does not place on anyone an onus to do that which is difficult or impossible, and it makes the position on validity totally clear.
It may be that when the noble and learned Lord returns with an amendment at Third Reading, as he has undertaken to do to in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that of itself will make it plain that the 90 have to be topped up. If the noble and learned Lord can now assure me that the amendment that he brings back at that stage will make it plain that the 90 have to be topped up and that there is some mechanism for doing that, I shall be content. I have no commitment to any particular method; I merely want to ensure that there is a mechanism at all times for keeping the 90 topped up.
The noble and learned Lord may say that this is all academic, stage two will happen very soon and this provision will never be needed. One fully accepts that it is his intent and wish that stage two will happen soon. I suspect it was the intent and express wish of the authors of the 1911 Act that stage two of that legislation should happen soon. But minor difficulties, such as a near-revolt in Ireland and then World War One, blew them off course. So one can never know whether the Government will achieve that result. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in speaking to an earlier amendment, pointed out other reasons why stage two may not happen as soon as it is hoped. There was some debate about how likely that was; but that is not the basis on which we legislate. We legislate to cover all the circumstances and to be sure that the intent is provided. Therefore,

821
I commend the amendment to the House; or at least, I invite the noble and learned Lord to say that he will deal with this matter in his amendment to replace Amendment No. 21.
In that connection, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. He has said, and I am pleased to hear, that we shall consider the report of the Procedure Committee before Third Reading. But the concept of Amendment No. 21 suggests further Standing Orders to deal with by-elections to fill vacancies. It seems to me that it is putting rather a lot on the Procedure Committee to hope that it can deal not only with the first-off election, the one that is to take place soon, but also with the subsequent by-elections, and have its report before the House by, let us say, the middle of July. Is the intention that the Procedure Committee should report to the House on both those issues; or is the intention that the subject of subsequent by-elections shall be left over so that the committee has a more mature time to consider the matter and does not have to work under quite so much pressure? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I have every sympathy with the amendment. It may be that the Government can accept it. It follows on from the debate that we had in Committee, when I suggested that a floor should be placed under the number of hereditary Peers excepted under the Bill. Then, the noble and learned Lord was concerned that to omit the words "no more than" from the Bill and to insist on leaving 92 Weatherill Peers in the House might invite some to question the validity of the House if the numbers were under 90.
This amendment ingeniously shoots that particular fox. It asks only for the places to be filled as soon as possible. It further puts beyond doubt any question that the House could not act validly if the numbers of excepted Peers fell below 90. So I strongly endorse both parts of the amendment, which clearly should have support in all parts of the House. It may be that the Government will follow the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and agree that their response to Amendment No. 21 has changed the ground rules. If so, this is also an opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to say that. I should certainly welcome that.
Perhaps I may deal also with the final point raised by the noble Viscount on Standing Orders. It is my understanding, which is probably right, that the Procedure Committee should meet in order to agree Standing Orders for all these procedures, and that the House should then take a view on the advice of the Procedure Committee. Again, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will he able to give a positive response to the noble Viscount.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, let me first respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, by saying that it is certainly my objective, without putting anyone under an excessive burden, to ensure that the Procedure Committee can prepare Standing Orders for consideration by the House, which will address both the
822
initial elections and by-elections; and that the committee should do that, if at all possible, before Third Reading. I therefore endorse the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It would not be feasible for the Procedure Committee to achieve that before the end of this Report stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will appreciate that I do not want to anticipate the precise terns of the amendment which, pursuant to my undertaking given to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in reply to his Amendment No. 21, the Government will bring forward at Third Reading. However, he may find it reassuring that I at present contemplate that the words "no more than" in Clause 2(2) should be elided, so that the subsection would read, "At any one time 90 people shall be excepted"; then the provision for the filling of vacancies by means of by-elections would show that the statutory purpose was to procure that the 90 were topped up. That in itself, as the noble Viscount anticipated, may be sufficient to satisfy him. As he reminded the House, I certainly said previously that the figure of 90 is both a ceiling and a floor. So far as the Government are concerned, vacancies must be filled.
I am not, as at present advised, satisfied that the amendment brought forward by the noble Viscount is the right one. Let me say right at the outset that I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to write to me in detail to explain the thinking behind his proposal. Let me also make it absolutely clear that I accept that he seeks to be constructive and helpful, and nothing else.
However, looking at the terms of the amendment, I have grave doubts whether the obligation that is sought to be imposed on the Lord Chancellor is justiciable. How could it be enforced? I also have even graver doubts whether this is a matter in relation to which it is appropriate to impose an obligation on the Lord Chancellor as distinct from the House.
Further, it appears to me to remove flexibility for the relevant groupings to decide how long they require in order to determine which candidates are to come forward and what time they need for them to be appraised by the electorates within a by-election system.
I believe that on any view 30 days is too short a period. I understand that in the other place all parties now accept that a new Writ should be issued within three months of the death of a Member. Many might think that to proceed with the filling of a vacancy arising from a death within a period as short as 30 days is somewhat unseemly.
For all those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will be sufficiently satisfied with the amendment which I have already undertaken that the Government will bring forward on Third Reading to deal with the by-election issue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may respectfully ask him to examine Clause 2(3). As it is drafted, it looks as if it could be construed as limited to the hereditary Peer who is initially elected, not the one who replaces him. That is because of the words

823
"throughout his life". There is a decision of the Privileges Committee in the Irish peerage case which is to the point on this type of construction. Would the noble and learned Lord examine that provision to ensure that there is no express or implied limitation of that kind?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall consider it in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says. My immediate reaction is that Clause 2(3) is intended to emphasise that once a Peer becomes an excepted Peer—excepted from Clause 1—he shall enjoy that peerage for life in the same way as a life Peer would, subject to an Act of Parliament providing to the contrary.
It also appears to me that anyone who prevails in a by-election becomes one of the 90 excepted Peers. So I doubt whether there is a problem, but I shall consider it.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He hoped that I would be satisfied with his proposal. I am. He hoped that I would be willing to withdraw the amendment. I am. I am grateful to him and thank him for his kind words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
  (" .—(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission ("the Commission") which shall make proposals to the Prime Minister for recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.
  (2) The Commission shall be an advisory non-departmental public body and shall—

  (a) be appointed in accordance with the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and may seek his advice about best practice in attracting and assessing potential nominees;

  (b) operate an open and transparent nominations system for peers not belonging to, or recommended by, any political party ("the Cross Bench peers");

  (c) actively invite nominations by the general public and encourage nominations from professional associations, charities and other public bodies that it judges appropriate;

  (d) publish criteria under which it will determine a candidate's suitability for nomination;

  (e) reinforce the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all nominations to life peerages by the political parties; and

  (f) scrutinise all candidates for life peerages on the grounds of propriety in relation to political donations, as proposed in the 5th Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  (3) The Commission shall appoint its own Chairman.
  (4) It shall, at least every 6 months, and at most every year, make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers, sufficient at least to fill any vacancies among Cross Bench peers that may occur through death, disqualification or a decision to join a political party represented in the House of Lords.
  (5) The Prime Minister may not refuse to submit to Her Majesty the names of those recommended as Cross Bench peers by the Commission, and shall not seek to influence such nominations, save in exceptional circumstances, such as those endangering the security of the realm.
  (6) The Commission, in considering nominations as Cross Bench peers, shall not give any additional weight to recommendations from the Prime Minister or the Leaders of other political parties.
  (7) Following the passing of this Act the Commission shall make a report annually to Parliament on the recommendations made to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister for the conferment of life peerages, in which it will declare if the following criteria are being observed, namely that—

  (a) no one political party commands a majority in the House of Lords;

  (b) the Government has broad parity of numbers with the main opposition party; and

  (c) the proportion of the Cross Bench peers to the total number of life peers in the House remains as it was on the day before the passing of this Act.

  (8) The Commission shall consist of eight members of the Privy Council, of whom four shall be appointed by a special Commission of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords.
  (9) One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons on the nomination of the Leader of each such party, and one shall be appointed from the Cross Bench peers on the nomination of the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships engaged in considerable discussion about an appointments commission during the earlier stages of the Bill. In particular, the House will recall a number of powerful speeches made in support of both the composition and the terms of reference of the commission being on the face of the Bill. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, there has been widespread agreement that some kind of appointments commission is essential.
  Since the Committee stage, I understand that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House met a group of Back-Benchers and reinforced her intention, already declared in Committee, to introduce the commission; but not a statutory commission. That remains a real point of difference between the Government and the Opposition.
  I read carefully the extremely full remarks of the noble Baroness in Committee on 13th May 1999 (at col. 1368 of Hansard). There the noble Baroness set out in detail the Government's intentions with respect to both the composition and the functions of the commission. She referred repeatedly to the Government White Paper entitled Reforming the House of Lords.
  The proposals in our amendment are closely based on the noble Baroness's words in Committee and on the White Paper proposals. They also follow discussions between the Opposition Front Bench and those Peers on the Conservative side who put forward their own amendments in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will carry my noble friends' support, at least in some degree.
  The amendment provides for a new statutory body, outside any existing department, to advise the Prime Minister on appointments of Cross-Bench Peers. The

  825
  Prime Minister would not be able to refuse to submit to Her Majesty names recommended by the commission, although, in exceptional circumstances, such as security, he might be able to add warnings.
  The commission would be composed of eight Privy Counsellors. Four would be appointed by a troika of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Prime Minister, ensuring the independence of those appointees but not unreasonably excluding the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister. Three further members of the commission would be appointed by the main party leaders and one by the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. The commission would appoint its own chairman.
  The commission would operate under certain criteria drawn directly from the Government's White Paper and the noble Baroness's speech. These include openly published criteria for appointment, transparency, active invitation, nomination from the public and professional bodies, and operation under the Nolan criteria.
  The commission would also take on the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting nominations by political parties. It would consider specifically the issue of political donations. I take, as a purely random example, last weekend's list of those new Peers who are donors to political parties. I make no complaint about it because the same has been true in the past. Caesar, whatever the colour of his toga, would always want to be above suspicion.
  The amendment does not seek to determine numbers as to proportionality, something to which the noble Baroness objected in earlier stages. Instead, it repeats the three criteria proclaimed by the Prime Minister: broad parity between the two political parties, no party to have a majority in your Lordships' House, and a safeguard for the proportion of Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House.
  My noble friend Lord Coleraine proposed an amendment to the amendment which would affix the proportion of Liberal Peers to the main opposition party. I can see the logic behind his thinking; but helpful though it might be to the Conservative Party, it would be wise not to resile from what I might describe in this case as the robust common sense of the Government's proposal.
  My noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Caithness have tabled a characteristically thoughtful amendment which contains many provisions similar to the one tabled by the Opposition. I have to confess that I prefer ours; but I know my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will be listening carefully to what my noble friends say, particularly with regard to subsection (3)(d) of the amendment. If the Opposition are fortunate enough to win the support of your Lordships' House this afternoon for our amendment, I am sure we will consider any proposal that my noble friends might wish to bring forward at a later stage.
  What can the case against the amendment possibly be? That it is statutory and that it is not necessary for it to be statutory? But in the new House the power of patronage will become far greater than in the existing House: first, because life Peers will come to constitute
  826
  the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House; secondly, because in a smaller House, each act of patronage will be proportionately more significant. The case for safeguards—statutory safeguards—on the use of patronage is stronger than ever, arid certainly not weaker than it was before last weekend. So that cannot be the case for resisting this amendment.
  Can a case be made out on the content of the proposals themselves? Surely not; for they are the Government's own proposals, have been the Government's own proposals for a long time, and were set out in detail by the noble Baroness during her speech in Committee.
  Or can it be that noble Lords opposite want to limit discussion in another place? Much discussion would inevitably follow, I suggest, from an amendment in your Lordships' House. Surely, above all, another place should have the opportunity to discuss such an important matter which a non-statutory system would deny it. In short, I can see no reasonable case for rejecting the amendment.
  Would it not be wise, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said in Committee, to leave the Government's motives in this matter completely beyond doubt? It would be a sad thing if the impression were allowed to grow that the Government did not want to have an appointments commission yet because they wanted to complete a programme of appointments first. I beg to move.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, Amendment No. 26:
  Line 46, after ("party;") insert—
  ("() the proportion of peers of the second opposition party to peers of the main opposition party remains the same as the proportion of life peers of the second opposition party to life peers of the main opposition party was on the day before the passing of this Act;")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was very glad to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench say, as I understood him, that his amendment would preclude the Prime Minister from overriding or overruling the appointments suggested by the appointments commission. On that basis, I give my wholehearted support to his amendment, which seems to be one of the most significant amendments with which we have had to deal to date, arising in a most significant and delicate part of the Bill.
  My noble friend has invited me not to press my amendment which seeks to put the scrutiny of Liberal Democrat Peers on the face of the Bill. He has told me that that is dealt with satisfactorily by government proposals. In my ignorance, from where I sit I am not fully aware of the proposals. I therefore wish to develop the argument, to which I still adhere, that this provision should appear in the amendment.
  If there is no control over the number of Liberal Democrat Peers or life Peers for the period of the interim House, in my opinion that House will be delivered into the hands of the Labour Government. At the moment we have some guidance in the White Paper

  827
  about the appointment of Liberal Democrat life Peers. Paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 states:
  "We set out in our manifesto the broad principle which we believe should govern the appointment of life peers but our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrat and other parties would be maintained throughout the transitional period".
  When I spoke to an amendment in my name in Committee, at col. 812 of the Official Report of 25th May, I pressed the Government to say what was meant by "proportionate creations" because I did not know. To what were the creations to be proportionate: to Conservative life Peers in the House, to Labour life Peers, or what? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor responded at col. 818 by saying that he would not take up much time replying to my amendment because he had been advised that were it to be accepted it would make the Bill hybrid and he assumed that, on that ground alone, I would not seek to divide the Committee. He was correct. However, that did not seem a satisfactory reply.
  I then put down a Question for written reply asking how many Liberal Democrats would be offered nominations for life peerages, in accordance with the White Paper arrangements for proportional creations, on the assumption that the Bill was passed with the Weatherill amendment. The noble and learned Lord's answer was as follows:
  "The Government's commitment to proportionate creations for the Liberal Democrats and other political parties in the House of Lords reform White Paper was a commitment for the lifetime of the transitional House. It should be read in the context of the manifesto commitment to move, over time, towards more accurately reflecting the proportion of votes cast in the previous general election. Numbers cannot presently be specified".—[Official Report, 9/6/99; col. WA 158.]
  Why must it be read "in the context of the manifesto commitment"? What does "in the context" mean? Is it or is it not the case that the Lord Chancellor intends the proportionate creation arrangement exactly to implement the manifesto commitment for the period of the interim House? What does "over time" mean? How much time? Does that mean the life of the interim House? Perhaps I may try to specify the figures if the Government cannot presently do so.
  We are talking about nominations for life peerages. According to the figures available, at the beginning of the month there were 170 Conservative life Peers and 44 Liberal Democrat life Peers. At the 1997 general election, the Conservatives secured around 9,600,000 votes and the Liberal Democrats around 5,200,000 votes. If no further Conservative Peers are created, I calculate that on these figures the Liberal Democrats would be entitled to a further 48 life Peers to give them a total of 92. If the Weatherill Peers of the Conservative Party are also taken into account, and the 50 Deputy Chairmen are disregarded, the Liberal Democrats would become entitled instead to a further 71 life Peers, making a total of 115. These creations could, if it suited the Government, be made over time—that is to say, at any time during the lifetime of the interim House—and the interim House could well exist for so short a time as 30 months.
  It is small wonder that the Liberal Democrat opposition to the Weatherill amendment, although vociferous, has lacked a certain punch. The amendment that I propose adopts a different interpretation of proportionate creation and, in view of what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said. I do not propose to deal with it in this speech. The numbers game that I have had to indulge in can only be taken so far. But what it clearly shows—I welcome correction if I am wrong—is that the number of future Liberal Democrat life Peers proposed by the Government is not insignificant, has not yet been properly considered, and should be very carefully considered indeed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is to reply, will give some guidance to the House as to whether I have my figures in any way right—I see that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal shakes her head—and if not, why not? I hope that my noble friend has found my thoughts on the matter useful. I beg to move.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, subsection (4) of Amendment No. 25 states that the commission,
  "shall, at least every 6 months, and at most every year, make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers, sufficient at least to fill any vacancies among Cross Bench peers that may occur through death, disqualification or a decision to join a political party represented in the House of Lords".
  I am puzzled by that second "at least", which appears to give the commission power to propose an unlimited number of Cross-Bench Peers which the Prime Minister must submit to Her Majesty under subsection (5) of the new clause. I cannot reconcile that power of the commission with Amendment No. 52, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and three other noble Lords.
  Amendment No. 52 limits the number of Peers to 659. I am sorry for the mathematics, but as of 1st June there were 499 life Peers and 26 Bishops. Six life Peers were created in the Queen's Birthday Honours List and 36 new working Peers were created last week. Adding the 92 Weatherill Peers gives a total of precisely 659, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will wish to discuss when he comes to Amendment No. 52. Reading the two amendments together, how can the commission propose any more Cross-Bench Peers than strictly for replacement? Surely the power apparently given by the words "at least" in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 25 for the commission to propose more than replacement numbers of Cross-Bench Peers contradicts the Opposition's policy in Amendment No. 52.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches wishes to speak.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if that is the preference of the noble Lord, I shall be very happy to speak now to Amendment No. 40A, which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends.
  The purpose of the amendment is to embody in the Bill through the agency of an appointments commission the declared intention of the Government in their White

  829
  Paper with regard to party balance within the House. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said but I do not think he claimed that the amendment he moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others did that in detail, and not to the extent that Amendment No. 40A does.
  Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to some of the paragraphs of the White Paper, although I think that some of them are now becoming boringly familiar to all of us. Paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the White Paper refers to the distribution of votes between the three main parties in the general elections of 1992 and 1997. Chapter 6 of the White Paper deals with the transitional House. Two paragraphs of Chapter 6 are wholly germane to what we are now discussing. Paragraph 5 states:
  "Our objective will he to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election".
  We are all familiar with that idea. Paragraph 7 states that,
  "our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrat and other parties would be maintained throughout the transitional period".
  That is the declared policy of the Government. I do not wish today to quarrel with it in so far as it is set out in the White Paper. What I seek to do is to write that on the face of the Bill.
  I remember a debate we had almost three years ago, on 4th July 1996. It was the second day of a debate on the constitution. In the debate I referred to the desirability of an independent commission on representation. I referred to choosing Cross-Bench Peers. In fact, I said that there were three tasks or duties: first, choosing Cross-Bench Peers; secondly, receiving nominations from the party leaders—in that sense acting as a conduit because they would always have to be subject to the usual scrutiny—and, thirdly, ensuring political balance; indeed, translating the votes cast in the general election into seats in this House. At the time, that was regarded as a far-fetched proposal. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who were then leading their respective parties, shook their heads in disbelief at such an outrageous proposal, which looked like interfering with the prerogative of the Prime Minister. But I am delighted that in a relatively short period of time the Government were converted to the proposal and it is now acceptable to the Conservative Party, although it wants to put it on the face of the Bill by means of an unacceptable amendment.
  The proposal to choose Cross-Bench Peers has been agreed; the proposal to receive nominations from party leaders has been agreed; but ensuring political balance is the issue which we did not fully debate during the earlier stages of the Bill. On these Benches we believe that it is crucial. It neatly completes the role of the commission. It would be the job of an independent commission to translate the votes cast in previous elections, in so far as that was possible—I am not arguing that it would be possible to translate the votes
  830
  for 1997 into a transitional House immediately without making it extremely cumbersome—over a period of time, into seats in this House.
  On 13th May my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich made a powerful speech in your Lordships' House. Unlike what was suggested in good faith by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, he did not deny in any way the case for a commission. What he did, and absolutely rightly, was to draw attention to the creation of life Peers under Margaret Thatcher and John Major and to the abuses of prime ministerial power involved. He then referred to,
  "an absolute torrent of humbug"
  from the Conservative Benches, which seemed to imply that their governments had not behaved in that rather outrageous way.
  I want to be totally conciliatory and I want to be fair between Prime Ministers of both parties. We recognise—anyone with experience of government will know this—that all Prime Ministers are tempted from time to time to abuse their power of appointment of life Peers to this House. That is a natural condition of politics from which none of us can escape. I accept entirely what the present Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has said in good faith, but Prime Ministers change and all Prime Ministers come under pressure. It is very commonplace in Cabinet that after the Prime Minister has looked to the Leader of the Commons for the following week's business he turns to the Leader of the Lords and says, "Any problem in the Lords?", or something to that effect, and, quickly turning his head away, hopes that the answer will be no. But if the Leader of the Lords suggests that there is a problem, the Prime Minister will say, "Why?". If the Leader of the Lords says that it is due to the voting habits of the Cross Benches or, more particularly, of the Liberal Democrats, someone else who has important business will say that it is intolerable that the Cross Benches or the Liberal Democrats should be voting against the Government and defeating them. I am very glad to see the Government Chief Whip shaking his head in approval of my analysis. That is what happens. That is the way of the world. There is no manner in which we can escape it except by removing that element of discretion from the Prime Minister.
  There is no argument about the principle. The Government conceded it in the White Paper. The Conservative Party has conceded it as well. There is no argument about the principle of the balance within the transitional House. That has been agreed. The only question is whether we should help the Prime Minister of the day to resist temptation and make sure that he follows a policy written on the face of the Bill rather than find himself under pressure from the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or the Deputy Prime Minister who may ask, "Why are we losing votes in the other House? Surely the Cross Benches or the Liberal Democrats do not need any more life Peers next time".
  That is the proposal. It is a totally reasonable one, as I believe all Members of the House will, on reflection, believe it to be. The only argument against it is that in some way it should not be on the face of the Bill but

  831
  should be an understanding. However, if it is an understanding, I would wager that the Prime Minister of the day—I see the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his place: I do not think that we can enter into another wager—whoever he or she may be, would not act in the spirit of our debate.
  We shall all listen with very great care to the response of the Leader of the House. I very much hope that she will put flesh on the bones of what appears in the White Paper and give reassurances to those who have doubts about the matter. But she cannot speak finally for this Prime Minister or any other. That is the reason for the amendment standing in my name.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness and is grouped with Amendment No. 25. Both amendments go to the heart of the problem of this particular Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Coleraine, I feel very strongly about these matters.
  I summarise the problem by asking: what, who and when? First, what do the Government want the interim Chamber to do? Secondly, who will do this work? Thirdly, when will those two matters be decided? I fear that in Committee the Leader of the House did not answer these questions, except for the last one. On 13th May at col. 1308 of Hansard, the noble Baroness said that that was not the time to decide these matters, which reinforced my remarks at Second Reading that, obviously, she had not heard the words of the song,
  "We don't know where we're going 'till we're there",
  or, worse still, the saying: never do today what you can put off until tomorrow.
  In Committee the noble Baroness did not explain the position of the specialist part-time Peer in the interim Chamber or whether he or she would be allowed in at all. She criticised the amendment for looking after only landowners' interests. Together with her noble friend Lord Desai, she said that the amendment was concerned entirely with the economics of agriculture. This was not so. As I tried to explain, the countryside has social and cultural as well as economic problems. But, in order to meet the concerns of the noble Baroness, we have drafted this amendment very much more widely. On a personal note, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that if she had been a Member of this House for a little longer she would have heard my frequent criticisms of landowners, not least over tenancy matters, starting at the time of the 1976 Act which was her party's brainchild.
  The question now is whether noble Lords support our Amendment No. 27 or my noble friend's Amendment No. 25. If my noble friend does not put his amendment to the vote, we shall certainly seek to do so with ours, unless the Government concede the point. Having said that, it would be irresponsible and pig-headed for me to suggest to your Lordships that you should support Amendment No. 27 instead of my noble friend's Amendment No. 25, which certainly answers my third and most important question: when? There is a difference between the two amendments. Ours is in
  832
  favour of the commission appointing specialist part-time Peers responsible for monitoring and revising government legislation throughout the House, not just on the Cross Benches, whereas the Government, the Liberal Democrats—I say that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has just said—and, until recently, my own Front Bench want all Benches to be filled with full-time party-political hacks who bow to the Whip.
  I believe that my cynicism with regard to the Front Bench was unjustified. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Kingsland took the wind out of my sails. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that when there is political balance, the Whips get the bit between their teeth and exert more pressure on Back-Benchers. I had very little pressure put on me when we were in power. Before anyone says, "He would say that, wouldn't he?", in the unlikely event of my party suggesting that my name should be put forward for what may be called the "Weatherill 90", I shall not agree with that for a number of reasons. I hope, however, that noble Lords will understand the need for specialist non-political Peers in the interim Chamber. If my noble friend's amendment is accepted, my noble friend Lord Caithness and I reserve the right to seek to amend that amendment at Third Reading. But at this stage, I support my noble friend's Amendment No. 25 and sincerely hope that your Lordships will do likewise.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I address your Lordships as a full-time party-political hack. I do not have the independence which is shown day in, day out by the hereditary Peers. I wish I did. I regard these amendments as absurd, and I hope that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will reject them in terms.
  I remind your Lordships of the remarkable statements that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made about the future of this House. First, he said—no Prime Minister in my lifetime has said it—that despite his party's massive electoral victory he did not seek to achieve a majority, or anything like it, in this House. He said it in terms and committed his party to it. All that happens in return is that either cynical remarks are made to the effect that my right honourable friend is not to be believed or, if he is to be believed, any of his successors cannot be believed. That will not do. One should not underestimate the statement made by my right honourable friend.
  Secondly, my right honourable friend committed himself to an appointments commission. Certainly, in my lifetime that is the first time that any Prime Minister has announced his willingness to do such a thing. We have not heard a word of appreciation from the Official Opposition as to that. Again, an attempt is made to insinuate that there is something underhand about these remarkably forthright statements by my right honourable friend. We are committed to two matters of enormous importance in future: first, not to seek a majority; and, secondly, the establishment of an appointments commission. I anticipate that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will repeat that on behalf of my right honourable friend in a few minutes.

  833
  Since we are committed to an appointments commission, the debate has brought out just how difficult this is. We should not jump the gun. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has made it clear on every possible occasion that he does not want to debate this Bill; he wants to debate the next one. He has said forthrightly and honestly that he does not want stage one. In the language of the trade unions, he wants stage one only with stage two. I can see the banners as the hereditary Peers come marching down Whitehall.
  The position of the Government, as I understand it—I hope that I shall not be undermined by my noble friend—is that they shall carry out stage one and are totally committed to stage two after stage one. They say that all of the present stuff is to do with stage two and what is to be done next. There is no point in pretending that it is not about stage two.
  My main problem is that as I go through the details, all I find are difficulties. This is the Report stage of a Bill. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time by going through every single difficulty, but it is already apparent that the question of numbers is one that we must debate in much greater detail than we can on this occasion. Why should those members of the appointments commission be Privy Counsellors? I speak as someone who is not a Privy Counsellor. I have never regarded Privy Counsellors as the repository of honesty and objectivity. Why cannot the rest of us be considered for these matters?
  There is some concern in the Official Opposition's amendment about someone from the Cross-Bench group joining a political party, therefore ceasing to be a Cross-Bencher. What about political people who join the Cross Benches? It is an interesting technical point which is not addressed. Why should there be broad parity between the numbers of government Peers and Cross-Bench Peers? I can see no basis for that.
  I could go on—and noble Lords know me well enough to believe that I am quite capable of doing so, but I shall not. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, implied that no matter what is said he will divide the House. I hope that he does not do something so foolish as that. We should accept the fact that we shall have an appointments commission; and that we shall have the other principles laid down by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We should then pass the Bill, albeit in the slightly imperfect form in which it now exists, and get down to the detail subsequently.
  I am quite relaxed about whether or not the appointments commission is statutory. But I am clear that that should not be in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked: why not? The answer is in part what I have said; namely, that we are not ready for it yet because we have not thought the position through. The other logical point is that it is inappropriate to have this material on the face of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords opposite can therefore be persuaded to withdraw the amendment and let us get this over with so that we can get down to what is dear to many of our hearts; namely, building the new House of Lords.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, Hitler was elected to power and the German Parliament, by passing the
  834
  Enabling Act, gave him absolute power. That is a reminder that no democracy is entirely invulnerable; and men and women can sometimes be persuaded to surrender their liberty in the fond belief that the proposition which is being put before them is more important than that.
  I conclude from that that one should try to make one's constitution robust enough to withstand quite appalling strains with checks and balances, including checks on the carrying out of fundamental change, by perhaps a very temporary majority in the House of Commons. I should have thought that all noble Lords would agree with me on this: those who meddle with existing constitutional arrangements have a duty to ensure that the new arrangements they are advancing are at least as effective a barrier against tyranny as the old. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is nothing absurd in that. When one is making constitutions, if one has any sense of responsibility, one makes that constitution well.
  I shall not spend much time on the Government's argument, adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is only a temporary Bill. We have gone over that many times. Whether it will be temporary is not entirely in the Government's hands. There happens to be a thing called Parliament, and there happens to be a thing called the House of Commons, which is sometimes forgotten by Members on the Front Bench, and was certainly forgotten by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he replied to a similar debate not long ago, saying that he could give an absolute guarantee that there would be a stage two. Of course he cannot give any such guarantee.
  As I mentioned earlier, there are some wise people like Mr Robert Sheldon who think that in any event it is likely that when the time comes the Government will have other fish to fry and will be loath to embark on a further constitutional Bill. It seems to me obvious—I cannot see for the life of me why it is not obvious to the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that it is our duty in the absence of any sunset clause, or the like, to treat this like any other legislation, as being permanent in effect. We have to build for the future. This is riot about stage two. It is about making a good job of the work which is before us now. We have to ensure that the largely nominated House the Government are bent on creating is at least as independent as the one they are replacing; and at least as strong a barrier against tyranny.
  It is a difficult task because the new House—it was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kingsland—will be a much smaller House. If the power of appointment of life Peers is to be left in the hands of the Prime Minister, it will be much easier for him, or any future Prime Minister, to make sufficient appointments to procure an absolute majority in this place. Look, for instance, at how the balance among life Peers has been changed in two short years. That in itself is sufficient proof of what I am saying.
  The other reason why we have a difficult task on our hands is that, contrary to what has been said time and again by noble Lords on the other side of the House, the hereditary peerage has constituted a uniquely

  835
  independent element in this place. I have to say to noble Lords opposite that independence of mind and invulnerability to pressure are not qualities which inevitably disappear when a person joins a political party. They are qualities which are most likely to exist in those, whether or not party members, who are beholden to no one for their appointments, have economic independence, and are not career politicians. In that connection, I commend to the House some other words spoken by Mr Robert Sheldon in the debate in another place to which I referred earlier.
  Not so long ago—I am sure noble Lords will remember this—Mr Tony Benn commented that the House of Commons was atrophying and democracy was being squeezed out of the system. Mr Sheldon was equally unhappy about the way the House of Commons was working. It was not providing a sufficient check on the executive, principally, said Mr Sheldon, because Members have lost their independence. They have lost it, said Mr Sheldon, because,
  "[they] have become more full time and are looking to a career structure. It is that career structure that has tended to corrupt the system. That is the problem".
  He continued:
  "Now, we have large numbers of Members of Parliament who have little in the way of outside interests and outside concerns. As a result they look to the ordinary routes of promotion and envisage themselves forming part of the government".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/99; col. 669.]
  If the House of Commons is not working as an effective check on the executive, it is all-important that changes to this place do not make this Chamber a less effective check on the executive. If the House of Commons is not working properly because there are too many career politicians, we must learn the lesson for this House, and make sure that this Chamber is not overweighted with people either beholden to the Government for their place or looking to the Government for a place.
  It cannot be denied that at the moment there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a government packing the place with people who they think can be relied upon to support the government through thick and thin whether the government are right or wrong. To that noble Lords opposite are wont to say that if there is a danger of abuse under this Bill, it is a danger which has existed for a long time. The Conservatives did not propose change when they were in power, so there is no reason to change now.
  That is about the worst argument I have ever heard, for this reason: we are creating a new House; we are creating a different House; we are, according to Labour, engaged in a great modernisation of our constitution. Surely now the Labour Government have embarked on that exercise, they should try to make a good job of it and include the sort of provisions one would certainly include if one were starting from scratch and constructing a new nominated Chamber for a new Parliament. It is inconceivable that anyone starting from scratch would not include in a Bill measures which we have generally called "safeguards" to ensure that the power of nomination could not be abused by the government of the day.
  836
  Noble Lords may recall that my noble friend Lord Elton and I moved in Committee an amendment somewhat similar to Amendment No. 25. We were minded to ask the House to take another look at what we proposed after we had taken on board criticisms made by the Lord Privy Seal, which were really criticisms about the method of appointment and the composition of the commission which we contended should be given the sole right to nominate people for peerages. We have not tabled an amendment on Report, because we think that Amendment No. 25 goes some way towards reflecting our views. In a subtle way it seeks, as does Amendment No. 27, to commit the Government in legislation to the sort of the House they propose in their own White Paper. If the House created by the Bill really does last for only a short time, no harm will have been done if one or other of these amendments is incorporated into the Bill. If stage two does not come about, the provisions of either amendment will go a long way towards preventing any possible abuse of power by a future government. I certainly support the intention behind each of these amendments.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I have disagreed with one another for rather a long time, going back to 1966, when we had a little spat in the general election. I am happy to say that I then won and he had to go looking elsewhere.
  I agree so much with my noble friend Lord Peston that I am brought to my feet. I hope my agreeing with him will not mean that my noble friend the Leader of the House proceeds to accept the amendment, because I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. However, I disagree with the reference by my noble friend Lord Peston to the objectivity of Privy Counsellors, although some of us, even some Cross-Benchers, are objective, I am sure.
  The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that we must have barriers against tyranny. It is a remarkable statement to make when we have had Conservative government for the past 18 years and, many years prior to that, a huge majority in this place and therefore no checks and balances. And yet the noble Lord is telling us that all those independent Peers taking the Conservative Whip were providing the checks and balances! It is asking your Lordships to accept a great deal to accept that argument. I hope that your Lordships will not do so.
  The noble Lord said that it was our duty to assume that the position will be permanent. He quoted a very dear friend of mine and close former colleague, the right honourable Robert Sheldon, Member of Parliament. He is a very senior and highly respected Member who has said many things that I said in Committee, and with which I agree.
  The House was told earlier about some reasons why I had said that the transitional period would be long. I agree with Robert Sheldon and with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on that; I would not dispute it; but the fact is that even if it is a long transitional period, there is no case for all the points that he and others on

  837
  the opposite Benches are making. As your Lordships will know, my own view is that the Government have conceded far too much already. I regret what they have conceded.
  But even if the transitional period is long, we have what has already been said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and others on our Front Bench. There is a word that we cannot use in Parliament, but we can use the expression that people have been "economical with the truth". The Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord do not like to say specifically that they do not believe the Government. After all, the whole Weatherill deal was between Privy Counsellors, and on Privy Council terms. As we all agree that they are honourable men and women, when the Government have said that they will do all these things, why are the Opposition saying that they do not believe them? Perhaps when we hear a reply from the Opposition Front Bench we will be told. Do the Opposition think that the Government are being economical with the truth? What is the reason for their moving all these amendments?
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, what about a future government? It is all very well the noble Lord resting on what is said by this Government, but if he is right—he has just said that he agrees with me that this Bill may not be replaced for some time—what if a future government are not bound by these undertakings?
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, even if future governments do not carry out precisely the terms of the present deal, on what basis does the noble Lord say that if we are making major changes in our constitutional set-up we should at least make sure that the new House is as independent as the one it replaces? One would have to go a long way to make the House as independent as it was before this Bill. It is a remarkable argument.
  I should like to see some things in the Bill that might be more acceptable to me, although I cannot think of many. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, looking at me like that. I am not going to make a long speech again about why I disagree with parts of the Bill, particularly the part that is called the "Weatherill amendment", with which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, had so much—or even a little bit—to do.
  What I am saying is that I agree substantially with what my noble friend Lord Peston said. It is time we on this side of your Lordships' House stopped making yet further concessions and accepted things as they are. We should not accept this amendment. So I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House, despite the smiles that she is again providing, will not feel tempted to do so. I am delighted to hear that she is not. I look forward to the vote and the possible defeat.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rodgers has dealt with what we on these Benches regard as the major omission from, or defect of, Amendment No. 25. I should like to refer to another,
  838
  concerning subsection (2)(d), which talks of the duty of the proposed appointments commission to,
  "publish criteria under which it will determine a candidate's suitability for nomination".
  Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and some others, I think there is considerable point and purpose in this House considering the amendment, whether or not we vote for it, as it deals with important and present issues which will not go away and which, if phase two of the reform does not come about, will be huge. Even if phase two does come about, I suspect that whatever we provide for the interim phase may well carry over into the final reform.
  One thing we should not do is to leave the appointments commission with the sole discretion as to what the relevant criteria for appointments of Cross-Bench Peers should be. There can scarcely be anything more important than for us as a House to signal the criteria on the face of the Bill and what importance we attach to them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he was sympathetic to Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which specifies one criterion: that more than half the Members of the House, whether party Peers or Cross-Bench Peers, should have,
  "experience of and expertise in areas other than … politics".
  I believe that the criteria need to go much further than that. Frankly, I am not content with the phrase "experience and expertise", since which man and which woman these days does not claim to be an expert in something? I suggest that "distinction'. might he a better word.
  I should like to put to the House the thought that we are all trying to make the best of the reform. Underlying that is the need to make this House more powerful and more authoritative, and enjoying more respect among the public at large. Unless we can increase public identification with the House of Lords as reformed, we shall not achieve that purpose. We shall not enable the public to identify more readily and deeply with us unless we signal to them that we want to see a very different House. I say that with no disrespect to those who are to leave it.
  The public may have regard to issues such as the gender, age, region, occupation and ethnicity of the Members of this House. In saying that, I do not seek to suggest that the appointments commission should have politically correct shackles placed around it. However. I am suggesting that those potential criteria would be of interest and importance to a large proportion of the public. If we could satisfy public feeling on how at least Cross-Bench Peers should be selected and appointed, that would go far towards increasing our respect and legitimacy and hence the effectiveness of the reform itself.
  I wanted to make that general point. Whatever happens at further stages of the Bill, and whatever the Government may consider in terms of the appointments commission, which, to be fair, the Prime Minister

  839
  volunteered, the criteria must be on the face of the Bill, must be broadly based and must reinforce public confidence in us.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said. He spoke of giving a signal. It is because a signal is being given that I believe this matter is of such importance. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who asked why we were tabling all these troublesome amendments.
  We are tabling the amendments because the Government have come forward with proposals. They have stated that they are to set up an appointments commission to appoint Cross-Bench Peers. However, they told us that they are going to use the prerogative and not the statute to do so. That is another way of saying that the Prime Minister will be responsible for setting up the appointments commission which will select Cross-Bench Peers. That is an extraordinary signal to send out to the public. It does not indicate that this is a wholly independent body setting the kind of criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred.
  That is why, as a matter of principle, I tabled an amendment in Committee. I was content not to table an amendment today because I thought it important to try to concentrate on a single amendment which set out the principles on which we could vote. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but it is not as good as that tabled by my colleagues on the Front Bench. That is not because I was consulted by them about the wording—it incorporates all the important points contained in my amendment in Committee—but because I have two specific difficulties with my noble friend's amendment. First, he has not adequately covered an important point concerning the prerogative and the relationship between the Prime Minister and the sovereign. Secondly, and more importantly, his reference to "expertise" raises more questions than it answers. I believe that the wording used in my noble friend's amendment gives considerable scope to the appointments commission to meet the points to which he rightly attaches importance.
  When my amendment and others were debated in Committee, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House gave a lengthy response. I have reread that response today to discover her reason for rejecting the proposal for a statutory committee. In reality, she gave only one reason; that if the Government had put down a statutory provision, the Opposition would have argued that it showed that the arrangement was not temporary and that it would be permanent and long term. She advanced that argument in col. 1369 of Hansard on 13th May. It is not a powerful argument. That is the real answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who said that the whole business was absurd. Whatever the intentions of the Government, we may be passing legislation that will last for a long time. My noble friend Lord Waddington quoted Mr Robert Sheldon in another place.
  840
  I took particular note, as I suspect did the Leader of the House, of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on 17th May. In response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton, he spoke of the little evil devils lurking in our midst who do not share our overwhelming view for reform. He warned that unless there was good will among all the parties, we would not get a second stage. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke with much experience and a memory that took him back to the last major attempt at reform. He knew exactly what was being said by my noble friend Lord Waddington about the ability to interfere and delay such legislation. So my view is that we should not leave a vacuum on this important point.
  I do not believe that the Government have any great objection of principle to putting this matter into statute; or why did the noble Baroness the Leader of the House invite a number of us to discuss with her whether we could not find a form of words which would satisfy? She spoke, as Ministers always do on such occasions, about technical difficulties of drafting and problems for the parliamentary draftsmen. She spoke—I respected her point—about the constitutional proprieties and the ability of Prime Ministers to speak with freedom to the Sovereign. My noble friends have qualified the clause introduced by the Government, because they wrote into their White Paper, paragraph 10, Chapter 6, that
  "The Prime Minister will have no right to refuse a nomination the commission has passed".
  However, my noble friends have accepted that there may be some security or other reasons which would be perfectly proper for the Prime Minister to refer to the Sovereign. It may be that there is further room for discussion about that issue, but the noble Baroness very fairly, having listened to what we said, told her officials not to go away and reject any idea of an amendment, but to go away and consider whether anything could in practice be put together. That does not suggest to me that there is any great obstacle of principle and so we come back to the detail.
  I believe that what my noble friends have sought to do rather successfully—what I attempted rather less successfully in Committee—is simply to incorporate everything the Government said they would do in Chapter 6 of their White Paper. Some aspects were criticised by noble Lords opposite; for instance, they asked why on earth issues were being introduced and drafted in such a fashion. Those points should be addressed to the Government Front Bench because all that my noble friends have done is to incorporate into an amendment declarations and undertakings already given by the Government.
  As regards the Liberal Democrat amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, spoke about the way of the world. Bearing in mind the history of the Liberal Party we always listen to it with attention when it speaks about the way of the world. It seems to me to be a mistake to try to incorporate into a Bill an amendment setting up an appointments commission with a pretty complex set of arrangements relating to the numbers cast in the general election and how they translate into votes. There may be a case for doing that, but it should be done by a separate amendment.

  841
  It would confuse the particular issue, although clearly important to the Liberal Democrat Party, with the much more straightforward one as to whether we have a statutory appointments commission instead of an appointments commission simply appointed by the Prime Minister to do what the Government say they intend to do. That is the issue. My noble friends have an amendment that translates that into statute. I can see no grounds for rejecting that principle. I hope that they will press their amendment to a Division.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, Amendments No. 25 and 27 are rather long and there is a lot of detail. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the message is very clear. I can describe the spirit in three propositions. The first is that no Labour Prime Minister is to be trusted. Secondly, the liberties of British subjects are only safe in the hands of hereditary Conservative Peers. Thirdly, the world will not be safe until there is another Conservative government.
  The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, began with the example of Hitler. That was the most insulting thing that he could have said about the Labour Party. Just to imagine—
  Lord Waddington: My Lords—
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I am sorry. It is Report stage and the rules are that if I concede I shall be unable to speak again.
  Noble Lords: No.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I cannot speak again. Other noble Lords have spoken, but the rules are that I cannot speak again. I believe that I am correct in my reading of the rules.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord will be in order if he gives way to answer a question of fact about something that he said.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to read what I said in Hansard tomorrow. I believe he will find that I was in no way referring to the Labour Party. I was talking about constitutions in general. I was talking about constitution makers and how they should bear in mind history and make sure that when they make constitutions there are the greatest safeguards possible against tyranny. I would have thought that anyone would agree with that. It had nothing whatever to do with the Labour Party. I believe that the noble Lord is far too sensitive.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, it was not a question of fact on which the noble Lord interrupted me. The noble Lord was implying that by creating a new House of Lords this Bill will so fundamentally alter the British constitution that if these amendments are not passed there will be a greater probability of an enabling Act being suspended. That is where the analogy between the
  842
  German parliament and the British Parliament was created. The noble Lord did not have to start with Hitler. It was not relevant.
  We are not creating a dictatorship. All we are doing is removing 90 per cent. of the hereditary Peers from this House. That seems to be such an alarming thing that all our ancient liberties appear to be threatened and we need all kinds of guarantees. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has done more things that he did not have to do than any previous Prime Minister. He has promised an independent commission but, of course, it cannot be trusted. Why is it that when we come to the Weatherill amendment his word can be trusted, because, after all, the hereditary Peers are getting something, but on anything else the Prime Minster's word cannot be trusted?
  Noble Lords opposite should pause and think whether they are saying that no life Peer is independent and that all life Peers in this House are corruptible, especially on the Labour side. Only we on this side are corruptible and Peers on the Opposition side are not corruptible. Only our Prime Minister is not to be trusted, but a Tory Prime Minister is. The noble Lord said that these matters were not for this Government but for future governments. Future governments would probably be Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Are noble Lords opposite saying that a Conservative or Liberal Democrat Prime Minister will so abuse their powers—
  Noble Lords: Yes!
  Lord Desai: My Lords, noble Lords opposite should know better. After all, the Conservative Party was in power for a long time. To say such things, even though they are not meant, is insulting to us.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am an Earl by corruption of a Conservative Prime Minister. I do not believe that they can be trusted any more than anyone else. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, complained about Mrs Thatcher creating too many life Peers. I am pretty certain that she was copying Lloyd George, which was the last time the Liberals had a chance to create Peers. Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—we know him better as Mr Harold Wilson—was not exactly squeaky clean on the honours front. No Prime Minister has been. Therefore, it is important we do something that this Prime Minister has promised to do.
  I accept all the points made by noble Lords opposite that this matter is a derogation of power on behalf of a Prime Minister which is unprecedented. It is not that I do not trust him or that he is not a very honourable man. He undoubtedly is an honourable man. it is not that he is not a patriot, because he undoubtedly is. It is not that he is not a reasonable Prime Minister, because he undoubtedly is. It is that the system itself has reached a position where the executive in our country is far too powerful.
  As a result of this Bill this House is going to be more powerful. As I said earlier today, one cannot blame it on Onslow. I give the Government credit for having gone a very long way to change the concept of this Bill since the publication of the original. It is not as far as I would

  843
  have gone because I want a seriously reformed House. The Bill has gone a jolly long way. The Government agree with the principle of the commission. It is not that I do not trust Tony Blair, I do not trust anyone on this matter.
  The Government have listened and I give them great credit for having changed their mind. Today we have had a very good example of that. Surely, they can go a little further and accept the principle of what is suggested in this amendment. I do not trust anybody when too much power is available. We know what Lord Acton said; namely that
  "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely".
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I trust, and trusted John Major, but I do not suppose for one moment that the Government would feel themselves bound by promises that he made as to how the constitution of this country should develop. I am not asking for concessions from the Government; I am asking that they should complete what they set out to do; that what they said they will do should be put into writing so that it may last a little longer than it may take for the reforms of stage two to take place.
  I hope we all believe that this Government intend to do what they said they will do. But barely a month ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he would implement the reforms on divorce of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and now he will not. I make no criticism of that, because circumstances change. We cannot put the constitution of this country at risk of the changing whims of Prime Ministers.
  The Government proposed the Bill and it has had my support throughout. The Bill marched under two great banners: first, the end of the hereditary peerage in the House, on which we have reached a conclusion, and, secondly, the end of one-party domination of the House, on which we have not reached a conclusion because the Bill, as it stands, allows for the government of the day, of whatever colour, to assume domination of the House by a small additional appointment of Peers. That would allow a repetition of the evil to which the Government have sought to see an end. I do not believe that we should allow that.
  On a purely domestic and personal aspect, if the Bill passes as it stands, I do not believe that the Weatherill amendment, even as amended, would mean anything. If a government can assume control of the House by appointing a few extra Peers, there is no point or purpose in all the debates, concessions and good will that have been extended to us by the Government. We shall have gained nothing and this House will have become nothing.
  I have no particular attachment to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I hope that there are other ways of achieving this. There are surely simpler ways in terms of presenting a measure that would work and achieve what the Government have set out to achieved. I believe that it is entirely satisfactory. I hope that we shall hear from the
  844
  Government that they are prepared to do something else. If they are not, we must support the amendment of my noble friend.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, noble Lords opposite reject the line that my noble friends are taking because for many years there has been a built-in majority in this House of Members whom they see, understandably and correctly, as being inherently supporters of the Conservative Party only.
  The Government must, first, accept that if it is wrong for the Conservative Party to have a built-in majority, because that is a threat to freedom and democracy, exactly the same applies to a built-in majority of any other party. Although there is an instinctive revulsion against forgoing the guilty pleasure of having a built-in majority, that must be put aside because it is illogical. It is also a constitutional threat.
  My noble friend Lord Waddington in no way understates the importance of what we are doing. We are not simply addressing a small committee matter about a reduced House of Lords; we are doing things to the constitution upon which this country depends as much as sailors at sea depend upon their vessel. A boat is not designed for one trip in good weather; it is designed to withstand a typhoon if necessary. To say that these amendments address a small detail, a small part of the apparatus, is like reassuring the passengers or the crew of the ship by saying, "It's all right, it is only the pumps that we are messing about with".
  This House has many functions, but at bottom its function is to ensure that no government of any party—I regard my party as open to—
  Noble Lords: Criticism?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, no; much worse than criticism. I regard my party as open to temptation and to giving in to temptation. The danger of the capture by extremists of a political party on the Right is just as real and dangerous as the danger of the capture by extremists of a political party on the Left. That is a real threat, as real as the threat of a typhoon striking a liner crossing the Atlantic. It is not known now; it cannot be foreseen; but it can happen. We are designing the constitution to deal with such matters.
  The protection against that is to ensure that the electorate has an opportunity, every five years, to get rid of the government of whatever party. Anything that puts a spoke in the machinery that ensures that, weakens the constitution. I cannot tell noble Lords whether Margaret Thatcher would have been so tempted had the hereditary Peers not been Members of the House. Although they were on her side of the House, they were not political animals appointed by the Conservative Prime Minister. They were a sure bastion against that sort of chicanery—delaying a general election until after a recession.
  All we ask is that, once we have gone, there should be a better mechanism put in place. Ours is an old, creaky, disreputable system, which has become almost a

  845
  laughing stock on the other side of the House, but it has worked thus far. We ask that some nice, shiny, efficient, new, confidence-inspiring machinery is put in our place.
  The Prime Minister, bless him, has suggested it. He has suggested it as often as my son has suggested giving up smoking. We ask that he now gives it up to enormous applause from this side of the House as well as the other. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde and his noble friends are asking the House to do that. I hope that we support him.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is an extended group of amendments which rightly covers a number of aspects of the membership of the transitional House and the way in which it should be composed.
  I hope that I do not alarm my noble friend Lord Barnett by saying that the Government have no quarrel with the underlying purpose and intent of this group of amendments in so far as they relate to establishing the appointments commission. We are in favour of an appointments commission and one will be set up as quickly as possible. We simply continue to think that the amendments are unnecessary and even potentially damaging to smooth progress, for reasons which I shall explain.
  First, I want to deal with those amendments, and those parts of amendments in the group, which refer to specific numbers and proportions of appointments in the transitional House. I understand that the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Stanley of Alderley, have to some extent subsumed their proposals in their support for Amendment No. 25 in the name of the Opposition Front Bench, but unless the noble Lords indicate otherwise, I shall reply to some of the points that have been made because both of them were serious in their intent: and covered some serious points.
  Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is unacceptable to the Government. I agree with the concerns about it raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who spoke to it from the Opposition Front Bench. From the Government's point of view, it is inconsistent with the pledges that we made both in our election manifesto in 1997 and the White Paper on House of Lords reform. As we said in both those documents, we intend to move to a position where membership of this House more closely reflects the votes cast at the previous election.
  A point made by other noble Lords is that that amendment would also ensure, in the conditions of the House at present, that the Conservative Party continued to be significantly over-represented. At the last general election the Liberal Democrats received a proportion of the vote over half of that of the Conservative Party and this amendment would allow them just over a quarter of the number of seats.
  Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also deals with specific numbers and proportions, but, as the noble Lord said in introducing it, the amendment reverts to the question that he raised in Committee about how we can ensure that the transitional House is properly representative, expert in certain ways and certainly distinctive from the other place.
  846
  As I said in Committee, the Government have no quarrel with the noble Lord's motivation or underlying purpose. As I am sure noble Lords are probably tired of hearing by now, one of our subsidiary, but none the less important, motives for the reform is to make the House more representative. We believe that the narrow social base and the preponderance of certain backgrounds and professions among the hereditary peerage have combined to make this House as it is at present: very unrepresentative in the sense that it does not reflect our modern society. Of course, I accept the point made by the noble Lord that on almost any individual subject we can probably find a good representative here to speak in any particular debate. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, we have consistently made it clear that we value the contribution of those independent Cross-Bench Peers who will remain in the House. We want to ensure that they retain a significant role both in the transitional House and in the longer term.
  If the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is to create a transitional House which can call on a wide range of experience and expertise from those whose primary loyalty is not necessarily to a political party, we can wholly endorse that. I am happy to repeat that commitment once again on behalf of the Government. However, where we part company with the noble Lord is on the question of how one could effectively enshrine in legislation those broad principles and broad objectives.
  It is extremely difficult, frankly, to frame in legislation the types of proposal suggested by the noble Lord, however much one can agree with their underlying objective. Many aspects of your Lordships' House do not fit into the kind of neat categories which the noble Lord has proposed and which would be necessary if they were to be framed in statute. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples to illustrate that without delaying the proceedings for too long. Subsection (3)(c) of the noble Lord's amendment states that there should be broad parity between the numbers of government and Cross-Bench Peers. Are we to include in that calculation the Law Lords who sit on the Cross Benches? The rest of the amendment is framed in terms of life Peers, but we assume that the Law Lords are to be included. That, of course, alters the understanding of the amendment.
  Subsection (3)(d) requires that more than half the Members of the House should have experience of or expertise in areas other than or in addition to politics. This again is a worthwhile aim which the Government would, in general terms, accept. Again, however, it is very difficult to frame these matters sensibly in legislation. I shall give another small series of examples. Are the Bishops to be included in this calculation? How would the Law Lords sit within this context? What counts as experience or expertise? For example, would training as a solicitor 30 years ago but not having practised for 20 years enable one to fall into that category? Also, to use the noble Lord's examples on farming and agricultural interests to which he rightly turned again, does taking up farming in retirement, it perhaps one had been an industrialist and became a farmer when one left one's business activity, count as a farming interest? What counts as "politics"? Is it just

  847
  national paid political activity? Would that much maligned person, a fully paid-up full-time party hack, qualify?
  I do not raise these points to suggest anything other than general support for the ambitions of the noble Lord's amendment. I wish simply to say that these are all legitimate questions which would need to be much more precisely clarified if one was going to translate this generally acceptable worthwhile proposal into a statute.
  There are similar problems, although in a rather different category of detail and precision, when one comes to Amendment No. 40A. In the Government's view that amendment is not compatible with the arrangement under which the so-called "Weatherill amendment" is given effect. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has said this afternoon and on several other occasions that he and his party will not challenge the broad intent or the detail of new Clause 2. Perhaps I may remind him that as part of the arrangement it was agreed that the Government would be entitled to sufficient life Peers to provide parity with the Conservatives, taking account of the effect of Clause 2. Of course, it is likely that this would result in the numbers for each party being around 220. So the present amendment would probably not allow the Government to achieve parity for some time while the Conservatives, for their part, would not be allowed to replace any of their life Peers until their total number had dropped below 200. For that reason alone, I would suggest to the noble Lord that the amendment cuts across the understanding behind new Clause 2. It is not acceptable to the Government: nor indeed, I would expect, to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Another thing we are not quite sure about is how the numbers implied by subsection (1)(b) of the noble Lord's amendment add up. For example, what happens to the share of the vote which goes in an election to parties which cannot qualify under it? Is it fair to limit parties to a share of the vote in the United Kingdom as a whole when, as the noble Lord will be aware, some parties stand in only one part of the United Kingdom? Is it fair to include the votes given to those parties which cannot qualify for a seat in the Lords because they have not won any in the Commons?
  Those are questions of detail, but they are ones on which I think the amendment would have to be made far more precise and exact if it were to be translated into statute. I would simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers—this in a way underlies the discussion which has arisen from various quarters of your Lordships' House over these amendments—that I ask him to accept my renewed assurances about the commitment which the Government made in the White Paper about our intentions on the proportionality of appointments in the transitional House and their particular effect on the Liberal Democratic Party. In that context I would urge him not to press Amendment No. 40A.
  I turn now to the proposals for an appointments commission and in particular to Amendment No. 25 to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spoke. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships this evening that
  848
  the Government are setting up an appointments commission. The process has begun. It will be established as a non-departmental public body under the relevant rules of the Commission for Public Appointments, the so-called "Nolan rules". In Committee I explained the arrangements, and several noble Lords this afternoon have been kind enough to refer to the detail of my explanations. I do not think it is necessary to repeat them. However, I advise your Lordships that I have the agreement of my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to begin the recruitment process, and, as the Downing Street official spokesman indicated last Friday, we plan that the commission should be in place in time for the New Year's Honours List in 2000. As part of the process, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be writing to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, seeking their nominations to the commission.
  In these circumstances, I think that the amendments before us today, which seek to make statutory provision for an appointments commission, are completely unnecessary. Indeed, if they are carried, they will inhibit the process of establishing the commission. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in his opening remarks before proceedings began this afternoon that he did not seek in any way to delay the Bill. It is, of course, true that the Bill as a whole would not be delayed by an amendment passed against the Government's advice on this subject, but it would certainly slow down an important part of the process of implementing the Bill.
  I am grateful to those noble Lords—several noble Lords have referred to this, including the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was with us in those discussions—who after a very constructive debate in Committee joined me in further discussions on this issue. I understood during those discussions that an announcement of progress of the kind I have just made—translating the Government's aspirations into action—would convince them of our definitive intention to proceed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for example, will accept that as our good intent. As I have indicated, we are proceeding in the way that we set out in our White Paper. I hope, therefore, that those assurances, which are now more than aspirations and have been translated into action, will be accepted. However, from the somewhat sabre-rattling remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I fear that that is not so.
  I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that although good attempts have been made to translate some of the proposals into a form that is statutorily acceptable, I do not think that any of the proposals before us this evening have achieved that. I appreciate that, as the noble Lord and others said, they have tried simply to do something which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is closely based on the White Paper proposals. However, that is not precisely true in important areas, and it ignores the points that I made at an earlier stage about legislation probably being inappropriate for achieving a purpose which we all agree is necessary.
  Once again I remind the House that we are talking about a transitional House and transitional arrangements. Although several noble Lords opposite made fairly substantial points about the need to legislate for a long time, the intention of the existence of the appointments

  849
  commission, in this instance, concerns appointments to the transition House. It is not suitable for an elaborate statutory superstructure. Noble Lords have suggested putting something declaratory on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Government act. I hope that my remarks reassure them about that point.
  I am sure your Lordships will have noted the length of even the general propositions put forward. I am advised, and I am convinced, that were we to legislate the provisions would have to be far more complex than those before us. One specific example of the constitutional complexities of Amendment No. 25 where it is substantially different from the Government's proposals is the requirement that all members of the commission should be Privy Counsellors. A field limited to existing Privy Counsellors is hardly compatible with subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause which requires "an open and transparent" appointments process. In fact, I suggest that subsection (2)(b) appears to be inconsistent with subsection (8) which suggests that all those who are members of the appointments commission should be Privy Counsellors. In addition, the statutory requirement that holders of certain posts must be made Privy Counsellors would be a constitutional innovation.
  There are other proposals, particularly those in subsection (7) of the proposed new clause, where the Government feel that the amendment departs unhelpfully from the White Paper proposals. But overall our concern is not with the detailed content of Amendment No. 25 or the others which refer to the appointments commission. We promised an appointments commission in our White Paper. We made clear what its composition and remit would be. It is not necessary to legislate to achieve that promise. We are going another route.
  Noble Lords raised the question of the Prime Minister's patronage and his powers. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the issue of last week's list of working Peers. He and other noble Lords will have noticed that Downing Street confirmed that the Prime Minister had only acted as a post box for the names proposed by Mr. Hague. In other words, the Prime Minister passed the Official Opposition's list directly to the scrutiny committee because we have already begun the steps to reduce the Prime Minister's patronage and we intend to continue. If noble Lords are concerned that this is only our word, then I can say that the Government regard these proposals and all our proposals in the White Paper as binding on any future Labour Prime Minister as much as the present one. If noble Lords are concerned that Prime Ministers of a different political complexion might not see things in the same way, it is equally open to the Leader of the Opposition to make a similar commitment on behalf of his party.
  I respectfully suggest to noble Lords that they should not confuse their expressed desire for a statutory provision with a desire to take the Prime Minister out of the process. As we have demonstrated, are demonstrating and will continue to demonstrate, we do not need a statutory provision to achieve the removal of the Prime Minister from some of the central aims. We do not need one to achieve the other.
  850
  Overall we have set in train the administration to create an appointments commission as soon as possible. As I said earlier, we expect it to be in place in time for the next New Year's Honours List. Any amendment to the Bill now which creates a statutory requirement to do something different will simply delay mattes. I know that there are some in your Lordships' House who seek delay at every turn on this Bill. But I hope all those who genuinely want an appointments commission to be established quickly to achieve an effective transition House will reject the alternative proposals. Given the clear announcements of progress I have been able to give today, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. If not, I urge the House to reject them.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal sits down, will she confirm that Cross-Bench Peers will be consulted and have a place on the new independent commission?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers will indeed be consulted and their role in the organisation will be precisely as it was described in the White Paper.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, on this occasion I shall say the words which I am sure the House is waiting to hear. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 26 as an amendment to Amendment No. 25.
  [Amendment No. 26, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, by leave, withdrawn.]
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we have debated this very important issue for one hour and nearly 45 minutes. We have heard many excellent speeches and the issue that lies behind those speeches could not be clearer.
  The noble Baroness made a very conciliatory speech in relation to every single matter that affects the appointments commission except the one that really matters; that is, that it should be on the face of the Bill itself. The Government say that they are sincere; but by their failure to commit themselves to put the composition and terms of reference of the commission in the statute, they call into question their own sincerity. For that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  7.26 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 231; Not-Contents, 189.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Arran, E.

  Ailsa, M.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Astor, V.

  Aldington, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Bathurst, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Bearsted. V.

  Arlington, B.

  Beaverbrook. L.

  851

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Bell, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Berners, B.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Blackwell, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Hemphill, L

  Blyth, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Boardman, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Brentford, V.

  Holderness, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Home, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller.]

  Inchcape, E.

  Buscombe, B.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Byford, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Kelvedon, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Long, V.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Luke, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Courtown, E.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cross, V.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  De Freyne, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Manton, L.

  Denham, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  May, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Mersey, V.

  Drogheda, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Dundonald, E.

  Milverton, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Monson, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Elton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Ferrers, E.

  Montrose, D.

  Fisher, L.

  Morris, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Freeman, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Gage, V.

  Moynihan, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Munster, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Newall, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Gray, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Gretton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Hambro, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  852

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Stockton, E.

  Patten, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Peel, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Sudeley, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Prior, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Swinfen, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Teviot, L.

  Reay, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Renton, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Renwick, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Romney, E.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Rowallan, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Waddington, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Waterford, M.

  Savile, L.

  Wedgwood, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Westbury, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Wilcox, B.

  Selsdon, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Wise, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Acton, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Addington, L.

  Desai, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Dixon, L,

  Alli, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Amos, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Bach, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Barnett, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Bath, M.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Glanusk, L.

  Blease, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Goodhart, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Bridges, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Brightman, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Carew, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Hanworth, V.

  Clancarty, E.

  Hardie, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Haskins, L

  Crawley, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  David, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  853

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L. [Teller.]

  Razzall, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Rea, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Jeger. B.

  Richard, L.

  Judd, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Russell, E.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  St.John of Bletso, L.

  Levy, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Serota, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Simon, V.

  McNair, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  McNally, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Strange, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Tenby, V.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Molloy, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Monks well, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Tope, L.

  Newby. L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Northbourne, L.

  Varley, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Warner, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Orme, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Paul, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Perth, E.

  Wigoder, L.

  Peston, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Young of Darlington, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.38 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Iran: Human Rights
7.39 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy in relation to human rights in Iran.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, frequently Unstarred Questions are questions only in form. This is a genuine question. I am inviting my noble friend the Minister to share with us the Government's thinking on recent events in Iran.
Some two years ago, when Mr Khatami assumed the presidency, there were widespread hopes for a relaxation in the repression. It was thought that he was, comparatively at least, on the liberal wing. I believe that there were many in Iran who cherished that hope. I remember a conversation with the chargé d'affaires of Iran in London, Mr Ansari, who was quietly reassuring. I fully accept his sincerity. The future seemed hopeful.
Alas, the high hopes have not been realised. Whatever Mr Khatami's good intentions, he has not been able to break the stranglehold of the mullahs and the past two years have told a dismal story. The reports come not only from enemies of the regime. On 29th April, according to the Jame'eh Daily, Mr Safari, commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, told a meeting in Qom:
"We are seeking to uproot the counter-revolutionaries wherever they are … We must cut off some heads, and cut the tongues of some others".
During President Khatami's term of office, there appear to have been 310 public hangings acknowledged by the authorities, in addition to those who were executed secretly or who have simply disappeared, and there have been nine deaths by stoning. Against that murderous background, to mention attacks on freedom of speech comes almost as an anti-climax, but it is a useful barometer as to the good intentions of the authorities.
It is still sometimes said that a number of independent newspapers are circulating in Iran. If that means that the authorities do not necessarily dictate every word they print, that may well be true, but it does not follow that they are free to be critical of the authorities. On 15th September of last year Ayatollah Khamenei was reported by Reuters as making himself quite clear on the point. He said,
"I am giving final notice to officials to act and set which newspapers violate the limits of freedom".
He went on,
"There are limits to freedom which are set by Islam. If these limits did not exist some people would try to push the nation towards not believing in religion".
The ayatollah made it clear that our disapproval would not lead him to consider it possible he may be wrong. He said,
"We have never taken into consideration what the world would say, nor what international newspapers and organisations would say, and we shouldn't start now".
No doubt much of the violence against writers which we saw recently arose from pressure on the secular authorities by the more extreme clerical groups. On 17th October last year on state television President Khatami said that the supreme leader,
"is a superior will with unlimited authority approved by God and linked to divine revelation".
It might be a matter of concern even if the consequences of that doctrine were confined within the borders of Iran, but it appears to carry an extra-territorial jurisdiction. In September last year the British Foreign Office reported its understanding that the fatwa decreeing death for Salman Rushdie would be revoked. That followed a meeting between the respective Foreign Ministers. However that impression arose, the Iranian authorities, secular and sacred, hastened to proclaim that nothing had changed. The Foreign Ministry made clear that the fatwa cannot be rescinded. Mr Kharrazi, the Foreign Minister, denied that he had ever intended to suggest otherwise. On 4th October a statement was read on state radio from 160 deputies—a parliamentary majority—which stated,
"We offer our assurance to Muslims around the world that in this respect in Iran nothing is credible other than God's decree and the fatwa of his Eminence the Imam. No one has the power to take any other road".
So it is not only within the borders of Iran that the mullahs have power of life and death. If the human rights of individuals against their own government were not the business of the international community, assassinations in the territory of other countries certainly are the business of those countries.
But in this very month the activities of the Iranian Government have become very much the business of the whole world. It seems that on 11th June three Scud missiles were fired from Iranian territory into Iraq. They appear to have been aimed at a base of the mujahedin, but whatever the reasons for the action the incident requires some answers. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the Iranian Government attacked its dissidents in the territory of another state. Are these not weapons of mass destruction? As I understand it, Iran is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, but, again, I hope that my noble friend can tell us what view is taken of the incident by Her Majesty's Government. Has it been discussed in any international forum, and what was the outcome?
We know that violence leads to violence. It is not surprising that the violence committed by the authorities in Iran gives rise to passionate resentment. The mujahedin are quite open in their belief that a repressive government which cannot be changed by democratic means should be opposed, and, if possible, overturned, by whatever means are to hand, including violence. I do not seek to endorse that view and I do not invite my noble friend to endorse it, but I do understand it. I believe that the mujahedin disapprove of indiscriminate violence. I think that they commit acts of violence against what they consider to be military targets and against individuals whom they consider guilty of crimes against humanity. If I had an
856
opportunity, I would seek to persuade them to a different course. One argument I would use is that what they are doing enables their opponents to present them as terrorists. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is often one of perception.
On 23rd August last year Assadollah Latevardi was shot dead. As a revolutionary prosecutor, not only did he prosecute thousands of political prisoners who were jailed and tortured, he led armed mobs as a method of bypassing the legal process. Later he became governor of Evin Prison and personally tortured, raped and executed scores of prisoners. There are stories of prisoners being tortured with their parents, spouses and children being compelled to look on. That was Latevardi. The man who shot him was Ali Akbar Akbari, aged 20. He was arrested and tortured. Three days later he died under torture. But that was not the end of the matter. His father, a 61 year-old farm worker, had no obvious connection with what had taken place but in April of this year he was returning from his work when a group of revolutionary guards waylaid him, beat him up and then crushed him under a tractor. I have met Mrs Maryam Rajavi, president elect of the National Council of Resistance. I believe that her aim is to establish a genuine electoral choice. That may also be the ambition of President Khatami. It cannot be realised in an atmosphere of threats and violence.
The view which I have sought to express is not an eccentric one. I am fortified by being for once with the substantial majority. On 26th February of this year the United States State Department's report on human rights practices for 1998 listed a sickening list of violations by the Iranian Government. There was a time when the State Department included the mujahedin on its list of terrorist groups, but it has now removed it. In Geneva in April of this year the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed a motion of censure—the 44th censure motion against Iran in the United Nations. In February of this year 330 members of the British House of Commons signed a statement calling on the Government to make clear their disapproval.
Of course Iran would like to improve relations with the international community, for many reasons. Of course there is an argument for responding, an argument frequently heard in debates such as this. Governments who are accepted as members of the international community are more likely to respect the rules. If we talk to the Iranian authorities we may influence them. I should say in fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who was anxious to participate in this debate but who is unable to be here, asked me to make clear his view that there is an improvement in the situation and that we should recognise it.
That may have been an experiment worth conducting two years ago but there has to be a reciprocal relationship and the advantages have to be balanced against the risk of legitimising a regime which has not earned legitimisation, particularly if this country is virtually isolating itself on the issue, and the victims are our business too. My Unstarred Question remains a question. I invite the comments of your Lordships and of my noble friend.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his timely and helpful Unstarred Question. It enables a number of us to participate in the debate. I shall speak briefly about a group of women who, I believe, are among the most misunderstood, maligned and misrepresented women in the world; namely, the women of Iran.
Women in Islam have traditionally and historically had more rights than women in Christianity. I refer particularly to the rights of widows in Islam. But women in Iran had rights before and after the revolution of 1979. By their very nature, revolutions upset established society and tend to favour women because, traditionally and historically, so many of society's norms are patriarchal in concept and execution in most countries of the world.
The French Revolution perhaps gave the lead. Women had equal rights with men from the revolution onwards, but for six months only. After six months, French men became unhappy about women having equal rights and disbarred them; and women returned to a subservient position. Speaking for women, one has to reflect on autres temps autres moeurs, look at different cultures and perceive how they treat women.
In the short time available, I cannot do more than perhaps factually straighten the record about the way in which women in Iran are perceived and identified by the outside world. I may be able to offer a more balanced view perhaps than current articles attempt. Recently, the magazine Marie Claire, which is published and widely read in the United Kingdom, was hardly challenged on the statements it made. It referred, for example, to women being effectively under martial law in Iran; and to harsh religious laws that limit their education, restrict them from most professions, and allow them to travel only in the company of a male relative or husband. It is an article on the MKO—the female-dominated terrorist organisation that opposes the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran—and its efforts against what is said to be the harsh regime in Iran.
I am, of course, a foreigner; I can only report what I perceive. But I have visited Iran a number of times in the past seven or eight years for humanitarian purposes concerned largely with the Iraqi refugees who shelter inside Iran. I have made many friends among women in Iran and I seek to challenge the perception that we have in the West. I want to challenge the view that women there are declared to be limited by education and restricted from most professions. As far as I have seen, that simply is not true. Again, I can only perceive what I have witnessed. I have seen that women in Iran have equal rights and access to education, right up to post-university level; and that they have access to most, if not all, of the professions. I have not counted, but I perceive women working in the Foreign Ministry and the professions: working in the medical profession, teaching and the law. I perceive that they must travel without their husbands or another male relative; otherwise I doubt that they would get to their offices in time. I have seen women in a variety of situations
858
throughout Iran as I have travelled to different refugee camps, going in and out of the various cities, towns and villages in very poverty-stricken as well as particularly beautiful areas.
Two successive presidents have done a great deal to strengthen the position of women in Iran. I understand that the current president had a very widespread vote from women, as did the previous president, whose daughter heads the women's organisation in Iran. She has been a friend of mine for a little while and has assisted me in finding women to set up a women's group of Europeans and women from a number of Islamic nations.
The Iranian women who worry me most strongly both inside and outside Iran are members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, the anti-government terrorist group. It consists of 10,000 women who train in camps inside Iraq. I think it is controlled, financed and housed by Saddam Hussein. If I am correct, its most recent action was the attack on the Iranian civil defence headquarters in March this year when the Iranian deputy chief of staff of the armed forces was assassinated. As a terrorist organisation, it is notorious enough for the United States Congress to have carried out a full and heavyweight report into its activities and for the Federal Republic of Germany and other democratic governments to bar its members from speaking freely inside their countries. I have a notion that the British registered charity, Iran Aid, may in some way be connected with that organisation.
At the moment, we enjoy a considerably improved relationship between the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran. I pay tribute to our ambassador in Iran, Nick Browne, for the strenuous efforts he and his colleagues at the Foreign Office have made to ensure that improvement in the relationship, as well as en passant to Iran's ambassador to the United Kingdom who has also worked most strenuously to this end. I pay tribute also to the Ministers who have worked for so long to make this happen.
Looking at human rights and the position of women in Iran, I would suggest to the Government that we have a better picture from the Islamic Republic than from many, if not all, of her neighbouring states.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for providing the House with the opportunity to ask Her Majesty's Government about their policy in relation to human rights in Iran. I share the noble and learned Lord's disappointment that the present regime in Iran has not progressed very far in its stated objective of improving human rights through policies of liberalisation.
When in May 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as Iran's president, some in the West believed that the government in Iran would eventually moderate and he would set in motion a reformist trend which would allow Iran to forget its recent past as a rogue stale and rejoin the family of nations. After two years of Khatami as president, the flagrant violations of human rights

859
persist, and the Iranian regime remains as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and the primary obstacle to the Middle East peace process. Last April, the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned human rights violations in Iran. That was the 44th resolution by a UN body censuring human rights abuses by the mullahs' regime. It appears that the president has failed to live up to some people's expectations.
Nowhere is that failure more evident than in the regime's continued persecution of women. I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who seems to base her ideas on government statements as opposed to those of the many organisations trying to expose how women are still suffering violent abuses of human rights.
My noble and learned friend referred to a US State Department report on human rights practices for 1998 which again drew attention to the fact that stoning and flogging are expressly prescribed by the Islamic penal code as appropriate punishment for adultery and that such punishments are carried out. The report pointed out that Iranian women had to obtain the permission of their husband, father or other living male relative in order to travel abroad. Women are subject to harassment by the authorities if their dress or behaviour is considered inappropriate and may be sentenced to flogging or imprisonment for such violations.
The same report, published in February this year, listed a number of human rights abuses, including the accusation that Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian and Baha'i minorities suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education and public service. The United Nations Special Representative reported an estimated 199 executions in 1997. So it is very difficult to understand why the British Government feel that progress is being made by the Iranian government towards an end of human rights violations.
Last week, the Iranian authorities confirmed that 13 Jews from the southern cities of Shiraz and Isfahan had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel. The 13 had been arrested between two and three months earlier. The Iranian head of judiciary announced on Friday 11th June that they would be tried in Islamic courts where they face the death penalty if convicted. According to the Associated Press, Israel's chief rabbi has announced that the number of Jews arrested in Iran is actually higher than the 13 announced by the Tehran government.
Last Wednesday, I and my noble friend Lord Ahmed met Mr Ansari, the Iranian ambassador. During the meeting we pressed for information regarding the 13 Jews who had been arrested on suspicion of being engaged in acts of espionage. In particular, we asked that access to the 13 be allowed in order to confirm that they were being treated properly and to verify that they had the services of independent and proper legal representatives. In fact, my noble friend Lord Ahmed himself a Moslem, offered to go to Iran to visit the people imprisoned.
Such a simple, basic request was dismissed out of hand. We were told quite firmly that the Iranian government would not tolerate any outside interference.
860
Mr Ansari said that any charges that might be brought against the 13 Jews would be subject to a transparent trial. He also said that the 13 were arrested along with a number of other people, including Christians and Moslems.
Noble Lords will be aware of the long and detailed interest in matters of human rights of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. With the noble Lord's permission, I repeated the requests that he and others had made on a previous occasion to Mr Ansari on a number of issues. I repeated in particular the request that the noble Lord made for information about Mr Abbas Amir Entezam, described by many as the last hostage. Mr Amir Entezam is considered by most outside observers to be a political prisoner. The Iranian ambassador described him as a criminal.
I also took the opportunity of handing a list of imprisoned Baha'i people about whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had previously asked for information. It is my fervent hope that the noble Lord will soon receive a detailed reply to the questions that he raised with Mr Ansari earlier this year on that and a number of other matters.
I respectfully ask my noble friend the Minister to use whatever powers she and her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have to press the Iranian authorities for specific information regarding the 13, or whatever is the real number, and to seek assurances that they are being properly treated, and, further, to seek permission for some independent person to be allowed to visit them. Perhaps the generous offer of my noble friend Lord Ahmed to make such a visit will be taken up.
I am aware of the need for the Government to be seen not to be interfering in the affairs of another country. I firmly believe that on that and other human rights issues they have a duty to seek fair and proper treatment for those who may be suffering persecution and discrimination.
Time does not allow for further comment. That is a pity; I have a whole catalogue of matters that I should like to raise. Finally, I want to place on record my admiration for those brave people, both inside and outside Iran, who are fighting for basic human rights. We should do all that we can to give them our support.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I intend to go down a different road from that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. The organisation about which I understood him to speak as seeking refuge in Iraq is deemed a terrorist organisation by the US State Department. We must be careful that we do not overly criticise a foreign state's approach to terrorism.
I am also extremely concerned about the list of MPs who signed the protocol prepared in greater part, or at least supported by, Robin Corbett, MP. Through the mechanism of this debate, I issue a challenge that that list should be made available to Ministers and officials.
Perhaps I may make one further point before beginning my principal remarks. Notwithstanding the refusal of the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in offering to visit Iran in relation to the recent

861
arrests, it would serve everyone well to go to Iran and to see what I have found in my experience of visiting that country; namely, that the perception that is given of Iran does not stand up as some would have us believe.
Iran has variously been described as a pivotal Middle Eastern country, a partner, a threat, and even a pariah, shunned by the international community. Happily, as the millennium ends, a new era is indeed being ushered in, and in recognition of that Britain has re-established diplomatic relations and is represented at the highest level in Iran. How do we account for that sea-change?
Much credit must be given to President Khatami's courage, leadership and vision. Since his overwhelming popular victory in the 1997 presidential election, greater focus has been directed to strengthening the role of civic society, individual freedoms and public liberties within a dynamic, democratic constitutional framework.
The first municipal council elections were held earlier this year to give effect to Articles 7 and 100 to 106 of the constitution. They seek to guarantee the people's right to direct participation in decision-making processes in social and political life. Tehran has a mayor for the first time in its history—newly elected by the council, which is itself directly elected by Iranians and not government-appointed.
Much more significant has been the empowerment at local and municipal level of ordinary Iranians, including minorities, and particularly women. There are presently two women Cabinet Ministers and 14 women MPs. Indeed, there has been a 125 per cent increase in women's participation in government. Four women have been appointed to the sensitive post of judges within the judiciary, while 7 per cent of all municipal council seats went to women. Almost half of all primary and secondary students are now female, and parity has been reached at university level.
We are all aware of the recent furore over the arrest of some Iranian citizens, including Jews and Moslems, on espionage charges. We must await the due process of law and private consultations to determine whether the initial reaction is justified or calculated to undermine Iran's policy of peaceful domestic co-existence with all groups within its borders.
Certainly, there have been steady gains and the policies of incorporation, facilitation and mutual respect seem to be working. I am confident that a principal policy of the Iranian government regarding the upholding of the rule of law should defuse western anxieties. It seems to me that the release of some of the Jews originally charged sends positive indicators.
There has also been, for example, a noticeable improvement in freedom of expression as measured by the increase in activity by the print media and the relaxation of film licensing regulations. In its external relations, too, Iran is tentatively re-visiting old friends and re-discovering co-operation and détente. President Khatami's rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, his US initiatives and relaxation of tensions with Arab neighbours are commendable and should be supported. There is considerable scope for wider and deeper relations with Britain, particularly UK plc and with the
862
EU. Certainly the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce, of which I am chairman, is working with opposite numbers in Teheran to that end.
I am tempted to respond to the smile of the noble Lord, but I shall move on.
Iran has a crucial role to play in preventing the flow of heroin from the region, while its attitude to disarmament is pivotal to the success of regional security arrangements and international disarmament treaties. Altogether, they are impressive first steps on the road to recovery and rehabilitation. More must be done before a clean bill of health can be posted, but we must, I believe, all applaud and encourage determined progress. No longer can Iran be forgotten or ignored.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for initiating the debate and enabling a fairly wide variety of opinions to be expressed in the course of the few speeches we have heard. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, suggests that because elections have been successfully held and the candidates who support President Khatami have secured large majorities, it is an indication of a growth in democracy. But all the parties which stand in Iranian elections have to support the principle underlying the Islamic revolution. Those not espousing that necessary tenet are not allowed to have candidates. You could riot stand there as a Liberal, Socialist or Conservative who believed in a secular administration because it would be contrary to the Islamic revolution.
The Government's attitude also is that there has been a growth in democracy. As the noble Viscount said, there is greater freedom of expression under Khatami. He has reined in some of the elements who were engaged in terrorism. We can trust the regime when it says that it will not murder Salman Rushdie. People think that by helping Mr Khatami in a measured and cautious way—for example, through the restoration of full diplomatic relations—while at the same time reminding him of our own commitment to human rights, it is possible that we can change or help to change Iran towards something resembling a liberal democracy.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, produced evidence to show that nothing has changed. The changes that have been cited are superficial. The agreement between the Foreign Secretary and Mr Kharrazi that the Iranian government will not murder Mr Rushdie is somewhat undermined by the fact that the 15 Khordad Foundation, which is a government-organised, non-governmental organisation, has recently increased the bounty which it is prepared to pay to anyone who assassinates Mr Rushdie. If I were him, I would not do without my police protection for the time being.
My noble friend Lady Nicholson referred to the situation of women. I wish to say a word about it. I refer her to a conference held recently in Stockholm on the situation of women in Iran which was attended by a number of distinguished women, including Mrs Azar Majedi, the editor of Medusa, a newspaper with which my noble friend is perhaps familiar. Mrs Majedi said that for almost 20 years Iranian women have lived under

863
a sexual apartheid with almost no rights. At the same time a strong struggle led by the women and opposition forces fighting for freedom and equality is under way. We can see that in the great activities of some very brave women in Iran at the moment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, we cannot measure freedom of expression by the number of publications that are licensed. It is a matter of those who speak out of turn. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, cited the case of Amir Entezam, who is still held in prison at Evin for criticising the late Mr Lajevardi, the brutal former governor of Evin prison. There was a hearing of the case of Amir Entezam at the end of April, but he was not allowed to attend the court and no one knows what charges have been preferred against him.
Over the last month there has been a major offensive by the regime against anyone who is off message. On Thursday last week, the leader of the Islamic union of students, who is also editor of the journal One's Identity, was detained. That was two days after the arrest of the owner of the publication. Earlier this month a new press bill was presented in the Majlis which would kill the independent press and silence journalists described by Ayatollah Khamane'i as,
"mercenaries, defending the position of the enemies of Islam and the Islamic revolution".
Reference has also been made to the arrest of the Jews; not 13 but probably as many as 30. How on earth a Jew would have access to confidential information defies the imagination, yet it was asserted as a matter of fact by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the Council of Guardians, to whom perhaps the noble Viscount should address his remarks about awaiting due process. He said, in his Friday sermon, that the suspects had been busy for some time collecting information and sending it to Israel via Turkey. That was a matter of fact; it was not a suggestion that these were the allegations made against the defendants when they come to court. No wonder Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister, summoned the Iranian ambassador to protest against those baseless charges. Why do not we and the French join together and promote an EU démarche on the subject?
While we are on the topic of religious minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, mentioned, I went to see the Iranian ambassador, Mr Ansari, recently about the persecution of the Baha'is. Whatever we said, he kept trying to divert the conversation to the situation in Northern Ireland and the Diplock courts. We received not one answer from him, to the extent that I had to put everything we wanted to say in writing, which I did immediately after the meeting on 27th April. Needless to say, he has not yet replied.
These are the considerations which seem to make it expedient for us to have friendly relations with Iran, such as the need to isolate Saddam, the instability of neighbouring Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and the reduction of any potential threat by Iran to the Gulf states. The human rights case for supporting President Khatami is not yet proven.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for securing this debate on the Government's policy towards human rights in Iran. It has provided a useful opportunity to discuss a subject of serious concern to your Lordships at a highly pertinent time when a warmer bilateral relationship is developing between our two countries against the backdrop of the gradual unfreezing of European Union-Iranian relations. Those changes have taken place in Iran in the past two years and include the free and fair presidential elections in 1997 and the success of the recent municipal elections. An increased level of public debate and a public shift away from a foreign policy of confrontation towards one more of dialogue and co-operation have led to the improvement in our relations with Iran. As noble Lords have reminded us, this improvement was only last month symbolised by the upgrading of our diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level.
However, from these Benches we take the view that our relations with Iran can never fully be normalised while the Iranian government of the day continue to support policies and activities, both tacitly and overtly, which are an affront to the universal values of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
First, I should like to make the point that from these Benches we believe that there is much reason for hope in Iran. Two years after his election victory, President Khatami indicated that tolerance and political liberalisation are the bedrock in what he has described as a transition to an "Islamic democracy". With a number of encouraging statements made by the Iranian leadership on the need to promote respect for the rule of law and to reform the legal and penitentiary system to bring it into line with the international human rights standards, there has come something of a corresponding practical improvement in the human rights situation in Iran.
It is true that rapid progress has not been made towards President Khatami's goal of a tolerant, diverse and law-abiding society in which human rights are respected. This is not least because Iran stands at a critical crossroads between the demands of conservative elements who would isolate Iran and take her backwards, and reformists who would modernise and take her forwards. President Khatami has faced, and will continue to face, strident opposition in the days ahead in both parliament and the judiciary.
Nevertheless, both the presidential election in 1997 and the recent municipal elections, which were notable for their increased openness and transparency, and for the level of participation of the Iranian people, stand as a testament to the distance that has been travelled on the road to reform and the development of a democratic and pluralistic society in Iran. For those reasons, I believe that the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, were important in the context of this debate.
However, Iran's record on human rights is still very poor indeed. The extent to which that subject, I believe rightly, dominated debate this evening has been

865
interesting and notable. Both the US State Department and Iran currently report on human rights practices, and Amnesty International's 1999 annual report makes this all too clear. I believe that it is right and proper to place on record the highly disturbing reading in the summary of Amnesty's report, which states:
"Hundreds of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, were held [in Iran]. Some were detained without charge or trial: others continued to serve long prison sentences imposed after unfair trials. Reports of torture and ill-treatment continued to be received and judicial punishments of flogging and stoning continued to be imposed. Reports suggested that possible 'disappearances' and extrajudicial executions had occurred. Scores of people were reportedly executed, including at least one prisoner of conscience: however, the true number may have been considerably higher. An unknown number of people remained under sentence of death, some after unfair trials. Armed opposition groups committed human rights abuses".
There have also been restrictions on citizens' rights to change their government; systematic abuses including extra-judicial killings; summary executions; disappearances; the widespread use of torture; harsh prison conditions (particularly at the infamous Evin prison); arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of due process; unfair trials; infringement of citizens' privacy; restrictions on the work of human rights groups; and legal and social discrimination against women—highlighted so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—as well as against religious and ethnic minorities. Incidents such as those catalogued are all still part of daily life in Iran. While that continues to be the case and such abuses continue to be perpetrated, they will pose an insurmountable hurdle on Iran's road to reform.
So, in the light of the ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy, I would ask the Minister this evening simply this: to what extent does she believe and expect that efforts to improve our bilateral relations, both trade and diplomatic, would be hampered by Iran's human rights record, notwithstanding the progress that has been made under President Khatami towards his goal of a civil society based on the rule of law? In particular, in pursuance of the comments of noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the subject of Salman Rushdie: what action has the Government requested that Iranian authorities take in relation to the 15 Khorclad Foundation which continues to threaten Mr Rushdie's life and which has raised the bounty it requires and is necessary for his murder?
In a welcome step, the Government of Iran have invited the UNHCR working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances to visit Iran. Does the Minister have any information on when this important visit might take place, and is it the intention of the Government to push that point?
In conclusion—this is a very short contribution to your Lordships' debate—I believe that nations living according to democratic and pluralistic values will abide more fully and more naturally with internationally expected norms of behaviour in both their foreign and domestic policies, and that the international community's policies must be directed towards realising that goal in the case of countries such as Iran. We look forward to hearing from the Minister the ways in which
866
the Government intend to respond to the important points, particularly those of human rights abuses, which have been so eloquently and clearly stated by your Lordships this evening, and how she intends to encourage the Government to influence and assist Iran in the beneficial process, the optimistic process, which we believe is absolutely essential and which has been laid out before your Lordships this evening.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for raising this important issue. My noble and learned friend said that he was raising some genuine questions, although I am bound to say he did paint an almost unremittingly gloomy picture of what is happening in Iran at the moment. I say to him very clearly that of course the Government have concerns. The Government have very strong concerns, but the Government's position is, I think, rather more as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, described the position of the Official Opposition. We are prepared to work with Iran to improve the position on the ground.
Our relationship has come a very long way in the short period since my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kharrazi at the United Nations in New York last September. The upgrading of our relations to ambassadorial status earlier this month, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, was agreed in principle at that meeting. It was the latest step in what promises to be a very long journey. We are clear that it is right to pursue a better relationship, but we are also clear that there are obstacles to be overcome. One such obstacle, of course, is the longstanding concern over Iranian human rights policies. It is important to note that some important changes have already taken place under the reformist government of President Khatami. That government remain committed to building a civil society based on respect for the rule of law. Progress with that commitment is most evident in the unprecedented freedom of expression which the press now enjoys, exemplified by a profusion of new publications addressing a whole range of previously sensitive subjects.
I am aware that some journals were closed under pressure from other elements in the Iranian system—we must not forget those elements—but many have subsequently re-opened. The trend towards open press discussion now seems irreversible. The Iranian government remain committed to promoting greater public debate and have repeatedly stressed the importance of allowing legitimate opposition views to be expressed. That can only help to create a better environment for the direction of human rights. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others referred to the local elections this year in which a large majority of the Iranian population, both men and women, participated, offering further tangible evidence of the lively political debate taking place in Iran today despite some restrictions on who could stand, as rightly pointed out

867
by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The elections were vigorously contested, in some cases for the very first time by members of legally formed political parties. A lively debate on next year's parliamentary elections has already began.
The arrest of a number of officials in the Ministry of Intelligence in connection with the murder of some intellectuals last year and the subsequent dismissal of the intelligence Minister and the on-going trial concerning torture allegations of a senior police officer are important evidence that the Iranian government are moving against extra-judicial murder or activity outside the framework of the law. I stress to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer the symbolic importance of these events. In recent weeks the government have stressed again the importance of building solid political and civil institutions to underpin their domestic reform agenda. But of course there is still a great deal to do. The United Kingdom Government and our EU partners will continue to encourage Iran to resume co-operation with the UN human rights mechanisms and particularly to restore the visits by the UN special rapporteur, Maurice Copithorne. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised the matter in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. We shall be maintaining pressure on Iran through UN resolutions which record progress but also point out continued abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, raised the issue of the Jewish detainees. We and our EU partners also take up with the Iranians directly significant individual cases when we believe that appropriate. One example is the recent detention of the members of the Iranian Jewish community. That was raised on 15th June in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Janner. I said then that we first heard some weeks ago that a number of Jews had been detained without charge in Iran but that it was not initially easy to establish the truth amid the conflicting rumours. We have been in regular contact with the Israeli organisation, both in the UK and in the United States through our mission in New York. We have also been in touch through other bodies and other organisations concerned.
Before the news broke on 7th June the German EU presidency, on a visit to Tehran on 20th May, had already expressed the concern of EU member states about the detentions. That was followed up by a formal EU démarche in Tehran today. I remind my noble friend that Mr Hoon made a statement on 10th June expressing the Government's concern for those detained. We also expressed our concern directly to the Iranian ambassador in London and pressed for the detainees to be fairly treated. Similar action has been taken by many of our European partners. We welcome the Iranian government's recent statements following the arrests that they are responsible for individuals of every religious persuasion in Iran, including specifically the Jewish community, which is officially recognised under the Iranian constitution.
I know that there have been further press reports in the past few days that perhaps as many as 22 rather than 13 have been detained. Other noble Lords have said that the figure may be higher than that. It remains uncertain
868
whether that reflects further arrests of Iranian Jews or refers to the total number detained, including a number of Iranian Moslems, previously referred to by the Iranian authorities. I give the House an assurance that we and our EU partners continue to press the Iranian authorities for further clarification, that we will go on demanding fair treatment and that we will monitor the situation very closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised, not for the first time—he has rightly raised the point on a number of occasions—the question of the Baha'i. I know that he raised it directly with the Iranian ambassador in London. The plight of the Baha'i community in Iran has been of particular concern for some time and—the noble Lord is quite right—it remains so. We and our EU partners have raised these concerns with the Iranian authorities on many occasions. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable.
As the noble Lord knows, the European Union-sponsored United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran adopted on 23rd April once again reaffirmed the international community's concern about the situation. As the noble Lord will know, we also raise individual cases of concern as they affect the Baha'i. We most recently raised the cases of Mr Najafabadi and Mr Dhabihi-Muqaddam. both of whom face the death sentence. We were told on 4th October that their cases were subject to review by the Supreme Court. To date the sentences have not been carried out and we have been led to believe that they will not be carried out. We have also raised our concerns about the arrests at the end of last year of members of the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about that too.
In the past, noble Lords have raised questions about the fate of the Christian communities in Iran. The Christians are a recognised religious community under the Iranian constitution and have a reserved seat in the parliament. I recognise, however, that the Christians also face persecution. We welcome President Khatami's recent statement that he represents all religions in Iran. I hope that that gives some comfort and that such issues can be pursued on that basis.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer raised the question of torture and other punishments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has also expressed enormous concern. Her Majesty's Government share all noble Lords' concerns about Sharia punishments such as torture, amputations and stonings. We and our EU partners sponsored a resolution on 23rd April, and we frequently raise these and other human rights issues in our bilateral contacts with the Iranians. We hope that the implementation of President Khatami's declared objective of fully enforcing the constitution and the proper rule of law will begin to have an effect in this area soon. I assure your Lordships that these are raised as matters of principle and as individual cases with the Iranian authorities when possible.
A number of noble Lords raised the whole question of the National Council for the Resistance of Iran. We have discussed this issue on previous occasions. We do

869
not recognise the National Council for the Resistance of Iran, of which the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq organisation is the dominant group, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said. Nor did the Opposition when they were in power. The British Government remain firmly opposed to the violence practised by the MKO and to terrorism from any other quarter. Its latest terrorist action was to kill Lieutenant-General Shirazi in Tehran on 10th April, which this Government condemned. The attacks to which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer referred followed the assassination. I do not know whether they were a direct reaction to the assassination but I make the point that that was the sequence of events.
We have also discussed the statement signed by MPs calling for a change to UK policy towards Iran. We and our EU partners—we are not isolated—have continuing concerns over human rights violations in Iran, which we regularly draw to the attention of the Iranian Government. We are also worried about the role of the MKO in the NCRI. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on this issue were extremely perceptive. Your Lordships may care to read what she said. This organisation is despised by many Iranians—the noble Baroness has been to Iran and speaks from first-hand knowledge—as a result of its support for Saddam Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war. Its headquarters is in Baghdad. I understand that the organisation is still among Saddam's most trusted supporters. We shall continue to follow a balanced policy on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for the Government's view on all these issues. It is one of informed concern, but it is one of taking into account an enormous number of different threads, both official and unofficial, in the state of Iran. We notice the positive developments: the press and the local elections. We also know that the Iranian Government are steadily improving relations with their neighbours, particularly in the Persian Gulf. That is a welcome development, as is their latest reaction on the issue of terrorism in the Gulf. So too is their reaction to the status of women, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also spoke and to which a number of other noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made reference. In the past few years we have seen the appointment of the first four women judges and the first woman vice-president in Iran. Female candidates were particularly successful in the local elections. A further example is in education where more than 50 per cent of this year's intake at the University of Tehran are women.
I hope that I have been able to cover at least some of the important issues touched on by your Lordships today. To sum up, Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the development of our relations with Iran. We find encouragement in the reformist policies of the government of President Khatami and we will continue to encourage those reforms while we press for improvements in those Iranian policies which cause us particular concern. Engaging the Iranian authorities on
870
these issues is more likely to be effective than isolating Iran. We continue to develop our relationship for what we believe is the benefit of both our nations.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.39 to 8.45 p.m.]

House of Lords Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 28 had been withdrawn .from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 28A:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9)
  (".—(1) Nothing in section I of this Act shall be taken to prevent sixteen peers in the peerage of Scotland from sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
  (2)At the beginning of each Parliament, the peers of Scotland shall elect from amongst their number, by open election and plurality of votes, the said sixteen peers, who are to sit and vote in the House of Lords during that Parliament.
  (3)In the case of the death or legal incapacity of any of the said sixteen peers, the peers of Scotland shall elect another of their number in place of the said peer.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 28B. The latter is but a minor variation of Amendment No. 28A. Just in case one or other contains a technical drafting defect, we have decided to carry out a belt-and-braces exercise in relation to these two amendments. However, both amendments cover exactly the same point. We return to something discussed at Committee stage: namely, the impact of the Bill on the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England and the two Acts, one passed by the Parliament of Scotland before it ceased to exist and one passed by the Parliament of England before that ceased to exist. I emphasise the reference to the Parliament of England as well as the Parliament of Scotland for reasons that I shall turn to in a moment.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as one would expect, gave full, interesting and useful answers, but, naturally—one would do the same in his place—only to those questions to which it was easiest to give such answers. He slightly slid away from one or two questions and others just slipped to the bottom of the note-taking pile. My noble friends and I thought that it was worth returning to the issue to give the Government the opportunity to discuss again the impact of this Bill on the treaty and whether or not it infringed articles within it.
  One of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord was that if I was right and the Bill infringed the treaty, clearly so did the 1963 Act—because, presumably, the English Parliament agreed to the 16 Peers from Scotland in 1707 on the basis that that was a reasonable balance at the time— by upsetting the balance and introducing about 15 further Scottish Peers. When my noble friend Lord Gray speaks, he will have more detailed knowledge of that than I do, having been present at the time and having been an active player in the last election for the 16 Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  The argument of the noble and learned Lord was that if I were right and the treaty could not be changed because the Parliament of England no longer existed, just as the Parliament of Scotland no longer existed, the 1963 Act could not have been passed and the remaining Scottish Peers who were not elected could not have come to your Lordships' House.
  The point which I wish to draw to the noble and learned Lord's attention is that I do not believe that the decision by this Parliament in 1963 upset the principles on which the treaty was based. When the treaty was written, and the 16 were laid down, it was against the background of a smaller House of Lords. Therefore, adding 15 Scottish Members clearly did not infringe the Scottish Parliament's position. It wanted at least 16 to get, let us say, 30. It was not a breach of that. The noble and learned Lord argued that 30 was a breach of what the Parliament of England decided.
  The fact is that the increase in membership of the House had changed the historical reasons for the balance which was laid down in the treaty and agreed between the governments of Scotland and England and then put into the two Acts of both Parliaments. Therefore I do not think that the position is the same as in 1963. Here we are removing the right of any of the Scottish peerage to sit in your Lordships' House; and on any reading that has to be a breach of the Treaty of Union. Article XXII is quite clear on that issue.
  Related to that was the discussion on Lord Cooper's judgment in the case of Hamilton and MacCormick v. The Lord Advocate on the question of the style and title of Her Majesty the Queen. The argument which MacCormick and Hamilton put forward was that the Queen should be Elizabeth I of Great Britain and not Elizabeth II. Those of us alive at the time will remember that it was a live issue in Scotland. Pillar boxes received visits from explosives when they appeared with "EIIR" on them. It did not get much further than that, except to the court.
  The court found against MacCormick and Hamilton. Mr Hamilton is still alive and, as I mentioned in Committee, he was a candidate for the Scottish National Party. He failed to be elected. The other person, John MacDonald MacCormick is now long dead. But, as I explained to the House, one of his sons, well known to the Lord Chancellor and perhaps to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, Neil MacCormick, was until the beginning of this month a serious professor in the Law Department at Edinburgh University. He is now a Member of the European Parliament having been
  872
  elected by the amazing system the Government chose to deal with the European parliamentary elections. Professor MacCormick was number two on the SNP list and now joins the European Parliament. So there is an interesting link between today's politics and the politics of 1953.
  While the court held against them as regards "EIIR", Lord Cooper made perfectly clear his view on the questions of the characteristics of the treaty, especially of the sovereignty of Parliament. I quoted the judgment in Committee. I shall quote it more succinctly by missing out some of the sentences that do not matter, as long as no one complains they are incomplete quotations.
  In his judgment, Lord Cooper said:
  "lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion."
  The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origins from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further. the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contains some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.
  "The Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain 'could not' repeal or alter such `fundamental and essential' conditions."
  I shall not read out some of the remainder that I read, but the question I pose again to the noble and learned Lord is this. Why is it that Article XXII does not fall to be considered along the lines of the Lord Cooper judgment? It is a simple question which the noble and learned Lord might like to address again to see whether he can convince me more than he succeeded in doing on the previous occasion. Those are my first and second points which the noble and learned Lord should try to answer this time.
  The noble and learned Lord also failed to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. At col. 184 of the Official Report of 27th April, he pointed out, in endorsing the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—I am sure that he will speak later—that,
  "The effect of the Bill as drafted will be that, for the first time since 1707, there will be no statutory right of representation for Scotland in this House".
  He continued:
  "It is a matter that the Government should think worthy of consideration, even if not in the form of this amendment".
  The noble and learned Lord did not address himself to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, made. Nor did he address himself to my rather simpler question—not being a lawyer. It was straightforward. Why, as the Bill undoubtedly amends the Treaty of Union-we are agreed that it changes the Treaty of Union—was nothing put in this Bill similar to Section 37 of the Scotland Act which this Parliament passed just over a year ago? Section 37 boldly states:
  "The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 have effect subject to this Act".
  If it were thought prudent to put that in the Scotland Act, I suggest to the Government that it might be prudent to put it in this Act, as quite clearly what is proposed by the Bill impinges not only on the two Acts but also on Article XXII of the treaty itself. It is true to say also that Article XXII was never repealed by the 1963 Act. So if the 1963 Act falls, there is an argument that we shall go back to the treaty. That is why my amendment takes us back to before the 1963 Act incorporating in this Bill the treaty itself so that 16 members of the peerage of Scotland can be elected to represent in part, along with those of us life Peers from Scotland, the position of Scotland within what is supposedly an equal partnership union. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Gray: My Lords, in rising to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 37, with which his are grouped.
  Like my noble friend, I wish to raise some points which arose when I moved a not dissimilar amendment in Committee. My noble friend referred to 1963. In 1963 the representative Peer system was replaced, on a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords reform. The committee gave two reasons for its recommendation: first, the large increase in the membership of the House of Lords since the Union: secondly, the small number of non-representative Peers of Scotland. At that time, there were 15; today there would be 25.
  The committee subsequently added a recommendation that the words in Article XXII of the Acts of Union governing the election of representative Peers should be repealed. Such repeal was, of course, necessary to implement the committee's primary recommendation, and was made with the passing of the 1963 Peerage Act.
  It is beyond question that the intention and effect was to substitute all the Peers of Scotland for the representative 16, and sensibly to modernise and enhance Scottish representation in this House, in keeping with the age in which we live. Most certainly, it was not intended to remove specifically guaranteed representation.
  In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, cited the repeal of the whole of Article XXII from both the Scottish and English Acts of Union as meaning that the provision was spent and that was an end of the matter. My reaction to that is to quote
  874
  from Chapter 5 of Article XXV of the Union Acts to which my noble friend has just referred. It states:
  "And it is hereby stated and ordained, That this Act of Parliament, with the Establishment therein contained, shall he held and observed in all Time coming, as a fundamental and essential Condition of any Treaty or Union to be concluded between the two Kingdoms, without any Alteration thereof or Derogation thereto in any Sort for ever".
  Surely to argue in the face of those words that Article XXII is spent and that is the end of the matter is extraordinary and ignores the nature of what was done in 1963.
  In 1963 Parliament respected and remained within the bounds of those words that I have just quoted by using the enabling words in Article XXII, which are:
  "Until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further provision therein".
  Parliament did make further provision therein. Scots Peers were treated as a group in 1707 and again in 1963. Section 4 of the 1963 Peerage Act quite clearly stands in place of the representative provision of Article XXII.
  The wording of Section 4 treated Scots Peers as a group, and equating their rights therein with those of United Kingdom Peers was merely the most expedient method of achieving enfranchisement and should not be used now as a device to bring individual Peers of Scotland within the ambit of Clause 1 of the Bill and end the Union position.
  It is perhaps worth commenting as an aside that resisting my arguments for those of my noble friend on the ground that Article XXII is spent, as was done on the last occasion, surely raises a question concerning another place, because the article also dealt with representation of Scotland in the House of Commons. In replying to a point made by my noble friend Lord Northesk during our Committee debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
  "I believe that I have set out the constitutional position, which is that this Parliament is sovereign in relation to all previous Acts of Parliament".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 193.]
  No doubt that is generally speaking correct., but I do not believe that such a dictum can be applied against the words I quoted from Article XXV on the implementation of a treaty between sovereign states, which were surely intended to endure while the Union does.
  Much was said in Committee about the current level and quality of Scottish representation in your Lordships' House. I made it clear that I accepted what was said, but that my concern is solely with the treaty principle.
  However, in drafting my Amendment No. 37, I have taken note of other points made. The amendment this time restricts eligibility for election to Peers of Scotland who are domiciled there and extends the electoral college to all Peers domiciled in Scotland. I hope that this modernisation of the scheme will commend it. Information which I have gathered for this debate shows that there are 110 Peers who give a Scottish address; 70 of them are hereditary and 40 are life Peers. At this time, there are 41 Peers of Scotland only, one of whom is a minor. Of the remaining 40, I believe that approximately seven would be ruled ineligible on domiciliary grounds.

  875
  With devolution in place, it is important that we take care not to retract anything from the bargain which created the Union. I hope that my arguments and those of my noble friend will persuade the House and the Government that a case for an amendment such as this has been made.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am a proud and privileged member of the Scottish Peers Association because I believe that the Scottish Peers have made a notable contribution to the affairs of this House. They meet as a group to discuss Scottish affairs and try to reach a consensus on matters affecting the welfare of Scotland. I admire the tenacity of my fellow members of the association who seek to establish the rights of Scottish Peers in the arrangements for the future of the House of Lords. But I say to them quite seriously that if ever I heard a case for a lost cause, this is it.
  During the debates in Scotland on devolution, I was not enthusiastic for a Scottish Parliament. I held my peace and occasionally spoke on the subject in the debates in Scotland. At town meetings in which I participated, I pointed out that one of the implications of devolution was the abolition of the House of Lords in Scotland on all matters which seriously affect the daily life of the people of Scotland; education, health and so forth.
  However, during those meetings I found little concern for the abolition of the House of Lords and its rights to examine Scottish legislation. Indeed, that is emphasised by the list of people who are invited to the opening of the new Scottish Parliament, on which great occasion there are to be celebrations in the city of Edinburgh. I saw a notable list of football players, comics, singers and others who will join the festivities, but I failed to see a reference to any Member of the House of Lords who would be present at this execution of their powers.
  The Scottish people are not rising up in anger about the prospect of Scottish Peers disappearing in the new arrangements. I do not believe that it is a matter of great concern to them. It is a matter of concern to me because I have a sentimental desire to see some of my good friends who are fellow Scottish Peers playing a part in this assembly. Nevertheless, the mere fact that we have enacted a Scottish Parliament and devolved great powers to it makes our special contribution rather irrelevant. I do not believe we can sustain a special place for Scottish Peers in the new arrangements.
  As a life Peer from Scotland, I am hopeful that life Peers present and to be appointed will play a continuing and notable part in the proceedings of this House. There is no reason why life Peers should not continue to play that part and keep an eye on matters of concern to Scotland. But I tell your Lordships that if you incorporate in this Bill special provision for so many Scottish hereditary Peers as such in this House, that will add to the backlash that is taking place in England now in relation to Scottish power in national affairs. After all, we do not so badly; out of 21 members of the British Cabinet, six are Scotsmen. That is a fair representation and proves the fact that Scotland's voice is being heard somewhere in the centres of power.
  876
  I suggest to my good friends that to push this matter and to demand a special category in the new arrangements in the new century, whatever the historical justification in the Act of Union, would be resented in England and would do us no good at all. In addition, I do not believe that the Scots are rising up in anger at the provisions of this Bill. Consequently, I regard the amendment as irrelevant and not acceptable.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although I am no longer secretary of the Scottish Peers Association and have not been for the past two or three months, I should like very much to correct the impression which I certainly gained from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the Scottish Peers Association was in some way connected with this amendment. That is not the case. This amendment was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but there are no amendments on the Marshalled List sponsored by the Scottish Peers Association. I have risen to say that in a great hurry because I do not see any of the officers of the association present here tonight. It is very important that the matter stands corrected. Having said that, I entirely support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. If he chooses to press it to a Division, I shall certainly support it.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Forbes: My Lords, I have a little difficulty with Amendment No. 28A. Whereas it follows the lines of the Treaty of Union that Scotland should be represented by 16 Peers of Scotland in your Lordships' House, that came about after a time when Scottish Peers crossed the Border only to slaughter the English. Before the Union, few had the temerity to live in England. Today, thanks to the Union, many Peers of Scotland are domiciled in England, even in London.
  As things stand today, I believe that my Front Bench should put any weight that it may have behind the more appropriate amendments moved by my the noble Lord, Lord Gray. His amendments deal with persons of the peerage domiciled in Scotland representing Scotland in your Lordships' House.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is for the Government to indicate how there will be a reasonable representation of Scottish Peers in this House in the future. I have listened to the very powerful argument of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is right to say that at present a substantial number of Scottish hereditary Peers and a limited number of Scottish life Peers attend this House regularly.
  I should like to know how the Government visualise that representation continuing in the future. They may well say that it is inconceivable that there will not always be a sufficient number of life Peers from Scotland domiciled in Scotland, which is the important word, to represent the Scottish view in this place.
  We have to bear in mind what has happened over recent weeks. The Leader of the Scottish Parliament, Donald Dewar, has indicated that there will be United Kingdom legislation accepted in Scotland and passed

  877
  in a rapid fashion by the Scottish Parliament. Whatever composition this House may have in the future, that means it will have an important part to play in the United Kingdom legislation that will affect Scotland. If the Government are then going to say, "You have a much less important part to play in Scotland now", how is it that they continue to support the idea of 72 Members of Parliament in Scotland who have comparatively little to do and yet receive very substantial financial support for running their constituencies? Of course, when that is doubled up with the large allowances given to the Members of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituencies, by and large the taxpayers, whom we all represent, pay huge sums of money through double representation in Scotland and England relative to constituency offices and administration.
  If the Government feel that the duties of this House will be much reduced, they must accept the principle behind the West Lothian question and that the duties of the Westminster Scottish Members of Parliament will also be substantially reduced. They must get on with asking the Boundary Commission to press ahead with resolving the number of constituencies in Scotland in the future. The general feeling is that the number will be cut from 72 at present to around the low 50s.
  There appears to be no enthusiasm in the Government to get on with that. Indeed, we called fur that over a year ago. Had the Government listened to us then, they could have had the Boundary Commission organised in time for the next general election. As the Government rely on their huge Labour majority in Scotland to maintain their majority in Westminster, they are likely to be unenthusiastic about reducing the number of constituencies in Scotland.
  How will the Government ensure that there will be sufficient life Members of Parliament in this House to carry out such Scottish legislation as will come through the two Houses of Parliament in the future? I know that there will be a considerable number of hereditary Scottish Peers, led by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in the House, but there is nothing on paper that will guarantee that there will be full or adequate Scottish representation in the House if amendments such as that proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Mackay, are not accepted. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say to ensure that there will be sufficient representation here to fulfil our duties relative to Scotland in the future.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I speak partly for personal reasons. I must be the only remaining Peer of the 16 Scottish Peers who can still take part in this issue.
  Lady Sartoun of Abernethy: No!
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I well recall how in 1953 I fought in a by-election and won by a close margin as there was a tie. It was a most spectacular affair. The event took place in public in the Long Room where portraits of all the Kings of Scotland are to be found—some of them historical and some of them, I dare say, imaginary—but it was a moving procedure.
  878
  Perhaps I may be allowed one personal memory of that before turning to the main theme of my argument. The Lord Clerk Register, who was presiding, called on the various candidates in the election to say how they voted. I was the first one called upon because I happened to be an Earl and the other was a Lord. I said. "I vote for myself", whereupon the whole house, including a large number of the public, quite rightly broke out in laughter.
  I have listened with the greatest interest to the legal arguments that have been put forward. They have impressed me. I was upset by the Act of 1963 because it seemed that it killed all our hopes of maintaining the idea of special Scottish Peers to represent Scotland. I and several others opposed becoming United Kingdom Peers for the reason that we foresaw just the sort of argument that we are having today. I for one tried very hard, but I did not have the full support of all the Scottish Peers and that was the cue for the Government—and it was a Conservative government—to say, "Well, you haven't got all your old troops with you." There it was.
  I think the most important argument is that we do not know what is going to happen with the new Scottish Parliament and the English or the Westminster Parliament. It may well be that there is a real role for the equivalent of the Scottish Peers to play. I do not know in detail what form it should take, but it is not enough to know that there will probably be some Scottish Peers by the fact that they are life Peers unless it is somehow stated by the Government that they will ensure that this happens. That is my first point.
  My second point is to ask the Government not to get involved in the legal arguments for or against. I do not fully understand them but I think they were powerfully put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Gray. I ask the Government not to overrule them, as it were, but to keep the situation open. I, for one, would hope that the Government might give us that assurance and say, "We are not going to commit ourselves one way or the other at the present time: we do not necessarily accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Gray, on the legal side, but we see the force of ensuring that there is some representation coming from the Scottish Parliament."
  That, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is the part that we have all played in the Scottish Peers Association. We would wish to have something like that. I believe myself that in the years to come the Scottish Parliament itself would welcome some form of Scottish representation, whether by right or by the practice of ensuring that there are a certain number of life Peers. I do not know but as things stand it is perfectly possible that over a period of time there would be nobody to talk for Scotland, and that would be tragic.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I support this grouping of amendments proposed by my noble friends, particularly in so far as they focus upon Scottish electoral colleges. From these amendments three points stand out clearly. First, there is consistency with the Treaty of Union of 1707. Secondly, there is consistency with the terms of this Bill and with the objectives of

  879
  stage one of Lords reform in 1999. Thirdly, there is the consistency of these proposals with the objectives of stage two of Lords reform.
  The first point requires no elaboration at all. It is self-evident from Article XXII of the Treaty of Union. This article is not spent, as my noble friend Lord Gray correctly asserted. It stated a number which was, and still is, a minimum of Scottish representation within the United Kingdom second Chamber.
  Secondly, the amendments conform to the purpose of the present Bill on its recommitment. This is to restrict membership of the hereditary peerage within the transition House. The Bill also seeks to achieve approximate voting parity between the main parties within the transition House.
  Thirdly, there is the consistency of these amendments with current arrangements for the consideration of stage two of Lords reform. The task of my noble friend Lord Wakeham is to make recommendations in order to improve the quality and function of the second Chamber. One obvious priority is to preserve and, if possible, to enhance its present quality of independence.
  In regard to Scottish representation as a component of the reformed Chamber, that is exactly what my noble friend's amendments accomplish. They do so through the selection which comes from an electoral college; and they do so also as the elections proposed would take place every Parliament. Not least do they add value by avoiding party politics. That is so where an electoral college might consist of Scottish Members of this House, domiciled in Scotland as the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gray proposes.
  Stage two may well produce a wholly elected second Chamber. However, if instead it should produce an appointed Chamber, to some extent electoral colleges ought to become a feature of the new system. There should be a Scottish electoral college which elects 16 Members every Parliament. In previous debates on this subject on the Bill, among a number of misapprehensions expressed, one in particular should perhaps be singled out. It has been asserted that, as matters stand, there are already more than 16 Scottish Members of this Chamber. That is true. Yet it has been contended that no other expedient at all—let alone a Scottish electoral college—becomes necessary to ensure a statutory minimum of Scottish representation. Yet that argument overlooks its own converse; that is, that an electoral college can improve further the quality of Scottish representation only if it guarantees to elect a statutory minimum number every Parliament.
  The Scottish electoral college which functions every Parliament constitutes a useful model within the reform of the second Chamber. That is particularly the case if that Chamber consists of appointed Members in the first place. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Wakeham should not be prevented from including that option. Instead, he should be encouraged to advance it. Clearly the best way to give that encouragement now is to incorporate within this Bill the substance of these amendments.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this House will continue to make significant laws for Scotland and those laws must be scrutinised by people from Scotland. To give the most obvious and simple example within the world of social security legislation, cold weather payments are something about which Scottish representatives know a lot.
  However, this debate about the future of Scottish representation has got slightly caught up in the formulae used in the 1706 negotiations. Your Lordships are familiar with the two significant formulae of those negotiations which were that the relative taxable values of England and of Scotland were in a ratio of 38:1 and that the population difference was in the ratio of 5:1. That led to the treaty negotiators agreeing to there being 45 MPs and 16 Peers. I should add that the 45 MPs was a reduction from 330 Members of Parliament for Scotland, and for the Peers, of whom there were 160, it was a 10 per cent retention scheme. We have clearly heard of that scheme. I should note also that there were 180 Peers of England at that time, so I can see why they were anxious not to be overrun by the whole of the peerage of Scotland.
  I move on to the need for today's formula, which must be population based. Scotland constitutes 8 per cent of the UK's population. Therefore, in a House of approximately 600 that gives us 40 Members who must be domiciled in Scotland—by which I mean that they genuinely live there. The slogan for that must be, "No legislation without a guaranteed representation"; or perhaps I ought to modify that for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to, "No reserved powers legislation without guaranteed and fair representation".
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl because, on the referendums Bill, I believe he proposed the revival of the old Scottish Parliament and made a moving and erudite case for it. That was particularly appropriate from him as one whose ancestor had served in the last Scottish Parliament. I am afraid that the proposal had no support because it was not supported by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Therefore, even his own party, much less the government party, opposed it. But that was the most logical and sensible conclusion of the problem that your Lordships have been facing in this debate.
  I have been sitting here all day while the tides of partisanship have been washing over my head. But now that they have subsided and I can come up for air, perhaps I may ask two purely technical questions on these amendments; but that is not to minimise in any way the importance of the political issues that your Lordships have been discussing. I should like to ask about the phrase in Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B, which refers to,
  "sixteen peers in the peerage of Scotland".
  As your Lordships well know, and as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Perth, a number of Scottish Peers have English titles or United Kingdom titles. I do not

  881
  know whether that phrase is meant to extend to them. I believe that the phrase is taken from the Act of Union; is it not? But things were very different at that time and your Lordships have heard from my noble friend that the circumstances in which there were elections under the Act of Union are now matters of history. So that is the first question on which I should be very grateful for guidance from the government spokesman, and from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he replies.
  My second question arises out of Amendment No. 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. That amendment refers specifically to,
  "sixteen Peers of Scotland only who are domiciled in Scotland".
  That phrase appears again and again in the next group of amendments. "Domicile" is a highly technical word in private international law. It merely denotes the legal connection of an individual with a territory, which has its own peculiar system of law. It can be acquired in two ways. By far the most common is by a domicile of birth, which I am afraid, if I may use the phrase, is largely hereditary: one acquires it from one's parents at birth. Generally speaking, it subsists until it is changed by the other type of domicile; namely, a domicile of choice.
  One can have a Scottish domicile. I imagine that most of your Lordships who have spoken tonight are domiciled in Scotland, although I imagine that many are resident in England. A few may have acquired a domicile of choice in England by choosing that that should be the country with which they have the closest connection. But I venture to think that the phrase in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and in the subsequent amendments of the group is misleading. There is another phrase which is much safer and more illuminating in Amendment No. 31 which states,
  "the part of the United Kingdom with which they have the closest connection".
  That is a phrase that is perfectly well understood by lawyers and I think it is probably much closer to what is intended by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Gray, and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments. I ask for illumination on those two points: the meaning of the peerage of Scotland in the light of the fact that many Scottish Peers have, and indeed sit in your Lordships' House by virtue of, an English or United Kingdom peerage, and whether "domiciled in Scotland" is the most appropriate phrase or whether it would not be better to refer to the country with which they have the closest connection.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he can help us a little more. He referred to domicile at some length. Can he explain in language which laymen can understand the difference between domicile and residence?
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the first part of the noble Earl's question. There is a clear distinction between domicile and residence. You cannot acquire a domicile of choice except by residence in some place which you choose as your home. But domicile is quite different from
  882
  residence in the way I have tried to explain; namely, that you can acquire a domicile by birth without any residence at all. The classic example was in the days of the Raj where one member of a family after another was born in India and lived in India but still kept their English domicile. As I say, domicile is quite different from residence.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise merely as one of the few English voices in this debate to ask the noble and learned Lord who is to reply not to lose sight of the cogent arguments with which my noble friend Lord Gray introduced his amendment and which go back to the treaty. It takes two sides to make a treaty and so far we have heard everything that Scots expect from their treaty. But it is our treaty too, and if one side loses its rights so does the other. That is something that the Government cannot afford to do either, because if they abrogate the treaty in any way they will soon find the Government of Spain requiring them to abrogate the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, with incalculable consequences for the nationality of Gibraltar. In law we need a cogent and sufficient answer to my noble friend's point.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising this matter. Many noble Lords may have forgotten that there is a huge difference between the Scottish Peers and the Peers of Scotland. In this group of amendments we are talking about the Peers of Scotland. I think there is an argument here. I must admit that when it comes to a Scottish Peer—of which I am one—domiciled in Scotland, there is a very difficult argument. In fact, I do not think there is a strong argument at all, especially in the light of the debate we have had about the Weatherill agreement and everything else today.
  However, with the Peers of Scotland we have a very strong argument. Devolution is one thing but it deals only with devolved subjects; the sovereign Parliament is still Westminster. The Treaty of Union was quite clear when it set out the Union roll; it said that there would be 16 elected Members. That is extremely democratic; it cannot be anything else. It is certainly not any form of selection.
  It is now very important that we ensure representation of Scottish Peers of Scotland in your Lordship's House—if for no other reason than that, with the new proposals brought forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, it will be very hard for people down here to know what Scottish Peers are doing in Scotland or to know what is going on up there. This means of getting some Scottish Peers of Scotland here is a very sensible idea.
  My noble friend Lord Gray raised a very important point. It is quite clear in the Union roll and in the Union that Articles XXII and XXIII are never to be changed. My noble friend then raised a very important point when

  883
  he moved on to Articles XXIV and XXV. We must look at this very carefully to ensure that we are not breaking a treaty of very long standing.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down, to the best of my knowledge there are no such animals as Peers of Scotland; there are Scots Peers. There are English Peers, Scots Peers, Irish Peers, GB Peers and UK Peers, but Peers of Scotland are not animals that are known to me.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, many issues are not entirely clear at the moment. Perhaps I may say something in an attempt to add clarity to some of them. I am sure that the Front Bench opposite will give your Lordships some clarification; we shall be very interested to hear it. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has introduced the opinion of the Lord Advocate Cooper into this matter and the fact that he was puzzled as to why two sovereign parliaments coming together would appear to have adopted purely the practices of one of them, I made some inquiries of the Library. The answer I received perhaps sheds a little light on the matter.
  We are all familiar with the position that the Scottish Parliament was prorogued and not reconvened until the present institution was put in place. On 24th April 1707 the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Westminster were prorogued. On 30th April the Lords Commissioners read a proclamation from the Queen, which contained a declaration to the effect that Parliament should continue and would constitute the representation of England in the first Parliament of Great Britain. From this has perhaps slowly emanated the idea that most of the traditions carried on were those of the former English Parliament.
  I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I hark back to something I referred to at Second Reading. As we consider the reconstitution of this Parliament, we should look at how it becomes the Parliament of the United Kingdom in every aspect and does not rely too much on the traditions of one other Parliament.
  Perhaps I should mention the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about the opening of the Scottish Parliament. As far as I know, the guest list has been firmly in the control of the party opposite. No doubt some Peers, appointed or hereditary, would have attended had they been asked. Perhaps it is an interesting reflection on the way in which matters might turn out there. The guest list has not been based on proportional representation.
  Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I hope that mine is a slightly independent voice. I have lived in Scotland for many years. I am a Peer of the United Kingdom. I feel that this debate, on points which even after a good deal of study seem somewhat arcane, should have been considered by the Government before the Bill was prepared. There is substance in them. I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for defining "domicile" so clearly, and to my noble kinsman on the Liberal Democrat Benches for
  884
  describing what happened many years ago. But we are faced with today's situation. We must consider not what is best for any party, but what is best for the country. If, as is claimed, the treaty obligations are valid, they must be taken into account. I hope that in replying the Minister will feel able to deal with the points of substance that have been raised in many parts of the House, and not merely "dust them off' as trifling and inappropriate.
  When I opposed the Bill earlier, I was described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as "castigating" it. That is quite a strong word. I hope that I was only infrequently castigated at school, but that is by the way. The Bill is not one that can be supported on the ground that it will make the lot of the people of this great country better; it seems unlikely to do so. Therefore, this point should be most carefully considered. The objections, points and problems that have been raised on all sides of the House must be considered. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will accept that.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have had a good dinner. I am therefore inclined to look at these amendments with a certain amount of sympathy—but really, they are nonsense! How can we expect an electorate of the Scottish Peers to be a base for any proper representation in this House? The idea is not up-to-date or sensible. There are a large number of Scottish Peers in this House. I am not sure whether I am included among them. For an electorate of that sort to think itself democratic in electing a number of Members of this House is total gibberish.
  If we are to have proper representation in Scotland, any committee properly appointed should consider all the aspects of Scotland—industrial, agricultural and so on—and appoint people from Scotland, hereditary Peers or others, or people who will be promoted to become Peers. But to elect 16 Members from among the hereditary Peers in Scotland is not in the present context sensible.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, will he bear in mind the point about which my noble friend Lord Monro reminded the House; namely, the large amount of business relating to Scotland that will continue to be taken in this House, which is reserved to Westminster, and which will require proper insight on the part of a number of Scots Peers?
  I have recently spent a great deal of time on the Health Bill and the Tax Credits Bill. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is before the House, and we have just considered the Water Industry Bill. Matters relating to health and water will not come before the House again because they are devolved, but others will.
  We shall have trade and industry matters, employment legislation, and we shall continue to follow carefully the affairs of Kosovo where many Scots military personnel are serving. There will be mainstream scrutiny of the European Parliament's goings-on and of European

  885
  legislation. We understand that there will be many problems with the Human Rights Act. Those are just some of the matters we shall have to discuss.
  I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not joke that there will he enough of our life Peers. There will not be enough of our life Peers and I hope that whatever way the Government handle the appointment of people to the Parliament, we shall hear something about our concern about the hereditary Peers. If the noble and learned Lord does not accept the amendments, we wish to hear how the matter will be dealt with.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The Conservative Front Bench has supported the amendment. Perhaps I may describe its effect. The amendment proposes that any Peer of Scotland—that means any hereditary Peer created before 1707, of which there are at present 42—can elect from their number 16 to sit in the House of Lords.
  That is discriminatory against non-hereditary Peers, against Peers created after 1707, in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. The proposal is put forward as a way, first, of meeting the provisions of the Treaty of Union and, secondly, of providing appropriate representation in the House for the people of Scotland.
  I deal first with the point about the Treaty of Union. We have not in any way sought to abrogate the Treaty of Union. It stands unabrogated. Articles XXII and XXV are the two articles relied on. Article XXII states:
  "That by virtue of this Treaty, of the Peers of Scotland, at the Time of the Union, sixteen shall be the Number to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
  Then follow some irrelevant words. The article continues:
  "and that when her Majesty, her Heirs or Successors, shall declare her or their Pleasure for holding the first or any subsequent Parliament of Great Britain, until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further Provision therein, a Writ do issue under the Great Seal of the united Kingdom".
  As is apparent from the words of the Treaty of Union, it was explicitly envisaged that the Parliament of Great Britain could amend or change the number both of the Peers of Scotland and of the representatives of Scotland who could sit in this House. There is therefore nothing in the Treaty of Union that prevented the 1963 Act being passed which changed the number of Peers who could sit in the House. There is nothing in the law of this country that prevents it because Article XXII was then repealed by a 1964 and a 1993 Act. Equally, there is nothing that prevents this Bill being turned into an Act of Parliament and changing or eradicating the right of the Scottish Peers to sit. There is absolutely nothing in the legal point.
  To answer the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, we carefully considered the points before we proposed the Bill in this form. We are quite satisfied that there is nothing in it.
  A point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in support of the proposition that hereditary Peers created before 1707 should have an
  886
  electorate to elect this House. Article XXV of the Treaty of Union states:
  "That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be, by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms".
  When we read that, it is plain that it is stating that the Treaty of Union overrides any laws which exist at the time and which are inconsistent with the Treaty of Union.
  The argument was put attractively by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Gray; but with the greatest respect to them, there is absolutely nothing in it whatever.
  Then it is suggested that the way that one deals with the under-representation of the Scots is to have this somewhat unrepresentative group of people. I do not believe that the people of Scotland would be pleased to hear that their representation in the House of Lords was to he pepped up by this unique, perfectly worthy but not very representative group. Every time we have this debate, one looks around the Chamber and sees very eminent life Peers who will be more than able to represent the people of Scotland in the transitional House; and every time I mention names, that is regarded by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, as a joke. I shall not mention any names, but it is perfectly clear that the Scots are well able to look after themselves. I do not think that there is anything more that I can usefully say about any of these amendments, save to say that now that we have gone through the detail of the matter, I respectfully ask that we do not have to return to it again.
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him, having regard to his opening words about the Treaty of Union, whether he believes that, so long as there are at least 16 life Peers living in Scotland, the spirit if not letter of the treaty would be fulfilled?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all I am saying is that neither the Treaty of Union, nor any law which has followed it, has required the Peers of Scotland—that is, the Peers created before 1707—to have 16 of their number in this House.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question. Do I take it that since here and now the Scots are well represented, that will go on and the Government will make sure that they will be well represented one way or another? That is all I am interested in.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I feel that the people of Scotland are extremely well represented in the House at the moment, even without the pre-1706 Peers. Their departure would be a loss. It would be for each individual political party, as it nominates people, to make sure that that continues in the transitional House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and for dealing with the actual issue of the Treaty of Union and not some of the surrounding issues that have arisen during

  887
  the debate. We shall come to the question of Scottish representation in general terms in the next group of amendments. I am always cautious when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asks me a question that sounds particularly legal, because I am sure that he knows the answer before he asks it. Therefore, I say to him that what I intend to suggest in my amendment, as to the Peers and peerage of Scotland, are those Peers who are solely Peers in the peerage of Scotland and not those Peers who have Scottish peerages and have obtained along the way, so to speak, or their ancestors have, peerages of either Great Britain or the United Kingdom. I hope that that answers that question.
  I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. He described my arguments as a lost cause. I say to the noble Lord that it is a little like persuading his government to plant conifers in England—a lost cause in which we have both been involved to some extent.
  As far as the opening of the new Scottish Parliament is concerned, I hesitate to say it, but my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and I seem to have received the invitations. We will therefore have a watching brief for the rest of your Lordships' House to make sure that it does not exceed its powers on its first day of sitting.
  To return to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, I think what he has said to me, if I can paraphrase it, is that although he does not disagree with Lord Cooper in his judgment, he is simply pointing out that the Articles XXII and XXV fall to be considered under those articles of the treaty which could be altered, could have subsequent modification, and were not unalterable in all time.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in our debate in Committee I made it clear that the general view was that Lord Cooper's words, which were obiter—meaning that they were not necessary for the decision that he reached—were not regarded as representing the law? Indeed, they have not been followed in any subsequent cases. I provided a detailed answer to that point in Committee and I am surprised that the noble Lord has not come back with any detail to suggest that I was wrong on the previous occasion. Does he not recall that and does he not believe that he would be wrong to think that that was my position?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord explained it better today. At least I have understood it better, but that is probably my fault. We have had an interesting debate. I am persuaded, unless someone convinces me otherwise after they read what the noble and learned Lord has said, that what the Government are doing in the Bill does not infringe the Treaty of Union. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 28B not moved.]
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 29:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 2)
  (" . Standing Orders of the House shall provide that on any day when the House sits for public business the membership of the House includes at least sixteen peers who are domiciled in Scotland.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be fairly brief on this amendment. We have moved away from the narrow question of the peerage of Scotland into the question of those Peers who are resident in Scotland and who, in the new House, could include some who are hereditary Peers elected by their colleagues and those others who are life Peers, like myself, the noble Lords, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, Lord Hughes, Lord Taylor and Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, and some of my noble friends on this side of the House who will continue to be here.
  I have no doubt that the Government will tell me fairly quickly that there are more than 16 of us. That is true. I suppose that if I were attempting to be moderate in my amendment I would be looking at some fraction of the House—perhaps one-ninth to reflect the current composition of the Commons or perhaps 9 per cent to reflect the composition of the Commons after the next Boundary Commission, when the number of Scottish MPs will be reduced from 72 to about 58. Perhaps I should have gone down that road. All I am trying to do through this amendment is to tie in the historic position of the Treaty of Union and put on the face of the Bill that there should be at least 16 Peers in your Lordships' House who are domiciled in Scotland.
  I appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, if that is the only fault with the amendment, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will—
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has the choice of his own alternative form:
  "Scotland is the part of the United Kingdom with which they have the closest connection".
  There is no objection to that.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is clearly the amendment from the group on which I should rest. That is what we mean. There are some Peers who have a limited connection with Scotland but do not live in Scotland. It is those who live in Scotland, who go there every weekend and consider Scotland to be their home, that I am interested in.
  As I said, I think that I am being modest in suggesting 16. All the amendment is doing is putting down a marker to the Government and to the appointments commission, when it is set up, that they should always ensure that the Scottish position is represented. My noble friend Lord Gray has other amendments in this

  889
  group which address the same issue in different ways. I shall leave him to speak to his amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Gray: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Mackay, I shall speak as briefly as I can to my amendments in this group. They are Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 and related consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 39. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are alternatives to the amendment moved by my noble friend and those to which he spoke. Apart from the reference to Article XXII, with which my principal amendments open, the main difference from my noble friend's versions is that my amendments exclude Ministers of the Crown and persons appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 from the minimum number of Peers to represent Scotland.
  The only difference between my Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 is the minimum number of Peers specified. Amendment No. 33 calls for a minimum of 16. We have all heard about the 16. In light of earlier discussion, that does not need explanation.
  Amendment No. 34, however, specifies 24 Peers domiciled in Scotland as the minimum representation. The minimum of 24 is realistically proportionate to what obtains at present. In arriving at that figure I have taken the present average attendance of life and hereditary Peers and adjusted it to take account of the number who remain in the interim House. At present there are 40 life Peers who give addresses in Scotland: 12 Conservative, 13 Labour, four Liberal and 11 Cross-Benchers. If one deducts the eight who are Ministers of the Crown or judicial appointees, 32 are left as a potential maximum. That may easily decrease or increase. I cannot guess how many hereditary Peers, if any, may be elected to the interim House.
  Allowance must be made for non-attendance. To peg the number at 16 can never reflect the level of Scottish representation that presently obtains with regular attendances in your Lordships' House. I submit that 24 would be fairer. I would be interested to hear the views of others as to what is preferred. I regard it as of paramount importance that the Bill should acknowledge in some way the Scottish treaty right to representation, and that is why I have tabled these amendments.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments in this group effectively raise the question whether there should be either 16 or 25 Scottish Peers in this House who are domiciled in Scotland. We have explained on a number of occasions why we believe that the interim House will provide more than adequate representation for the people of Scotland. I make just two other points in this regard. First, it may well be positively detrimental to the people of Scotland if one builds into the Bill a minimum number. That minimum could all too easily become a number that one regarded as satisfactory to represent the people of Scotland. I do not believe that that is necessarily in the interests of the people of Scotland.
  Secondly, during the period of the interim House the obligation will be on both the Government and each of the political parties to ensure that the people of Scotland
  890
  have adequate representation. The Prime Minister has made clear that, subject to very exceptional cases, he will simply pass on the nominations of each political party to the appointments commission. In effect each political party will be in a position to assist the proper representation for the people of Scotland. With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, this amendment is neither necessary nor sensible.
  As a separate issue, we have difficulties with the form of all of these amendments. First, they seek to impose obligations on the Standing Orders of this House. This is a very unusual way to proceed. We do not think that your Lordships should be comfortable with the idea of statute law being able to lay down conditions for the Standing Orders of this House. Secondly, none of the amendments say what happens if the condition is not fulfilled. For example, will the House be unable to sit until the situation is rectified? Whose responsibility is it to rectify it? To take an example, why should it be the responsibility of the Government if they have 15 Scottish domiciled Peers among their number and no one else has any? Yet under our other proposals the Prime Minister will be unable either to nominate representatives of another party or insist that they recommend only those who fulfil the requirement. Nor do we believe it is reasonable to say to an existing Peer that he must become domiciled in Scotland.
  For all of those reasons, I respectfully submit that these amendments are not sensible, necessary or properly thought out. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. In default of withdrawal, I recommend that the House votes against it.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been extremely logical. Would he not say that he desires a number of Scots in this House?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I desire a number of Scots in this House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord counts himself in the number of Scots. While they may no longer be domiciled or obey the terms of Amendment No. 31,I think that the noble and learned Lord obeys the domicile definition as regards birth. I suppose he is an honorary Scot to that extent.
  We have had assurances from the Government which I am certain all governments in the future will heed. However, I am sure that he appreciates, especially with devolution and the considerable powers moving to the Scottish Parliament, there is the slight danger that in times to come the Scottish position will begin to wither a little at Westminster. It is that position that my noble friend Lord Gray and I seek to guard against.
  I do not know what my noble friend wishes to do, but I am content to withdraw Amendment No. 29 having had those assurances from the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
  Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 33:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 6)
  (" . To continue the effect of Article XXII of the Treaty of Union of 1707 Standing Orders shall provide that the minimum number of persons domiciled in Scotland and entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords shall be sixteen; but Ministers of the Crown and persons appointed under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 shall not count towards that minimum.")
  10.16 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 123.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Annaly, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Berners, B.

  Monson, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Caithness, E.

  Mountevans, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Clinton, L.

  Renton, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.[Teller.]

  Ferrers, E.

  Selsdon, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Gray, L.

  Strange, B.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L

  Swansea, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Trenchard, V.

  Kintore, E.

  Waddington, L.

  Lauderdale, E

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Addington, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Alli, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Carter, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Haslam, L.

  David, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Desai, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  892

  Hughes, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.[Teller.]

  Rea, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B.[Lord Privy seal.]

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Richard, L.

  Judd, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Russell, E.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Sandberg, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Simon, V.

  McNair, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Somerset, D.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Newby, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Northbourne, L.

  Warner, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Orme, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  10.26 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 to 39 not moved..]
  Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 40:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  INDEPENDENT PEERS
  (" .—(1) From the date of the coming into force of section 1 of this Act the Prime Minister shall within two months of his commencement of each session of Parliament ensure (if necessary by recommending the creation of additional life peers) that the number of independent peers entitled to speak and to vote in the Second Chamber is at least as great as the number who take the whips of the largest single party.
  (2) For the purpose of this section "independent peers" shall mean any member who is entitled to speak and to vote in the Second Chamber and who does not owe allegiance to, is not a member of, and does not take the whip of any political party.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40, I should like for a moment to take the debate away from party politics and cross-Border politics. The amendment relates to the proportion of independent Peers in the second Chamber. Unlike the Opposition earlier today, I do not seek to place the amendment on the face of the Bill; I want the Government to make a clear commitment.
  My concern—and the Government are not going to like it—extends not only to the interim House but to the stage two House. I believe that the proportion of independent Peers in the House is a crucial question. It

  893
  is important because the Government are prepared to tell us so little about their proposals for the future of this House. We have to wonder why they are so reticent.
  For those of us who believe that the second Chamber should be an effective revising Chamber and a check on the executive, an effective independent presence is crucial. Without enough independents, the second Chamber will tend to be either a pale shadow of the first Chamber or in constant conflict with it.
  The Government have already given a commitment to broad parity between the two main political parties. They have already given an indication that they consider a significant independent presence in the future House is important. Indeed, today the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred to a very significant presence, which notched it up one. It would be but a small step for the Government to go a little further and to put to rest the fear held by many of us that the power and aggressiveness of the political parties will be allowed to whittle away this significant independent presence over time.
  In Committee, I suggested that the Government should give a commitment to at least 30 per cent of the House being independent. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she could not commit herself to a specific number—though, in truth, 30 per cent is not a number but a proportion. This amendment, therefore, suggests using the same form of words for independents as the Government have already used in their commitment to the major Opposition parties. The noble Baroness made the point earlier this evening that there is a need to define more clearly the meaning of the word "independence". She referred to the ambivalence of the position of the Law Lords, but it could easily be defined.
  I believe that the Government should make the same commitment about the proportion of independents as they have made about the proportionate relationship between the Government and the main Opposition party. To my mind, it is no good the Government saying that it all depends on the Royal Commission, because it does not. The Government have not given a commitment to accept all or any of its recommendations. The reality is that it is the Government who will decide and therefore it is only they who can make the commitment.
  That raises another important point. Earlier in these debates the Government Front Bench argued that the future of this House is no business of those of us who, if this Bill is passed, will no longer be Members of it. I absolutely reject that view. I believe that as long as those of us who are hereditary Peers have a seat and a voice in this House, we have an absolute responsibility and a duty to consider the effects of this Bill on the future of parliamentary democracy and on the future of this country.
  The Government have intentionally left us very little room in which to exercise that responsibility. It is for that reason that the choice which all of us will have to make at the end of Third Reading—whether to pass this Bill or reject it—becomes so important. At that time, each of us will have to ask ourselves which way of exercising our responsibility on this critically important
  894
  issue is most likely to lead to the best outcome for this Chamber and for the future governance of the country. That is the issue. It is not about what happens to the hereditary Peers who are going. This Bill is about 'he future constitution of this country. For some of us, this may be the last opportunity we have to exercise our responsibility in this matter.
  In my experience, there are only two ways in which an organisation can get rid of people, especially those who have worked for it and given long and loyal service. They can persuade them to retire or they can sack them. I hoped—I still hope—that this Government want to follow the former route. Indeed, it seems to me that out-of-hand sackings sit strangely with a Labour Government. If the Government want my voluntary agreement to early retirement, they can have it. If they want me to endorse this Bill at Third Reading, I shall do so, but they will have to go a little further in convincing me that what they plan for the future of the second Chamber will be better for this country than the one that we already have. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not want to look beyond the interim House. That is as far as my vision, responsibilities and rights go. As I am sure the Government Front Bench knows I care deeply about what that interim House shall be. We have heard fine words and sentiments from the Government on how that interim House will be composed and what the proportion of those parties and Peers will be in the interim House. I reiterate that there needs to be something in legislation, a basis from which those fine words can be anchored so that they may continuo to sail 10 years hence if we still have an interim House. I do not believe that this is the amendment with which to do that. I was very flattered to be directly addressed by the Leader of the House the last time she spoke on an amendment. She knows my feelings on this matter. At the end of the day, the principle which is being addressed in this amendment is one on which we should consider sinking the Bill if we get nothing further from the Government.
  Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has expressed exactly my sentiments so I shall not weary your Lordships with repeating them at greater length unless forced to do so. The noble Lord has expressed concisely, accurately and properly the criteria against which noble Lords should consider this Bill. I support every word that he said.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I respect every word that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. I have great respect for the noble Lord. However, a significant number of the so-called independent Peers are not independent in their thoughts. A large number are former Tories and a number among the independent Peers are well to the right of the Tory party. In fact, if you want to increase the influence of any party, you simply have to declare yourself independent and vote as you wish.

  895
  It is not logical. It is difficult to define true independence. There is no doubt about the independence of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as there is no doubt about a number of others, but there are great doubts about some of the so-called independent Peers.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is correct. Perhaps I may quote the example of my own father who started on the Labour Benches, moved to the Cross Benches and ended up on the Liberal Benches. If that is not independence, I do not know what is.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that he wanted to get away from party politics. As Chief Whip for the Opposition party, that was positively music to my ears. I imagine that it was also music to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip. I hope that the noble Lord will reply to the amendment. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will do so.
  I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. When we were in government we always welcomed the interventions of Cross Benchers. We also welcomed their votes, even when we went down to defeats, as we did on a number of occasions. It is worth reminding the House that despite the so-called Tory majority in the House, we went down to a large number of defeats over the years. We cannot win every vote that we wish to win, even as the House is currently constituted.
  I ought to stress to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who spoke about the supposed lack of independence of Cross Benchers or members of my own party—I cannot speak for Cross Benchers, but I can speak for those sitting behind me—that they are wholly independent. I know that as Chief Whip of my party. Frequently, they vote against whatever whip I put out. One of the strengths of the House is that all Peers feel that they can vote according to their consciences and there is little that Chief Whips, whether Government or Opposition, can do about encouraging or discouraging their colleagues from voting one way or another. I believe I see a nod from the Government Chief Whip.
  Speaking briefly to the amendment, we have considerable sympathy with the aim behind it. The aim is to ensure that the Cross-Bench vote continues to be strong in the interim House. We hope, following the Royal Commission, that there will be a strong Cross-Bench influence in whatever comes in stage two, if we ever get a stage two. We believe that that Cross-Bench independent vote should remain strong, and we hope that the Government will ensure that it will remain so. Therefore, we hope that the Government will give strong support to an amendment of this kind, or at least to the ideas behind the amendment.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that it was suggested that the future of the House was no business of the hereditary Peers. I have never heard that suggested and I have never made
  896
  that suggestion. On many occasions I have referred to the importance of contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Elton, both of whom have developed themes about the continuing value of an invigorated and effective second Chamber. It is not part of my remarks to suggest that any Member of this House has no proper business in considering the future. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
  If I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, correctly, he said that this is a sighting amendment, to discover the Government's attitude. We shall, rightly, have to pay attention to what the Royal Commission says. We want to pay attention to what the committee of both Houses said, and then take a view. But I can repeat what has often been said from these Benches: we want a second Chamber which is not just a replica or clone of another place.
  We believe in an independent component—that is to say, a truly independent component—one which actually, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Richard, thinks independently, votes independently and, not by the merest of coincidences, sometimes votes conservatively. We do look to a continuing independent component in this House. At the moment, I think, Cross Benchers constitute about 26 per cent of the life Peers and I am happy to say that we envisage a continuing presence close to that percentage.
  I do not think I can be more positive than that without presuming on decisions yet to be made and advice yet to be given. Bearing in mind the attitude which was so clearly demonstrated, one intended to be helpful and one indicating positive enquiry by the noble Lord, I do not think it is helpful if I simply point out the technical deficiencies as regards what is a political party, and so forth. If I need to, I can deploy those arguments on a subsequent occasion.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful reply. I will not waste the time of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 40A not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I must point out to the House that, if Amendment No. 41 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 42.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 1, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
  ("A person shall not be disqualified for—")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 41 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 43. These amendments are designed and intended to be entirely helpful and constructive. All my amendments have been so designed, but these especially so. As your Lordships know, we have agreed that a number of hereditary Peers will be elected from among themselves to continue to serve in your Lordships' House.
  However, it would appear that the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill would apply to them equally as to all the other Peers in your Lordships' House, who would of course no longer be able to attend. Of course it is right that hereditary Peers no longer able to sit or vote in this House should be allowed to vote for, and maybe even stand for, the other place; but it would appear that the Bill as presently drafted would allow the so-called Weatherill Peers to do that as well. That, it seems to me, would not be right, not in accordance with the wishes of the House and, I suspect, not in accordance with the wishes of another place or indeed of the Government. That, of course, is a matter for them to decide. My amendment proposes therefore that this matter should be corrected. My amendments serve that purpose and I hope that your Lordships will agree to what I have in mind. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, can I say briefly that my noble friend has raised an important point. As I understand it, he is saying that, if the Weatherill amendment goes through, I, if I am not one of those Peers, could stand, dare I say it, for Carlisle—a constituency I live very close to and one which I understand went Conservative at the recent European elections. I would be very tempted to stand for Carlisle. I am not saying I could do that if I was just part of the electorate rather than one of the elected. If I was a Weatherill Peer and in this House, would I also be allowed to stand for Carlisle and would I therefore be allowed to be a Member of both Houses? That would be a rather unusual idea: that a Peer could be a Member of both the House of Lords and of the House of Commons. These are obviously highly technical matters. No doubt the Government will be able to address them, deal with my noble friend's point and tell me whether I can stand for Carlisle or not and be a Member of both Houses.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly in due time, if the noble Lord were successful with a relevant electorate, he could be a Member of any relevant Chamber. Part of the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is to be found in Amendment No. 44A in the name of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. That will be dealt with later this evening.
  The general point which I would put forward in respect of Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 is that Clause 1 clearly encompasses all routes to, and all aspects of, membership of this House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. We have discussed similar matters on a number of occasions. Amendment No. 43 is back to our old friends, "attend, sit or vote". It has been the consistent formulation that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, have used regularly on previous occasions. My former arguments do not benefit by repetition. It is not a synonym for "Member of".
  The amendments demonstrate a misunderstanding that this Bill is about a disqualification from membership of the House of Lords. It is not. It is about
  898
  blocking off a route to such membership. A hereditary Peer is not disqualified from membership of the House following the passage of this Bill; he is simply no longer eligible to be a Member by virtue of the hereditary peerage. He could continue to be a Member by virtue of any other legitimate route, provided he is not genuinely disqualified on the basis indicated by my noble arid learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the last occasion. For instance, if a hereditary Peer became by some chance an appropriately qualified Bishop of the Church of England, a life Peer or a Law Lord, he would not, by virtue of being the happy recipient of a hereditary peerage, be disqualified from membership of this House.
  We need Clause 3 of the Bill at the moment because Peers are not barred from elections to the House of Commons because they are Peers of Parliament; they are barred because they are Peers. That was the point of the judgment in the Benn case: that the bar is in the blood. That is why we need specifically to provide for overturning it in this Bill rather than simply relying on the fact that hereditary Peers will no longer be Members of the Lords.
  To summarise briefly, and I have said this before, hereditary Peers are under a disability at present because they cannot stand for election to the House of Commons. That is not fair if they are not automatically Members of this House. Therefore I dealt briefly with Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 and indicated that Amendment No. 44A is designed to deal with the position of the Weatherill Peers, which is the specific question that the noble Lord asked. It is a new question and that is why I invited his attention to Amendment No. 44A.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe he is saying that I have identified a problem with the Weatherill amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, now seeks to correct by virtue of Amendment No. 44A. He could simply have said that he accepts my amendment and that would have saved the noble Baroness the trouble. However, I am happy to accept that the spirit at least of my amendment has been accepted, and that is very gratifying.
  In relation to Amendment No. 43, I should like to study what the Minister said in reply to that separate amendment. It is related to Amendment No. 41. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  ("unless he is excepted from section 1.
  (2) The holder of a hereditary peerage who is a member of the House of Commons is disqualified for being excepted from section 1 or for voting at any election held in pursuance of Standing Orders of the House for the exception of an) person from section 1 ")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to be helpful. However, in saying that I am conscious that I may be raising problems which cannot

  899
  necessarily be resolved this evening. We are in danger of getting into a muddle on voting rights and rights to stand for the House of Commons. The effect of the Weatherill amendment changed substantially old Clause 2, now Clause 3. That clause would have removed the disqualification of hereditary Peers to vote for and stand for the House of Commons, as the Minister said.
  It must be right that we cannot have a situation where people can vote for both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is logical to continue to deny the Weatherill Peers the right to vote for and stand for the House of Commons; but, on the other hand, non-elected Peers could both vote for and stand for the House of Commons. That is the effect of the first part of the amendment.
  The second part of the amendment addresses a slightly different question; namely, the position of an hereditary Peer who has not been elected under the Weatherill system to be a Member of this House and who has subsequently become a Member of another place by exercising his new freedom to stand for the other place. Clearly such a person ought not to be permitted to stand for election to this House in any subsequent by-election held under the Weatherill system; nor to take part in any elections for membership of this House while remaining in another place. That point was referred to by my noble friend Lord Henley. The Government have, at least partially, reflected that view in their Amendment No. 74A. However, I feel that a hereditary Peer in another place ought to be allowed to vote in general elections while remaining a Member of another place. That is the effect of the second part of my amendment.
  I believe that the amendment does address most of the questions, although it does not touch on some of the technical repeals which figure in the next batch of government amendments. But the situation may have become slightly more complicated since this afternoon as a result of the acceptance of the Government to replace deceased Weatherill Peers by election, should we reach that stage. If, as many in the House contend they should be, those by-elections are held on the basis of all hereditary Peers in the party groups, including those excluded from the House, choosing the Peer to fill the place, then hereditary Peers outside the House would have the potential right to elect to both Houses of Parliament. That was not permitted to Irish representative Peers and it is questionable whether it should be permitted as a constitutional doctrine, although I would remind the House that Irish Peers were allowed to vote for the House of Commons while they were actually Members of that place—Lord Palmerston being a famous case in point.
  The amendment that I have laid would, I concede, give such people a vote to both Houses in such circumstances, which would be a difficulty and one that has intensified since our discussion on Amendment No. 21. However, if the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were favoured by the House, then hereditary Peers excluded from the House would not have the right to vote for membership of this House
  900
  and there would be no problem of a double mandate. But, in these circumstances, it might be possible for an excluded Peer to be a candidate in an election for either House. This was allowed to the Irish Peers. I do not think that anyone in this House would want to prevent excluded Peers from standing for the House of Commons simply because they might one day happen to be invited to join this House.
  A possible solution is that Peers should be required in Standing Orders actively to declare themselves available to stand for the House of Lords. However, in that case, the Clerk of the Parliaments might have to keep a running list of those willing to be elected to this House, so that those Peers were not prevented from standing for another place. It is obviously important that these matters be got right. I have to admit to the Government that I am not sure that I have yet got my mind round all the implications of some of the amendments, especially the repeals suggested by them in the following group. The whole question would also be affected by whatever decisions the House may reach in its discussions in the Procedure Committee on the question of by-elections.
  I am sure that it has already become obvious that I have no intention of pressing this amendment. That is partly because I do not think that I have solved what may well be the emerging conundrum. I am looking for an acceptance by the Government that there is an issue which needs to be resolved. Perhaps the best way would be for the Government and their advisers to get together with us, so that at least I can understand what the answers are to some of these issues. Indeed, it might to helpful to do so between now and Third Reading because these are important issues.
  We should not accidentally exclude hereditary Peers who are excluded from this House House from standing for the House of Commons. Likewise, we should not exclude hereditary Peers who are already in the House of Commons—the example of the son of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, Douglas Hogg, who is a Member of Parliament, springs to mind. Should his father, my noble and learned friend, sadly die, we want to make sure that his son would not immediately be required to relinquish his position in the House of Commons and be excluded from this House as well. I am sure that that problem will not arise but I want to make absolutely certain that no provision we are discussing today would lead to that consequence. I hope that the Minister will accept my suggestion of a meeting to resolve these matters. I beg to move.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I very much share my noble friend's concern on this matter. He has pointed to a possible difficulty relating to existing Members of the other place who might one day succeed to a hereditary title. However, it is important to mention another aspect of this matter. I think that it would be quite wrong for Weatherill Peers, as they are now called, to be allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons as well. It is a legitimate question as to whether they should be allowed even to vote for Members of the House of Commons. They certainly should not be allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons. I am not

  901
  clear that we have achieved that by the present provisions of the Bill. When we debated this matter at some length in Committee, I became more mystified with every amendment that was proposed and with every answer that the Government provided. I very much agree with my noble friend's suggestion; namely, that there must be a getting together of heads in all of this in order for the matter to be resolved properly.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with that suggestion. If there is a difficulty here—which I do not necessarily accept—it is best resolved in the appropriate way by discussions between advisers on both sides and anyone who wants to be present at any meeting. After Second Reading, my noble friend the Leader of the House said that we were perfectly happy to proceed in that way. These are technical matters. I do not think that the aim we seek to attain is entirely different, at least judging from what has been indicated this evening. I am more than happy to accept the suggestion made by both noble Lords to discuss this matter. Doubtless we can arrive at a form of words which is acceptable to all. If that is not the case, at least we shall have defined and refined our differences.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11 p.m.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 44A:
  Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  ("() Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to anyone excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2.")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44A, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 58E, 64A, 67A, 74A, 76A and 77 as they form a package. I hope that I can elucidate some of the points that were made on the amendment that we discussed earlier, but points may arise which may need to be dealt with in the way that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned a few moments ago.
  In the Government's view these amendments have a common theme; namely, to make sure that the Bill has consistently accommodated the impact of the inclusion of Clause 2, the Weatherill amendment. The fact that some hereditary Peers will remain Members of your Lordships' House as the new category of excepted Peers, rather than simply being eligible like everyone else to become life Peers, means that some provisions of the Bill will need to be amended and some provisions of Acts which we would otherwise have been able to dispense with will now have to be retained, or amended, or both retained and amended.
  Of all the amendments in this package, Amendment No. 44A is probably the most significant. It is, however, simple in its intent and in its effects. It makes sure that hereditary Peers who remain Members of this House as
  902
  excepted Peers or who in the future become excepted Peers do not have the right to sit, stand or vote in elections for the other place. It therefore preserves the position that exists at present that Members of this House are disqualified from voting in elections to the House of Commons and being Members of the House of Commons. Hereditary Peers who are not Members of this House will have those disqualifications lifted and in that respect this amendment has made no change. The amendment merely ensures that the excepted Peers and life Peers are treated in the same way. It is a simple and, I hope, logical change, which is not adding to the confusion to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred a few moments ago in relation to these technical matters. The amendment is simple and logical; I hope that it is clear. I commend it to the house.
  Amendment No. 58E concerns the schedule. As noble Lords will understand, the amendment simply introduces the new schedule of amendments which are contained in Amendment No. 74A. The present schedule to the Bill contains only repeals. However, as a result of the introduction of new Clause 2, some provisions now need to be amended rather than repealed. These are set out in the new schedule, which is Amendment No. 74A.
  Amendments Nos. 64A and 67A are simply drafting amendments intended to tie in the commencement provision with the reference in Clause 2 to the commencement of that section. They create no change of substance to the operative provisions. The main provisions still come into force at the end of the Session, while the transitional electoral provisions come into force on Royal Assent.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 68A is to provide for the continuing validity of Writs of Summons issued to hereditary Peers who become excepted Peers—that is. the elected Peers—before the end of the Session. The amendment ensures that an excepted Peer, identified as such by the end of the Session, will not need a new Writ of Summons; his current one will remain valid. However, any Peer who is excepted after the end of this Session of Parliament will need to receive a new Writ of Summons. I hope that that is equally clear and covers some of the points which I know we discussed in other contexts earlier.
  Amendment No. 74A makes two amendments to existing legislation to ensure that it can cope in the future with the concept of excepted Peers. The first amendment, to the Peerage Act 1963, is intended to prevent an excepted Peer disclaiming his title. The second amendment, to the Recess Elections Act 1975, provides that the provisions of the Recess Elections Act should be amended so that what is required to be certified is that someone has become an excepted Peer or a life Peer, rather than simply a Peer, for the purposes of declaring that a parliamentary vacancy has been created.
  As your Lordships are well aware, Section 1 of the Peerage Act 1963 states that any Peer who applies for a Writ of Summons loses the right to disclaim. Under the Bill as originally drafted, Writs of Summons were no longer relevant to hereditary Peers. We therefore

  903
  propose to remove the reference to them in Section 1(2) of the 1963 Act, while retaining the 12-month time limit on disclaimers.
  However, the effect of new Clause 2 is again, in this instance, to complicate the issue somewhat. I can see that noble Lords will probably agree that in common sense it is a rather far-fetched scenario that a Peer could, all within the space of 12 months, succeed to a title; take the Oath and his seat; stand for and be elected as an excepted Peer; think better of it and disclaim the title, thus losing the right to be a Member of the House. None the less, it is not an impossible scenario. The complications of ensuring that such a Peer ceased to be counted as an excepted Peer led us to the view that the better course is to cut off the possibility at the root. That is the effect of the amendment. A Peer who chooses membership of the House of Lords will thus have to remain committed to that choice; by becoming an excepted Peer, he will put himself in exactly the same position as if, at present, he had decided to apply for his Writ of Summons. In other words, he will be unable to disclaim his title.
  So far as concerns the Recess Elections Act 1975, leaving the provision unamended would have left an unsatisfactory ambiguity in the Act since, following the Weatherill amendment, a person will be able to become disqualified from membership of the House of Commons by virtue of being excepted under the Bill and the draft Standing Order, and not by becoming a Peer. Such a person will already be a Peer. It is a question of his being accepted that gives rise to the vacancy. It is therefore necessary to provide that that change of status can be clearly identified for the purposes of the Recess Elections Act. That is all that the amendment does. It is entirely consistent with Clause 3, both now and as we propose to amend it.
  Amendment No. 76A is a consequential amendment. It removes the repeal of certain words in Section 1(2) of the 1963 Peerage Act. Those words have instead been replaced by Amendment No. 74A to which I have just spoken.
  Amendment No. 77 initially stood only in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. The Government felt that the noble Lord's intentions in tabling that amendment might have been rather different from ours, but we agreed with the wording that he used. It is another consequential amendment to the Bill as a result of the Weatherill amendment.
  Our motives may be different from the noble Lord's, but we wish to continue in force Sections 4 and 6 of the Peerage Act 1963 so as to allow Peers and Peeresses in the peerage of Scotland, and Peeresses in the peerage of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England, who are elected under the Standing Orders, to become excepted Peers and to remain Members of this House.
  The removal of these sections of the Peerage Act from the schedule of repeals does not mean that such Peers and Peeresses will have a right to continued membership of this House if they are not excepted under Clause 2 of the Bill. Sections 4 and 6 of the 1963 Act will in future be read subject to Clause 1 of the Bill.
  904
  The Government believe that that clause is wide enough by itself to ensure that such Peers and Peeresses will have no right to be Members of this House. I particularly ask the House to note that the continuing in force of these sections does not override the terms of Clause 1 of the Bill. In particular, it would be wrong to construe the Bill as enabling Scottish Peers to have the same rights as life Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords notwithstanding Clause 1.
  However, by the same token, Sections 4 and 6 will also need to be read in the light of Clause 2. Those sections will continue to speak for the purposes of any Scottish Peers and Peeresses, and Peeresses in the peerage of the United Kingdom, Great Britain or England, who become excepted Peers. The amendment will ensure that Peeresses and Scottish Peers have the same right as UK hereditary Peers to membership of this House if they are excepted under Clause 2 of the Bill. In order to continue to be Members of this House after the coming into force of the Act, excepted Peeresses and Scottish Peers will need to have a right to membership, and at present that right arises by virtue of their hereditary peerages and Section 4 or 6 of the Peerage Act. If Sections 4 or 6 of the Peerage Act are repealed, then there would be a risk that the underlying right to membership of the House for excepted Peers would be removed and Clause 2 could not operate to confer the right to membership. Such Peers might, therefore, be doubly excluded—first by Clause 1 and then by the repeal of these sections. This amendment is therefore essential if Peeresses and Scottish Peers are to be able to continue to be Members of this House, whether as originally excepted Peers or as replacement Peers.
  I urge the House to accept this group of amendments. I realise that I have spoken ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who first tabled the amendment. I realise, too, that the noble Lord's motives for doing so may have been slightly different from those of the Government. I hope that I have not followed the rather gloomy picture presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, of merely confusing the issue by introducing these more technical matters in this rather extended group form. However, if noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench feel that it would be helpful to consider these amendments in discussions away from the Floor of the House, I should of course be happy to follow my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn in doing that. I beg to move.
  Lord Gray: My Lords, having been favoured with several mentions by the noble Baroness, perhaps I may assure her that some of our motives are identical. I was not sure whether I had fallen into good company or bad, but I was somewhat surprised.
  Apart from needing to avoid the repeal of Section 4 by some of my Scottish amendment machinations, I had realised that there was a risk that Scots Peers and female hereditary Peers would be excluded from the Weatherill system for the interim House had the repeals stood.
  However, I had another reason. Should the interim House last for a considerable time, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the rules for admission to the electoral college and eligibility might have to be changed. If there

  905
  were a clash at this moment, it would be unfortunate. At some future date when the rules were altered it might mean that it would involve all Peers who, but for the passing of the Act, would have received a Writ of Summons, and then Scots Peers and hereditary Peeresses would be excluded. 'With that small contribution, I am happy to have support for my Amendment No. 77 from the noble Baroness. I thought I had better speak in case she loses her amendments.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she will apply the same concession to me in relation to these amendments as she was prepared to apply to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in relation to Amendment No. 44A. They are amendments of some complexity. It may well be at this late hour that I, for one, and perhaps one or two other noble Lords, may have missed a crucial loophole. The noble Baroness indicated that that approach would apply to these amendments.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in my concluding remarks, I am happy to do that on Amendment No. 44A. Does the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggest that the process should apply to the whole group? I understood from what the noble Lord, Lord Gray. said that he was happy to move his amendment.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as regards the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Gray, I know that he is a great authority in this matter and I am not. I am content to accept whatever approach he wishes to take to Amendment No. 77.
  Perhaps I may touch on the amendments to which the noble Baroness spoke. At the end of my remarks I may revert to the matter I have just raised. On Amendment No. 44A, I accept the objective that the amendment seeks to achieve. In my submission, it is acceptably achieved by the amendment, but there may be some disagreement among noble Lords as to whether that is so. As regards the wording, there may still be some room for improvement.
  I also accept that Amendment No. 58E is consequential on Amendment No. 74A and that Amendment No. 64A is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 67A is a necessary textual change.
  I have an important reservation to make about Amendment No. 68A, however, which concerns the overriding of the Writ of Summons not applying to Weatherill Peers. As the Lord Privy Seal knows, the Opposition consider it at least doubtful that Clause 5(2) is effective. She will recall the opinions expressed in earlier debates about the effect of the Bill on Writs of Summons for the life of the current Parliament. Therefore this amendment, though consequential, is nevertheless of great significance and potentially invalid. We do not accept that, by implication, the Writ is overridden for all Peers who do not fall within the Weatherill category. That is a matter to which we will return more generally when we deal with amendments to Clause 5(2) of the Bill.
  906
  As for Amendment No. 74A, which refers to the 1963 Act, it seems to me logical that the noble Baroness should wish to tidy up this part of the Bill. However, I find difficulty in imagining circumstances in which someone in receipt of a Writ of Summons, and therefore about to become a Weatherill Peer, should wish to disclaim his or her hereditary peerage.
  I have reached the final amendment in this group to which I intend to speak, because we have already dealt with Amendment No. 77 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray. As to noble Lords who receive the Writ of Summons at the beginning of the intermediate House, the change in the 1975 Act is wholly irrelevant. I suppose the only categories of Peer to which the 1975 Act can apply are either those sitting in another place who might subsequently become Weatherill Peers as a result of being on the list, or those sitting in another place who might subsequently become Weatherill Peers as a result of by-elections.
  In fact, I am rather intrigued by the fact that this amendment should coincide with the remarks this afternoon of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about by-elections. In other words, I wonder whether the amendment would have any relevance at all were it not for the fact that we are now to introduce, I am happy to say, by-elections in the process of replacing existing Weatherill Peers, should that be necessary.
  I have made a reservation about Amendment No. 68A which I think is crystal clear. We shall deal with that next week when we deal with the final amendments. As far as concerns Amendments Nos. 74A and 76A. I think I understand the intention of the Government. At least, I have stated what I think is my understanding. I should be happy if the noble Baroness could confirm that. As I said, there may be a little tidying up to do in those two amendments. I hope that, if we find that there is, the noble Baroness will be conciliatory at Third Reading.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I share the views expressed this evening by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and other noble friends, and by my noble friends on previous occasions, about the validity of Clause 1. I therefore seek only to ask the noble Baroness whether it is the intention of Amendment No. 68A to address those concerns or whether the Government's position on that matter remains quite unchanged.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my immediate reply to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is that our position on Clause 1 remains unchanged. On the more general points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as I understand it, it would only be appropriate for us to discuss away from the Floor of the House some of what I might call the central group which, as the Marshalled List stands, I would not move now in any event. As I said originally, I should be very happy to do that. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale moved Amendment No. 45:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  HEREDITARY PEERS TO BE ABLE TO HOST CHARITABLE EVENTS IN PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  (". The House of Lords may make provision for hereditary peers who cease to be members of the House of Lords by virtue of this Act to retain their right to host welfare and charitable events in the Palace of Westminster.")
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, after the seven-and-a quarter hours of flamboyant oratory to which we have been listening this afternoon on the wide issues of this House, I may appear somewhat parochial. Very few of your Lordships have been able or indeed willing to escape the warm embrace of some charitable undertaking that needed some kind of a "social jerk", if I may use that term, to get itself into the limelight. Everyone knows what you mean by "a charity". It could be a charity recognised by the Charity Commission. One would not want the Charity Commission to become burdened by a whole flood of new registrations of often rather small charities.
  Thanks to the standard works of reference and information stored by the Library research department, I have a list as long as my arm, or very nearly so, of those of your Lordships who have either been caught in this net or who have gladly or readily walked into it. All charitable enterprises require publicity. The fashionable route to that end is the engagement of a noble Lord in some capacity or another, usually as a patron but quite often as a committee member. It is undeniably something of a plus for some people to be able in conversation to say, "I was at the Houses of Parliament the other day". When people say that, it usually disguises the fact that they went to a reception hosted by one of your Lordships to the advantage of a charity. My concern is that, in view of a certain ambiguity in the Government's notes on the Bill to which I shall refer in a moment, we should make it clear that even those Peers who will eventually be disqualified from sitting in the House because they are hereditaries may still enjoy the facilities of the House for such receptions or entertainments that benefit a charitable purpose.
  How does one define a charity? The answer to that question is that a charity is something recognised by the Charity Commission, although one does not want to burden it with a flood of new registrations of quite tiny operations. But surely it is for the House of Lords to determine its own rules as to what may or may not go on here—to be precise, through your Lordships' Offices Committee.
  On this, there may be a relevant precedent in the arrangements long since made for retiring Members of the Bishops' Bench. A desire was expressed some years ago that, once the Bishops had left the House in their formal diocesan capacity, they should still be allowed to enjoy some of the facilities; notably, sitting on the steps of the Throne and enjoying the facilities of the Refreshment Department. Those two points were referred to the Offices Committee, and in both cases a favourable answer was given.
  In composing my amendment, I took care to seek what advice I could get. I was told that the department of your Lordships' House to which it might fall to
  908
  decide about hosting charitable events would most likely be the Offices Committee. That committee acts for the House as a whole, so my amendment is drafted as follows:
  "The House of Lords may make provision".
  It is hardly for the Bill, on the very face of its text, to tell your Lordships' House how it should decide on such a matter: hence the simple phrase:
  "The House of Lords"—
  embracing whatever administrative element is relevant to that—
  "may make provision".
  I hope that the Government will be able to respond in a sympathetic way to this rather small request. It is small in the sense that it does not affect an enormous number of noble Lords but there are more than 100 noble Lords who are in some way involved in charities of a kind and who are glad of the facilities offered by the House for an occasional reception on their behalf.
  The Explanatory Notes on the Bill are slightly ambiguous. In paragraph 7 on page 2 we are told that,
  "Hereditary peers will also lose the right … to use the facilities of the House that are available to members, such as its library, research and restaurant facilities".
  On the other hand, there follows a rather more favourable passage:
  "The removal of these rights does not prevent the House from deciding to grant some rights to use the facilities of the House to a hereditary peer under the exercise of its own authority".
  Therefore, on occasion it is up to the House to decide what it wants to do.
  Without wishing to encroach on the amendment in the Marshalled List that is linked with mine, which relates to access to the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft, that gives rise to a similar problem. It is a matter for the House to decide. I hope that tonight we shall hear that the Government look favourably on this general approach. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I have asked for my Amendment No. 58A to be de-coupled and to speak to it in its place in the Marshalled List. I believe that it is not appropriate to talk about religious affairs at the same time as welfare and charitable functions.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I agree with everything that he said in support of the amendment. Charities also enjoy the proximity of the House of Commons next door and are very pleased to have MPs drop in and take part in events that are hosted in this House. There is a long tradition, which I am sure the Government foster, of support by Peers of charities in this House. It would be a pity if this change damaged that tradition.
  Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and also that relating to the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft. This is a problem. On the other hand, why should the amendment be so restrictive? Why should it relate only to welfare and charitable events?

  909
  There are daughters' wedding receptions and other events, such as birthday parties and so on. I would have thought that there was a case for noble Lords being able to book the accommodation for those purposes.
  On the other hand, the noble Earl is either a Member of the House or he is not. If he is no longer a Member I do not believe that these rights should apply. However, there can be a compromise. Bookings that go into next year have already been made; indeed, I have one myself. Is it possible for the Offices Committee to consider giving an interim period of grace of, say, six months during which these bookings can apply, but for no longer? I put that to the Government and hope that they will consider it. I am very glad that the noble Earl raises the point, which I believe requires consideration.
  Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. Members of your Lordships' House perhaps come under more pressure than ordinary members of the public to accept positions as officers of charitable organisations, or at least to lend assistance to them from time to time. The general public assume that the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House carries with it an obligation to use that privilege in ways that assist charitable and deserving causes.
  Many noble Lords clearly recognise this obligation, or feel minded to do their best to assist charities with which they have become associated. I think the public belief that noble Lords have an obligation to assist charitable organisations will not disappear with the enactment of the Bill. In order to assist those noble Lords who have agreed to help various charitable organisations to continue to discharge their duties, I hope that the Government will be minded to support my noble friend's amendment.
  There is another point. We have heard from time to time about hybridity during the course of our deliberations on the Bill. I had no idea what hybridity was until I heard about it in connection with the Bill. I understand that a Bill may be hybrid if it treats the private, as opposed to public, interests of some members of a class of people as opposed to others of the same class in a different manner. It seems to me a bogus argument that if measures that invoke charges of hybridity are contained within standing orders rather than within the Bill itself, that should be acceptable. Furthermore, I believe that all Peers are a single class of people, and that legislation that treated the private interests of all hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of all life Peers might itself be hybrid.
  It is argued that the rights to sit, speak and vote in your Lordships' House do not form part of your Lordships' private interests, but rather your Lordships' public interests. I am inclined to agree with that view. However, I believe that the right to act as host of charitable events within this Palace of Westminster forms part of your Lordships' private interests and I cannot understand how the Examiners could do otherwise than find the Bill to be hybrid, at least in respect of this matter.
  I hope that the Minister, or the Government Chief Whip, will agree that it makes sense to reduce as far as possible the risk that the Bill will be found to be hybrid
  910
  and that to accept my noble friend's amendment would therefore be not only sensible but also clearly in the interests of a large number of worthy charitable causes which rely on the continuing support of noble Lords, many of whom are hereditary Peers.
  I also urge the Government to agree to Amendment No. 58A, moved by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick.
  Noble Lords: No!
  11.30 p.m.
  Viscount Trenchard: I do not believe that it is right that some noble Lords who are today Members of your Lordships' House should lose the right to use the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said that he was decoupling Amendment No. 58A. It is therefore not in this group. It will be spoken to later in its place on the Marshalled List.
  Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I apologise. In thinking about this matter, one point which has not been raised during deliberations on the Bill is the question of who will be able to use St Margaret's Church, Westminster, which is the church of the House of Commons, but which noble Lords are also allowed to use by leave of Members of another place. If there were an amendment on this subject, I feel that it would be grouped with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. That is also a matter that your Lordships might wish to consider in future.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment of the noble Earl. But he has an important point. I also understand the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I do not agree with the concept that Members of this House, after the Bill has been passed, should enjoy club rights. That would be some form of privilege. But though the hosting of charitable events may be seen by some as a privilege, it is a duty. It is not to the disadvantage of former noble Lords if that is not allowed to occur; it is to the disadvantage of the charities. It is significant that there has been a long connection between the charitable sector and hereditary Peers and life Peers. When part of that link is broken, it will be difficult for some areas of the charitable sector.
  I do not take the view that after the Bill has gone through noble Lords could still hold parties here. I think that would be called part of club rights, although I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is going to have a party; I am sure it will be an excellent party.
  The issue of holding charitable events is something that the Government, or the House, could look at in due course. It may be something that could not continue for ever, but if we could find a way of allowing it to fade—to wither on the vine, to use the expression that has been used in other connections—it might be quite helpful. It is not necessarily an issue that we want to have a great

  911
  debate about, but my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has raised a point that we could, without causing any harm elsewhere, resolve with a little care.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I was extremely grateful when the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, wrote to me to give me advance notice that he was putting down this amendment. But unfortunately the receipt of the letter had an effect opposite to that which he was seeking. He was right in one respect, in that I am involved with a number of charities. However, unfortunately, no doubt partly because I am a relative novice, my track record in securing the booking of a room for any charity for which I have attempted to do that is dismal. Other noble Lords who have been doing it for much longer than I have booked up months and years in advance. So when I realised that the competition for the very small number of rooms available for such events might be greatly reduced with the exclusion from your Lordships' House of the hereditary peerage, I thought that my stock with those charities for which I have so far failed to book a room would rise, and therefore I became an even greater adherent of the principles behind the Bill.
  There are within the life peerage a large number of people who are involved with charities and who often find it extremely difficult to book rooms. I have considerable respect and support for what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said about the possibility of phasing out this privilege, particularly given that there are very long time factors in booking such rooms, but surely this is a matter for the Offices Committee and not for a new clause.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, we sympathise with the sentiments of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. It must be admitted that an unfortunate consequence of the Bill when it is enacted will be a diminution, at least for a time, of the relationship between this House and the many charitable and welfare organisations that rely upon members of the hereditary peerage to provide connections. That will be regrettable.
  Of course—and I have no doubt that the Government will seek to make this point—it is the case that over time that slack, if I may put it like that, will be taken up by the membership of the interim Chamber. But we should not be blind to the reality that this is likely to take time and that it will cause a degree of inconvenience and disruption to the charities and welfare organisations involved.
  No doubt, as many other noble Lords have said, the Government will, with some justification, also suggest that this should more properly be a matter for the Standing Orders and committees of the House. I have no difficulty with that. None the less, I am tempted to suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister who replies could show some sensitivity, perhaps even charity, towards this issue.
  We should take guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and his very sensible suggestion that in the circumstances a period of grace might be sensible. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, and with
  912
  tongue slightly in cheek, I would pick up the noble Lord's suggestion of six months and, this late at night, suggest six years.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, the Earl of Northesk, who I think has just made his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, to his new role on the Front Bench. On the Back Benches he certainly earned his spurs on this Bill.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 45 is to allow hereditary Peers who are currently Members of the House of Lords to continue hosting welfare and charitable events in the House of Lords, even after their removal from the House. The amendment requires the House of Lords to make provision, presumably in Standing Orders, to allow hereditary Peers who are removed from the House of Lords by the Bill to retain their existing right to host welfare and charitable events in the Palace of Westminster.
  We have already had a number of debates on the general issue of club rights and the House is by now well aware of the Government's position on this matter. We do not believe that it is right for former Members of this House to continue to have any special rights in relation to its premises. Those rights go with membership. When membership ceases, so, we believe, do all rights which are the privileges of membership. As we have said previously, even if there were not that strong argument of principle, we do not believe that it is appropriate to make provision for such matters in statute.
  The noble Earl's amendment contains a token recognition of this. It does not make express provision in the Bill for hereditary Peers to retain the right to hold welfare and charitable events, but rather imposes a requirement on the House to make provision for that. We believe that that is merely playing with words and comes to exactly the same thing.
  The statute would effectively prescribe the content of the Standing Order. Your Lordships' House would operate merely as a rubber stamp. I do not believe that your Lordships' House is likely to be tempted to proceed down that route in this or any other matter touching on its own arrangements. It is a matter for the new House. I might add that there is also the question of how such a requirement could be enforced. How would your Lordships' House be answerable for failing to make such a provision in Standing Orders?
  I fully recognise the noble intentions of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in seeking to allow hereditary Peers to retain access to the House for the purpose of hosting charitable events. I am conscious that many charities benefit from the support and sponsorship of Members of your Lordships' House, including of course many hereditary Peers. One of the benefits of having a Peer as a patron is not so much that he, or she, can engineer functions in the Palace of Westminster, but rather that he can speak up on the Floor of the House on behalf of whatever cause he is associated with and seek to represent its interests in debate. Once hereditary Peers lose the fundamental rights to sit and vote in your Lordships' House, that benefit will be gone—and I do

  913
  not suppose that any number of functions in this splendid Palace could make up for it. Furthermore, there will be a problem with the definition of "charitable" and "welfare" events.
  I should like to make a practical point. We all know the heavy demand there is for the function rooms in the House. Very often, they are booked two years in advance. It would, I think, be highly invidious if a request by an existing Member of the House to hold a function on a particular date had to be denied because the room had already been booked by a non-Member. I can well imagine such a situation arising and I do not believe that the House ought to place its Members in that position.
  As regards the period of grace, touched on by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, it is an interesting idea but it is a matter for the new House. I took the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the effect of the amendment on the hybridity of the Bill, but I shall need carefully to read what he said. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I do not believe that there will be a shortage of Peers in the new House who will be able to host such events. The House will contain more than 600 life Peers. There will be plenty of Peers available to host welfare and charity events, and others. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it would be idle to pretend that I am pleased to hear what the Chief Whip has said. It will all be in the record and not greatly to
  914
  his credit. I can see his point that this is not an issue that should be on the face of the Bill, but the Government's notes are contradictory in this regard. I have quoted the two passages which contradict one another. I am disappointed in the noble Lord's response, which will not be to his credit or that of the Government. However, it will all be in the record; and if and when the time comes, the record will be turned up and reviewed.
  If the time were more favourable I would have been tempted to test the mood of the House, but at this late hour I shall not do so. I say in the nicest possible way that it is not an act of surrender when I beg leave, in a moment, to withdraw my amendment. It has been a great disappointment. There was also the uncharitable way in which the Chief Whip responded to a very modest appeal to the basic good sense of the House. I am not asking anyone to decide in advance. I am simply asking that should a disenfranchised Peer such as myself have the opportunity or be invited by a charity to do something I am able to come back and ask permission. I hope that that may be allowed. On the assumption that that will be so, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at fifteen minutes before midnight.